John 3:16, The Meaning of "kosmos"

[JD731]

I know this wasn't addressed to me... but I'm going to answer anyway...

What would be my reason? What would I say to God about whether I should be granted Heaven???

Simple... I'd tell Him He shouldn't let me in. The only hope I have is that Jesus died the death I owed God for my sin; that He lived the perfect life that I could never live; and that He was raised from the dead to secure my salvation.

The Archangel

You would be giving him information he already has. He has said that over and over to everyone on earth in his testimony to man. Other people to whom he said that did not make it. He might want to know what makes you different from them. I would like to know that.

 

[JD731]

Yes you’ve become an utter embarrassment to yourself.
Just kidding


Joy unspeakable full of glory

Sai, thank you for the conversation. It is enlightening. I have read the theology of the Reformed for many years and I find that they always forget what they teach about salvation and the Christian faith. I would like to substitute myself for this post and give the answer to the question as an honest Calvinist should answer why God should allow him into heaven. You will have to admit I am right about it.

Why should I allow you into heaven?

Because you chose me before the foundation of the earth. You had no choice but to save me. Jesus Christ is an incidental part of my salvation but he is not the foundation of it. No amount of his dying or no matter how many times he did it would secure any hope for me if you had not chosen me before the foundation of the world. Proof of that is for you to just look at all the sinners who you did not choose. Not a single one of them has appeared here. The preaching of the cross did not do them any good. You regenerated me before I even heard the preacher so my salvation is not based on my believing anything. It is based on your choice of me aside from anything that has happened or will happen on the earth. You infused belief into me because of your choice of me. I am not going to tell you I trusted in Jesus Christ alone as my reason for being here, because I didn't; you did.

From what I have learned, Sai, this is accurate.

 

[37818]

I am not about to do your research.

The word is used nearly 200 times in the NT, and not always is it used exclusively as humankind.

For example John 1, Matthew 16, Acts 17, and on throughout the NT to Revelation 17.

Therefore, there are given occasions where “mankind should not be narrowly understood.”

My personal research concluded κοσμος without exception as used in the New Testament can be always understood to refer to mankind.
And κοσμος is used in the New Tesrament 152 times.

 

[The Archangel]

My personal research concluded κοσμος without exception as used in the New Testament can be always understood to refer to mankind.
And κοσμος is used in the New Tesrament 152 times.

World = mankind would be a tough sell in these passages:

[14] I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. [15] I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. [16] They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:14–17 ESV)​

My count is 185 uses in the NT. But, perhaps, maybe your count doesn't count multiple uses in the same verse.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Why should I allow you into heaven?

Because you chose me before the foundation of the earth. You had no choice but to save me. Jesus Christ is an incidental part of my salvation but he is not the foundation of it. No amount of his dying or no matter how many times he did it would secure any hope for me if you had not chosen me before the foundation of the world. Proof of that is for you to just look at all the sinners who you did not choose. Not a single one of them has appeared here. The preaching of the cross did not do them any good. You regenerated me before I even heard the preacher so my salvation is not based on my believing anything. It is based on your choice of me aside from anything that has happened or will happen on the earth. You infused belief into me because of your choice of me. I am not going to tell you I trusted in Jesus Christ alone as my reason for being here, because I didn't; you did.

From what I have learned, Sai, this is accurate.

Then, you have much to learn as this paragraph is full of inaccuracies.

The Archangel

 

[Sai]

Sai, thank you for the conversation. It is enlightening. I have read the theology of the Reformed for many years and I find that they always forget what they teach about salvation and the Christian faith. I would like to substitute myself for this post and give the answer to the question as an honest Calvinist should answer why God should allow him into heaven. You will have to admit I am right about it.

Why should I allow you into heaven?

Because you chose me before the foundation of the earth. You had no choice but to save me. Jesus Christ is an incidental part of my salvation but he is not the foundation of it. No amount of his dying or no matter how many times he did it would secure any hope for me if you had not chosen me before the foundation of the world. Proof of that is for you to just look at all the sinners who you did not choose. Not a single one of them has appeared here. The preaching of the cross did not do them any good. You regenerated me before I even heard the preacher so my salvation is not based on my believing anything. It is based on your choice of me aside from anything that has happened or will happen on the earth. You infused belief into me because of your choice of me. I am not going to tell you I trusted in Jesus Christ alone as my reason for being here, because I didn't; you did.

From what I have learned, Sai, this is accurate.

Yes I see it but it is not heresy because they do believe the gospel they just emphasize faith being the gift and not salvation being the gift.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

[agedman]

Yes I see it but it is not heresy because they do believe the gospel they just emphasize faith being the gift and not salvation being the gift.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

Wrong.

 

[Sai]

Wrong.

Not even a small piece?


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

[37818]

My count is 185 uses in the NT. But, perhaps, maybe your count doesn't count multiple uses in the same verse.

