bob

I’ve gone through passages in this fashion, (2nd Peter 3:9 just yesterday) with a friend who is decidedly Arminian, and he completely dismissed my argument.

Basically his comment to me was; “I just think that God would not doom a people to Hell” . . . and things like that.

When I tried to explain that not only is he “caricaturing” what I was saying about scripture, but that if he’s going to provide meaningful dialog, then he has to do better than just “assertions” and must get farther into the text itself . . . he declined.

I have yet to meet an Arminian who is willing to actually dig into any text like you have . . . in fact, they say that it’s “forcing the text to say something you want it to” and that ALL MEANS ALL!

Thanks for a good post….
bob

Do you have a layman’s explanation of Titus 2:11? It seems difficult to sort out as to which one is correct—the Arminians view or the Calvinists.

Ellen

I re-read your post in light of your clarification and see where I had misread you. Thanks for the clarifications and pardon my naiveté for thinking you’d lump all general atonement proponents together with Arminians and the pseudo-Reformed. :)

Brian

About the strong language—I didn’t think it was all that strong. In my experience it has been a favorite text of Arminians. The “naïve statement” comment was in reference to the Bloesch’s quote (“The Calvinist position, especially as transmitted through Reformed orthodoxy, stands in palpable conflict with the New Testament witness.”), which doesn’t even hint at the fact that Calvinists have an exegetically sound reading of this text. (Naïve is actually a rather mild term for that statement.) My naïve comment was not directed at the “Arminian” interpretation of the text, but at Bloesch’s statement.

As to why I chose Titus 2:11 and Bloesch—I was reading Titus in my devotions and came across the Bloesch statement while looking through my recent purchase of the Christian Foundations Collection from Logos. As to why I didn’t pick a different atonement text—well, my intent wasn’t even to address the atonement issue at all, which I don’t think I did. My intent was to comment on a text that I happened to have recently read—the Bloesch statement simply adding fuel to the fire.

I’m not sure my interpretation is demanded by the context either. That’s why I said, “While the context may not decisively rule out this [the "Arminian"] interpretation, several factors point in the direction of the following interpretation.”

So I was not calling anyone naïve (including you), but only Bloesch’s statement. Nor was I trying to lump everyone who holds the “Arminian” interpretation together in some sort belittling guilt by association. However, I can’t really help that your interpretation of the text is the same as theirs.

So I think that “Arminian” interpretation is possible, but certainly not necessary and, in my view, very unlikely (in light of the context and the normal function of πᾶς).

Hope this helps clarify a little.

Phil

Phil

I have a few questions about your post.

First, an agreement. I agree with you that Titus 2:11 isn’t a slam dunk general atonement text (In my paper I relegated it to an appendix and listed it as a “possible” general atonement passage).

The questions. Why the strong language? “A favorite of Arminians and pseudo-Reformed men” a “naive statement.” And one that is not “contextually sensitive.” And why choose Donald Bloesch as your interlocutor. Many evangelicals are would have a negative feel toward Bloesch (perhaps feeling he is not only pseudo-Reformed but also pseudo-evangelical). And why Titus 2:11? Why not choose a more central text for general atonement?

(In asking these questions, I understand there are probably some good answers for some of them. Perhaps you were reading Bloesch and his comments on Titus 2:11 sparked the post.)

In response to your contextual and exegetical thoughts, I’m happy to concede your interpretation is possible. I’m not sure your interpretation is demanded by the evidence. If general atonement is true (humor me for a moment :o), I don’t see a problem with all men referring, even in this context, to all without exception. The all without exception would include all the classes mentioned previously and the people in view would narrow to those to whom this salvation was applied in the following verses. (It’s no problem to say God provided salvation for all without exception with the intent that he would sanctify us who are believers).

That said, perhaps you’re right on the exegesis. I find your arguments plausible. Even so, I’d prefer not being called “naive” or being lumped in with Arminians and the pseudo-Reformed.

Thanks,

Brian