Meaning of "Kosmos"

It just does not cease with you does it? The thread is an open thread, and as far as discussion boards I have participated with, all are welcome to comment on whoever posts to whomever. I have done no wrong in "chiming" in to what you wrote, especially since it affects us who are called Calvinists.

Yet again you bring accusation. Why must you characterize me as one quickly offended and unrestrained?

I tell you what, when you actually do make a post on the topic, which is the meaning of the word Kosmos in Scripture, I may consider replying to you. But please give up these personal attacks.

 

Use of theolgy and theolgians

I write this in part as a reflection on what Alex wrote to me, and in part to make known to those who wish to engage in dialogue with me on subjects controversial.

It has been remarked to me many times, on these boards about the use of quotes from theolgians from respective camps of theology. Generally, it is cast in a negative light, that I have been made to feel that the use of them is something that should be given up. I am writing this post so that in futre posts, when somone is replying to me, we don't have to waste time discussing this over and over again.

I will make use of many witnesses to the truth, both of Divine Scirpture, and of the men of God the Lord has been pleased to raise up throughout history to expound the doctrines of God. Often controversy has brought to light a particular area of Christian truth and God was pleased to raise up men, giving them wisdom, to defend the truth. One in particular, John Gill, God has used to refute the error of Arminianism in his book The Cause of God and Truth, which was at the request of many brethren, a reply to Dr. Whitby in their time.

So, suffice it to say, despite many objections, I will not be divested of the many witnesses of God to the truth, both Divine and the gifts the Holy Spirit has been pleased to give His church, knowing full well, that the former is infallible while the latter is not.

 

1. You have yet to address the topic of this thread. So there is no getting back on topic, because you never have addressed it yet. Unless I missed a previous thread?

2. You have made personal and negative character representations about me, which I have shown you, and you refuse to acknowledge. Which I also think you should say "sorry"

3. Please provide evidence that I have personally attacked your character and I will repent of them.

 

1. I did not see your post on the topic. I will look for it. Sorry I missed it. EDIT: The first post I found from you was #35 and I don't see anything in there about Kosmos. I do see an attack on Calvinists and Calvinism which began my reply to you. Apparantly you have replied to Kosmos somewhere else?

2. In the posts you made you made personal negative characterizations of me and calvinists. I called you on it. Since you have personally attacked me, I told you of it, and do you now accuse me of the same because I say you attacked me. If you slap me in the face and I say, why did you slap me in the face, am I judged with wrong because I said, "You slapped me" ?????

3. In your P.S. you admit to your personal attacks, but apparantly refuse to repent of them. Please quote me, as I have done for you, how I have personally attacked you and I will repent of them.

Otherwise, I see no use in entering a controversy with you.

 

I did. This is your first post in this thread:

"This cannot better represent the mentality and mechanics of Reformed Theology and its proponents.

Neverminding its spiritual misdirection and the dreadful consequences of its wrong understanding and application of the Scriptures, Reformed Theology along with its very present companion, "Calvinism" is intellectually malignant. They force one to be dishonest with the most plain and obvious simplicities of Scripture and of course result in convoluted theological constructs that are guarded with verbal games of rerouting and reinventing.

Ultimately they are reduced to parroting perceived theological superiors (quoting in mass their works), providing borderline parodies (often quite ridiculous) of honest theological discussions on issues such as 1 John 2:2, and too often succumbing to the silly but inevitable attraction to "self-righteousism"(that being the end of those who always believe they are the "most" enlightened)."

What part of this actually deals with the subject, pray tell?

I am not bickering. You have accused me of several character flaws, and now again with bickering. You expect me to just let you slap me in the face? But I will be content to just suffer wrong in this case.

I have said you have attacked me and provided proof. And then you say I did the same, but provided no proof, but as you say here, only replied with an identical statement to mine, and that I should apolgize? I mean to attack no person in any controversy. And if I have, I wish to see the offense, that I may know it and apologize publically.

I agree to walk in a mature and Christ honoring manner. But if you publically attack my character I will publically respond.

At this point I see this only leading to an argument and not a discussion. Let's end it here.

 

Not to split hairs here, but 43 does come after 35. And it probably happened that your post was posted while I was replying to another.

I would agree that this is a reply on topic, but doesn't address the OP. It's just a proposition. I would love see any information contrary to the information present, espeically as it deals with the Greek language.