Yeah, I counted verses.

I loosely substitued mankind for world, the lost human race.

[14] I have given them your word, and mankind has hated them because they are not of the mankind, just as I am not of the mankind. [15] I do not ask that you take them out of mankind, but that you keep them from the evil one. [16] They are not of the mankind, just as I am not of the mankind. [17] Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:14–17 ESV)

 

[The Archangel]

Yeah, I counted verses.

I loosely substitued mankind for world, the lost human race.7

[14] I have given them your word, and mankind has hated them because they are not of the mankind, just as I am not of the mankind. [15] I do not ask that you take them out of mankind, but that you keep them from the evil one. [16] They are not of the mankind, just as I am not of the mankind. [17] Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:14–17 ESV)

The issue here is that if Jesus says, "I am not of mankind" He is not able to save according to Paul's theology. The Adam-Christ dichotomy would fail here because Jesus would not be human. Accordingly, you'd have to repeat several of the heresies of the early church, namely docetism. What is more, the disciples would be described in some way different than the rest of humanity, and that would be problematic as well.

So, there are some cases it can work; but certainly not all.

The Archangel

 

[Alan Gross]

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Here some would have us believe, that the Greek word, “kosmos”, which is rendered “world” in all English versions of the Bible, should take on a limited, special sense of the world, as to only refer to "the elect". It is assumed, that, because there are instances in Scripture, where “kosmos” is used in the sense, where the entire world is not intended (and I will not deny that this is indeed true), that this warrants this limited use in our present text. Is this a valid argument? The present context will prove beyond any doubt, that this is not only not the case, but, if anyone would press this limited meaning here, to apply only to the “elect”, then it causes them problems.

Firstly, it might be shown, that there is not a single Greek lexicon that I know of, that says that “kosmos” here has a meaning that does not mean the “whole world” (that is, “everyone without exception).

J H Thayer

“the inhabitants of the earth, the human race” (Lexicon, p.357)

W Ardnt & F Gingrich

“the world as mankind…of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the objects of God’s love” (Lexicon, p.447)

Edward Robinson

“the world for the inhabitants of the earth, men mankind” (Lexicon, p.440)

John Parkhurst

“The world, i.e. the whole race of mankind, both believers and unbelievers, both good and bad” (Lexicon, p.336)

S T Bloomfield

“the world for its inhabitants, mankind” (Greek Lexicon, p. 227)

G Kittle and G Friedrich

“The cosmos is the universe (Jn.3:16-17, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, One Vol. Ed., p. 464)

W E Vine

“the human race, mankind” (Expository Dictionary, p. 685)

Are we to assume that all of the above lexicons are wrong in the meanings that they give for “kosmos”? There is no doubt to the honest mind, that the use of “kosmos” here can only mean “the whole human race”. To make it mean something less, is a distortion of the facts!

In our immediate context, “kosmos” is used four times, once in verse 16, and three times in verse 17. If we were to limit its use in verse 16, to refer only to the “elect”, then we must carry on this use in the following verse also. Where we read:

“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”

Let is substitute the word “world” in each of these cases with “elect”, and see how it reads.

“For God did not send His Son into the elect to condemn the elect, but that the elect through Him might be saved”

If, as it is argued by some, that Christ only came to save the “elect”, then why would any mention ever be made about Him coming to “condemn”, or “judge” the “elect”? These words have no meaning at all, if they are meant to be for the “elect” only. There would not be any reference made to any judgement or condemnation of the “elect”, as this is something that is not at all even a possibility. John 5: 24 says:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life”

The believer is said not to come into any “judgment”, or “condemnation”, as they have “passed from death into life”, which has already said to have taken place, when the sinner trusted in Jesus for their salvation.

Further, in verse 17 we read, that “the elect might be saved through Him” Here we have the Greek “sothe” (might be saved), which is in the subjunctive mood, which is used to denote “possibility”, in that it is not something “certain”. It is true, that as in verses 15 and 16, where the word apoletai (KJV “should not perish) is used, it is with the “hina” clause, which, though in the subjunctive mood, is yet in both cases “certain”, because in each case the negative “me” (me_apoletai) is used. This will then render the clause as “shall not perish”. However, in verse 17, even though “sothe” is used with “hina” (hina sothe), there is no negative particle used as in verse 15 and 16, which would require the clause to have the meaning of “possibility”, which is correctly rendered in English as “might be saved” Does this then mean, that the salvation of the “elect” is only a “possibility”? If we are to take the words to mean “shall be saved”, then we would expect Jesus to have said: “sothese”, as in Romans 10:9, “ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Dr Robert Dabney, who was a Calvinist, has this to say on the use of “kosmos” here:

“In Jno.iii.16, make ‘the world’ which Christ loved, to mean ‘the elect world’, and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe, and perish…since Christ made expiation for every man” (Systematic Theology, p.525)

We should note, that in verses 15 and 16, “believes”, is in the Greek, “pisteuno”, which is the present, continuance, tense, literally, “continues to believe”.

