Dear Pilgrim, I just read the article by Gary Long. I really groove on reading such theological ideas which he provides.<br>Though I was not raised a Calvinist (I was raised a Catholic but God saved me on a sandy hill behind my parents house under a starry night, and left the RCC) I surely agree wholeheartedly on the Calvinist's position on many matters. <br><br>But something keeps nagging me about 1Timothy 2:4 which the writer didn't bring out.<br><br>What if 1Timothy 2:4 is like this:<br><br>What if it is like a modern day kidnapping, ransom and rescue? Let's say a baby has been kidnapped by a couple nasty villains. They have burried this baby in a box with just enough oxygen to keep the baby alive until a ransom is met. The FBI really want to save this baby but they must wait until the villains call to demand a ransom and tell them where to find the baby. The phone rings, the villains demand a ransom, the baby is ransomed and now the FBI will that the baby be saved. The FBI go to the ground where the baby is and they yell "Do you believe you've been ransomed?!" but the baby just goes "goo goo, da da." So the FBI, frantic, call into headquarters and try to find the interpretation of that, otherwise they can't make their move. Precious minutes go by. Some of the brightest specialists are called in. Some mathemeticians strive to unravel the coded words which the baby has said. Finally they come to the conclusion that what the baby has pronounced does not meet the requirements and so sadly the FBI must let the baby die. They really wanted to save that baby but the baby made it so that they could not. It thwarted the FBI's will. <br>Or let's take it that the person burried is an adult male. And suppose the ransom was made for him. The FBI will that the man be saved. So they go to where he is burried and ask: "Do you believe you've been ransomed?" Sadly, the man says "I don't believe anyone would ransom me" so the FBI, just leave the man to rot. But is this how it actually happens?<br><br>Does not the sole responsibility of believing the baby or man was ransomed lie solely upon the FBI and not the individual ransomed?<br><br>Well do I remember reading this passage (1Tim.2:4-6 and 4:10,11) for the first time back in 1973. Being raised a Catholic I didn't even know such scriptures existed. (No I'm not ragging on the Catholics). But when I read it I automatically said to myeslf: "Yea, but they have to believe." But I am in a quandry. My King James Version says that "God will have all men to be saved" and I see that "men" is plural for "humans" so that it should read "God will have all humans to be saved." And then the reason is given "For...Christ gave Himself a ransom for all (humans)." So isn't it that God has to believe that the ransom has been met and not the humans?<br><br>And I am in another quandry (I'm in lots of quandries these days) [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/weep.gif" alt="weep" title="weep[/img] concerning the word "all" or "ta panta" "the all." While it is true that there are places where "all" is used in a restrictive sense and not to be meant as "absolutely all without exception," is it really logical to say that since "all" is sometimes used in a restrictive sense at times in the Scriptures that it therefore must be restrictive here as well, especially when one can find where the word "all" does mean absolutely all?<br><br>Man o man do I ever open the cans of worms? Being new here I hope you will take it easy on me. Once there was one message board where I argued for God's sovereignty in salvation as the Calvinists. The snide remarks and caustic remarks were about all I could handle. It was so sad. I really didn't know that Christians could treat other Christians that way. It was just so sad.<br><br>So I am really on tip toes here hoping I have met more mature believers and letting you all know I am a little gun shy.<br><br><br>Peace,<br>Zoe <br><br>