 

I cannot help, at this point, to detect a hostility in your words to me and as such, I feel put on the defence rather than an invitation to a discussion on our differences, I trust with a hope that we each would glorify God and draw closer to Him and the truth as it is in Christ. I have a hard time discussing things with folks that give me the impression of hostility and a "bully" attitude. To tell me I should go and learn...et, seems bullyish to me.

So, I am failing to see how entering into a controversy will benefit you, me, or those who read along. Let's just end it here. I am sure there are other calvinists will talk with you.

There has been from what I see a difference, Alex, between those who disagree with Reformed Theology, and those who have become Anti-reformed/calvinists. The former seeks discussion. The later seeks to attack and shame.

 

May the Lord have mercy on you, cause His face to shine upon you, and give you His peace on this great and glorious Lord's Day. :godisgood:

 

Of the whole world

It has been asserted that when the phrase is use, whole world, it must mean every single person who has lived or shall live, the word world being qualified by the word "whole" making it of necessity every single person who live and ever lived.

It was said the the use of the phrase, whole world, by the Hebrews designates every single person and thus, being used of John, must mean the same.

This can be disproved on two fronts, one historical and one Divine. First, the historical.

1. That the phrase whole world was not always understood as of every single person by Hebrews is evidenced by the writiings of the Hebrews. Dr. John Gill brings this point to bear:

The divine use. The phrase is often used in Scripture in a limited sense.

1. And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2:1

It is plain here that not every single inhabitant is considered, but the whole Roman Empire and whatever nations were subject to it.

2. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. Romans 1:8

This cannot be designed for every living person but of all the churches of God.

3. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Rev 12:9

The saints and elect of God cannot be included in this because they are not decieved by the wicked one nor can he harm them. For, "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." 1 John 5:18

4. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Rev 16:14

It should be plain to all that this cannot include every single person who has ever lived or ever will. It only includes those alive at the time and certainly distinct from saints.

This should be sufficient from divine Scripture that the term world, and whole world, is used in a limited sense and does not extend to every person that has been, or will be in the world. There is one verse of Scripture that inludes all wicked men, and that is:

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1 John 5:19 Here the entire compass of mankind lies in wickedness, saints exepted. Which still adds futher proof of the limited sense of the phrase.

It is then evident that when we read "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2 that we read of this in its limited sense. We do no violence to the Scriptures or insert a meaning or use of a phrase upon the Scirptures.

It is also good to bring Romans 3:25 to shed light on this verse. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

The propitiation of Christ is through faith in His blood, which not all men have, and so adds further proof of its limited sense. And what man among us would declare that Christ is a propitation for men and not also their advocate, as the Apostle John say He is of us? It is plain from Scripture that Christ does not advocate for the world, but for the elect only.

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." John 17:9

I have before, in other posts, brought to light the fact that one of the greatest mysteries which was hidden, but revealed by Christ and His apostles, was that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs with Israel, grafted in, and granted by God repentance to life. It should be noted that the Apostle John was a Jew and writing to Jews, so in considering the auidence this adds further weight to the limited sense of 1 John and other Scriptures that Christ is being revealed as the Saviour, not of Jews only, but of the whole world. Those familiar with Jewish thinking and understanding know that the Jews when referring to the whole world meant the Gentiles. Of this Dr. Gill comments,

Indeed, blessed be God, who has chosen to redeem people out of every nation. It is sealed and secure. It is unfrustratable by the wickedness of men, their impentitant hearts, stubbroness of will, or blindness to truth. The blood of the Lamb will have its full satisfaction. For:

"...they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" Rev 5:9

 

Well friend, given that the Scriptures were not given in English, but Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I find Word studies to be essential. As for old commentaries, I suppose some could be guesswork, but most are extraordinary scholarship. And I have found NONE to parallel Dr. Gill. Not yet anyway. And I don't think there is any reason to cause us to shy away from knowledge.

So your view of it remains to be that the term world, in this passage and others, despite of what I have shared, means every single person who ever lived and ever will live. Can you provide evidence of that, especially biblical evidence that contradicts the conclusions I have drawn from Scripture and/or history?

Also, one's own theology may be suited better by the "world" being inclusive of every single person who ever lived and ever will live, namely the theology of universal redemption.

I don't want the Scriptures to suit my doctrine. I want it to dictate it.