We can only conclude from these facts, that there is no Biblical justification for us to take “kosmos” the this passage, to mean anything other than “the sum total of the human race”, and NOT as the Calvinist would have us believe, because of their theological bias found in the heresy of “Limited Atonement”, that it only refers to the “elect”. Can any honest mind doubt that this great passage is the hope of mankind, for salvation through our Great Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ?

John Calvin, had this to say on this verse:

“That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

Calvin’s own language is what is not used by any “Calvinist” who believes in “Limited Atonement”. “all men without distinction” is the language that a “Calvinist” would use, so as to distort what the Bible actually teaches, yet the “Calvinists” own “leader”, John Calvin, himself believed that Jesus Christ dies for THE WHOLE WORLD, that is, EVERY HUMAN BEING!

For those Calvinists who still insist that John Calvin taught any “limitation” to the Death of Jesus Christ, that it was not for the sins of the entire human race. Calvin himself clarifies his position.

On Mark 14:24, where Jesus says:

“And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many”

Calvin says:

“Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse”

And, on Colossians 1:14, “In whom we have redemption”, Calvin says:

“He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated”

If you would "love not the world", and worldly-minded people in their flesh, you might be able to be for real about the Teaching, here, which is common throughout history, literature, and The Bible, in John 3:16, "the world of the Gentiles and not just The Jews".

 

[37818]

The issue here is that if Jesus says, "I am not of mankind" He is not able to save according to Paul's theology. The Adam-Christ dichotomy would fail here because Jesus would not be human.

I think you are being intellectually dishonest here.
I had explicitly qualified my argument.

I loosely substitued mankind for world, the lost human race.

 

[JD731]

Yes I see it but it is not heresy because they do believe the gospel they just emphasize faith being the gift and not salvation being the gift.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

Given that scripture identifies THE gift of God over and over as salvation from sin, eternal life, the Spirit of God, his righteousness, all synonyms, and never one time says that faith is the gift of God, I conclude that the teachers of that doctrine, that faith is the gift of God, are not innocent but are perverters of the gospel, especially after they have been corrected. No one has the right to teach as scriptural truth something that is not in the scriptures. I call doctrines like these "prop" doctrines. They are inventions that are needful to prop up other inventions.
I want to be kind though, while I tell the truth. I can make a scriptural argument proving what I say. This debate is serious enough for me to take a chance on being disliked if I can convince someone of the truth. It takes plain speaking.

 

[The Archangel]

I think you are being intellectually dishonest here.
I had explicitly qualified my argument.

No, I'm not. You're trying to fit an oval peg into a round hole. "Mankind" will not work for "all" the appearances of κόσμος, which was your original statement. While it may work for some, it will not work for all. When dealing with doctrines like the divinity of Christ, "loosely" simply doesn't cut it.

The simple fact about κόσμος is that it can mean various things.

The Archangel

 

[Salty]

six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner than 8 pm edt / 5 pm pdt

 

[37818]

No, I'm not. You're trying to fit an oval peg into a round hole. "Mankind" will not work for "all" the appearances of κόσμος, which was your original statement. While it may work for some, it will not work for all. When dealing with doctrines like the divinity of Christ, "loosely" simply doesn't cut it.

The simple fact about κόσμος is that it can mean various things.

The Archangel

I think you are irrational. The statement had to do with His humanity and Him not part of sinful humanity. Which I qualified regarding Him not being of lost "mankind." κοσμος referring to mankind, the lost human race. You made the assertion He could not be human not being part of that "mankind."

 

[Sai]

How is that an answer? What does an answer like that have anything to do with you? I am confused.

Why aren’t you answering with a simple answer? “God saved me by shedding the blood of Messiah for me as my substitute.” What is this nonsense about “because I’m born again”? The closest you came was barely glorifying the reason we can be saved, the gospel. That’s not good JD, need you to update that narrative for our Lord!


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

[The Archangel]

I think you are irrational. The statement had to do with His humanity and Him not part of sinful humanity. Which I qualified regarding Him not being of lost "mankind." κοσμος referring to mankind, the lost human race. You made the assertion He could not be human not being part of that "mankind."

Not being irrational. Kosmos means more than humanity. It’s pretty cut and dry from a lexical standpoint.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[37818]

Not being irrational. Kosmos means more than humanity. It’s pretty cut and dry from a lexical standpoint.

The Archangel

Give a case example in the New Testament where in no way can be understood to be mankind. Is that so hard? I know there has to be at least one.

 

[The Archangel]

Give a case example in the New Testament where in no way can be understood to be mankind. Is that so hard? I know there has to be at least one.

I have already done so you just didn’t like it.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk