Ok, you lost me here. Specifically what I highlighted:
If the term 'world' has only 3 distinct meanings with only variations of each but never contradicting them:
1. The Planet/Universe
2. Geographical location/system
3. All wicked and sinful man (unsaved)
Then HOW can the word which has an established meaning (specifically in relation to men - #3) be the exact opposite. That is no different than to say in the OT a believer means those saved and in the NT it means both saved and unsaved.
Perhaps what is being missed here is the word itself, and then looking at how it is used in Scripture. I just don't see that because the Holy Spirit used the word to teach one, or two, or ten different things means that Scripture has eternally restricted the use of a word.
You would have this:
1. World also meaning beleivers would be no different than this; that we are called out of the world and into the world.
2. We are not OF the world but OF the World
3. Father, the world has not known you but the world knows you.
and so on and so forth.
Which is why the context and use of the overall revelation of God (if you wish to call that theology so be it) defines its uses, which is varied and many.
I am using the first part of the actual scriptures regarding the use of the term world (meaning #3) and showing that the term world CAN NOT be used as having the exact opposite meaning. The only time you will see this type of usage is when the scriptures say one thing and theology disagrees with it. SO the definition must be changed so the scripture stays cohesive to one's theology. I mean this REGARDING ANY THEOLOGY across the board.
You can not change the established definition from one Testimant to the next unless you are doing it to fit something there that should not be.
As said before, the uses of a word are not limited by the Holy Spirit's use of it to teach a particular point of doctrine. If that sounds awful to you, I am sorry. It is not intended to give the impression that I would derive my doctrine from outside of Scripture.
That my friend is what I have been trying to show you. It is not that it is consistant with scripture but your theological view of Particular Redemption.
If I were to start a thread on Particular Redemption, there would much Scripture added to show where I have derived this belief from Scripture. In this case we are talking about a single word or phrase. I make no bones about taking clear revelation and using it to aid my understanding of other texts.
The portion you keep trying to make say 'Jew and Gentiles' is not some thing that is set forth in the scriptures but in a view of the historical sayings. Now if you can find where this is established in scripture, then fine. SHow me both it's OT usage/passage and NT usage/passage that it may be a confirmed definition.
Sure. NT:
"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" Romans 9:23-24
And if you will permit, I prefer the infallible interpretation by God the Holy Spirit upon the OT Scriptures, in this passage.
v25-26 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
v27-30 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith." v30
Allow 2 skips here in verses 31-32 for they teach why Gentiles attain, and some Jews do not...to get to this verse:
"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and
whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Here is the point. Scripture has defined for me the whosover in this text. Jews and Gentiles, and particularly God's People out of them "I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved."
[....]
[....]
I have denied nothing. The verses preceding 9 speak of ALL mankind and thus it is proper exegesis to read 9 the phrase 'every man' in the context of the preceding verses, or am I wrong? His death for every man speaks specifically to what many reformed and Calinist believers both today and historically held to - General Atonement. Verse 10 distiinguishes between those whom He died for and those whom He brought unto Glory. Verse 10 simply says: it was fitting or proper for Him to do in order that Him might bring many sons unto Glory to make the author of their salvation perfect (or acceptable) through suffering.
I don't think you meant that historic Calvinists have held to a general atonement. But if you meant in the sense by which historic Calvinists spoke of the redemption of Christ as sufficient for all but efficacous for the elect only. That is the historic calvinist view I believe. I have not affirmed it yet.
We know without question that verse 9 says "for the suffering of death" The beginning of verse 10 reads "For it became him...." I have heard preachers say, and I am sure your familiar with the expression, "whenever you find a for or therefore, find out what its there for." This word "for' is "gar" in the Greek and Thayers renders is also,
truly therefore, verily as the case stands
So, when I read verse 9, and I ask, "Is this teaching that the death of Christ was universal to every man?" I must read on, because verse 10 is a further explaination.. "Therefore, as the case stands, it was fitting for Him...in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
The teaching in verse 9 does not end there. It continues to the end of the chapter explaining the "why" of Christ tasting death for every man. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same"
Who are the children? Are they not the many sons spoken of here. Are they not the elect? "Behold I and the children which God hath given me." Indeed they are.
Whether one tries to advocate a "sufficient for all" redemption or not, it is plain that the the death of Christ was efficious and made on behalf of the elect.
I am simply affirming scripture not a theology.
As am I.
Methinks you misread the scripture. It does not state He died to save every individual (as in redemption). It states He tasted death for every man, just as the Mosaic Law of Atonment was commanded.
Though you may not agree with it from a non-cal, why do you not give it's due when it was a definate view amoung Reformers and Calvinists along side the Specific view.
Perhaps I do. But when I read the Scripture in whole, I do not see universal redemption... Now one LOL to another...
Methinks your tending toward particular redemption here when you say, "It does not state He died to save every individual (as in redemption)."
Indeed He redeemed the elect only.
Actaully the Greek 'huper' means 'in behalf of' or 'for';
and 'pas' means 'all' (just as you noted). The translators taking their cue from the context of the passages included the word 'man' but that really doesn't change the context in anyway. Christ tasted death in behalf of all . As you stated it means “for all” or “for everyone” or “for the whole” . There is no doubt in the linguistics nor context my brother - Christ tasted death on behalf of the whole of Man. Ever you acknowledge the meaning being not all types or kinds because its usage is consistant with ALL, EVERY, The Whole. There is no other scriptural explination than this.
Seems that what does not make Scriptural sense to one, makes Scriptural sense to another.
This makes no sense at all. It is "for all of the many??
Come on brother, seriously. That is not what scripture says.
As I said before, contextually, I see no other people in view in the text but the elect.
First you must realize THIS passage is not about specific Redeption but the 'Qualified Saviour". In that "God saw fit for Christ to go through this to establish Him as the author of the salvation of many which He will bring to Glory. What He did is what God wanted to bring in the many children of God.
Seems weird to me to say the passage is about Christ redeeming the elect but its not about redemption.
THAT is what the passage of verse 10 is about, and verse 9 simply declares He tasted death for ALL or Everyone
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree for my above mentioned reasons.
On A SIDE NOTE:
and just for fun (not argument):
Christ took on him 'the seed' of Abraham. desendant after the flesh :laugh:
Yes, Christ was a Jew according to the flesh. But if this has reference to Galatians, I think you have a bit of conumdrum. lol
Sorry, it was cute. I dont want hard feelings in going over this stuff to much. What say we pause and just enjoy our brotherhood in Christ who called us unto Himself and all others who will be His. - Amen?[
Amen. But your not getting the last word. LOL Now that was meant to be funny.
