Meaning of "Kosmos"

Dear RB the context following John 3:16 proves IMO that this is exactly what "kosmos" means every person who has lived or will live

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

In the cosmos of the context in successor verses to 3:16 there are two kinds on persons in this kosmos, those who love the light and those who don't.​

Again as I mentioned before, it is not John's style to use "cosmos" as the "world" of believers but all of humanity.​

Another passage:​

John 1
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.​

Here John indeed contrasts Israel not as different than the world but as the same in their rejection of Him and IMO is including them in the "cosmos" which as periviously shown in John 3 that it is comprised of two kinds of people, those who love the darkness and those who love the light (presumably the elect who are predisposed to this light). To say that John 3 use of the word world is not all inclusive but singling out the world of believers (or elect) makes the entire passage a confusion.​

then we also have passages such as Paul gives to a mix of skeptical unbelieving gentiles and those who did hear him:

Acts 17
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.​

Here we see Paul preaching that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent claiming that God will judge the world (presumably all who lived and ever will live - granted this is the word "oikomene" and not "kosmos") and has given ALL (same presumption) assurance in that He raised Him (Jesus) from the dead. This being the essential reason why all men everywhere should repent seemingly making God Himself a supporter of a general atonement.​

HankD​

 

1. Older books should be our friends not foes.

2. I've always thought that the "kosmos" meant every one who has ever lived or will ever live, but the context of Scripture would overpower me.

3. It is like the man who is says he is objective in all things.

4. Reminiscient of the great Reformer.

 

1. And how do you use the context to determine sense? How do you determine the meaning of words? How do you get into the Jewish and Hellenistic minds?

2. While you appear to be refuting one position, you are neither affirm another suitable position, except to engage in circular reasoning.

 

It can't be all of mankind individually, because the Bible lists exceptions.

"For God so loved the world, (except: Esau Mal 1:3, Rom 9:13, the wicked Psa 5:5, the covetous Psa 10:3, etc.) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


BGTF

 

RB, I'm sorry for the way you have been treated by such a one who disagree's with his brother in Christ. Arrogance rapped in ignorance is still nothing more than billigerance.

Since it was a diatride coming from a non-cal view, who came on the scene in an obscene manner, I am compelled to appologize. NOT for him, but those who stand aolng the lines of his theological view. Nothing warrents such unchristlikeness but your responce is worthy of the name you and I hold so dear. God be praised.

 

Alex, I am not a Calvinist, but I must say that your attach on Reformed because he was not going to argue is repulsive. There is a difference in debate and arguing. I am a southern baptist and have been almost all of my life.
I do not know what type church you attend but Brother you need to seek out the meaning of discussion.
See if you can find what the bible says to do about a one that wants to argue scripture. And sir, you were acting anything but as a Christian. Reformed, I praise God for such a one as yourself that is willing to explain your point and ALLOW the Holy Spirit to do any father work.
I know that I do not come in here often and it is not nice to come into this...
God's blessings shine on you all

 

And that's from my mom :thumbs: :laugh: :laugh:

 

That is all either side would hope to hear, agreed?

I am glad HandD has been able to discuss at more length than I have been able (Thanks Hank). But I would also like to take you back to ponder an earlier post of mine (more specifically the later portion dealing with John and his consistancy of the term "whole world" as he used it).
It can be found back on Post #21 but below is mostly the post but shortened.

Editted In --->>>
Also since John uses the term 'world' more than most of the writers it allows us to get a more firm grasp as to the intent of it's usage (albeit through context maintianed by consistent defintion and usage).

As I stated before "world" has three core or root form:
World:
1. Universe or the planet itself
2. Geographical system regarding an area (ie. Roman world)
3. All sinful man
...a. all mankind without Christ throughout the ages (example #1)
...b. all sinful mankind apart from the Gods people. (Example #2)

Each has variations but never devating from their core or root principle.

All of these are established definitions (some with varing degrees but the same meanings) in the OT and followed through in the NT.

What I asked you to look into was not the term 'world' but 'WHOLE WORLD' as used by John. Reason - to understand John position on what world meant and most specifically WHOLE World. I asked this of you to see what he ment contextually by Christ being the propitation for our sins but not ours only but the sins of the Whole World. I'll give you the verses here and you decide.
Here is an OT passage (the only one there is) regarding the term "whole world" and the definition IT gives first.

This is the only reference in the OT relating specifically to 'whole world' and as you can see it is speaking to God judgment against and on sinful wicked men.

These two are in the same letter and the definition is clearly defined by John himself as to the intent and meaning of 'whole world'.

.
As you can see John was consistant with his use of whole world and how he understood it's definition. And in light of his usage of it at other places we must follow scritpure and not one theology to determine what 1 John 2:2 is truly saying. That being Christ died for our sins (believers) but not ours only but the sins of the Whole World (every sinful and wicked man). As unCalvinistic as that might sound to your Current theological position it is (IMO) more contextual and consistant regarding scriptura. And in fact many Calvinists believe it (4 pointers)

The only other defintion given of 'whole world' is that of entirty of the planet - such as ...if a man gain the whole world and lose his soul...

That said:
I believe (as do most Non-Cals) the bible teaches Specific Redemption but that it also teaches General Atonement.

I don't believe that Christ has redeemed all men but that He died for the sins of all. And scripture does state:

It is by faith the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)
Therefore not every man is redeemed but for every man Atonement has been made.

The propitation (according to scripture) is 'applied' THROUGH or by Faith. It fully accomplised it's intent by satisifing God but that satification in not applied to ANY man until the first believe. For as says the scriptures: He is the propitaition of ours sins but not ours only but the sins of the whole world.
However, propitiation is not that the ARE propitiated for because usless (as stated above) they believe they no part in it - so it would be considered a more accurate view in OUR understanding to say it is 'potentially effect' (as Hand has stated) but from Gods stand point something done on behalf of all though not to be applied to All.

 

One last thing for clarification:
Christ had to fulfil ALL of the Law, and that included His death regarding the Atonement.

Now:
When God commanded the sacrifice of Atonement be done for all or the whole of Israel, did God mean only some of Israel?

No, because it was done on behalf of the entire Nation.

Now:
Was all in the Nation saved because they were all Atoned for (even those is defient rebellion, homosexual, adulters, or just plain disbelievers of and in the Nation)?

No. Yet the Atonement was made for them all but was specific only to those of faith, who by faith had the propitiation applied to them. Though some were saved by God grace in giving it, others were condemned by it because they could be saved but would not.

 

This is not what I have stated. The phrase or term 'Whole Word' is used to to reflect the scope of the writters intent in accordence with it's scripturally predefined defintion of and to the word to which it is related - world. In the case of John he does not use the term in such a way as to question how it is used but gives a flat and consistant defintion of it. - The Whole World lies in wickedness, the Whole World follows after Satan (that is a paraphrase). He does not speak and define it one and then turn around and use it again in an exact opposite meaning.

Yes, it is good to see how a phrase was used historically so as to get a handle on many of the phrasologies. However, Gill only shows a generality regarding the secular view of the phrase whole world - meaning it looks like everyone is following such and such. This is true and have no dispute over it. But this is not applicable to scripture since it IS specific and predefined FROM scripture hundreds and thousands of years before the NT writers set down with their pens.

This one doesn't even have the phrase 'Whole World' in it?
'All' can mean all of a thing or all can mean all of a part of the whole. This come back to the word 'world' having three root meanings, and one is a geographical area regarding a system (ie Roman Empire).
But again, the phrase is not even used here, so the example is moot.

Now THIS ONE he has an arguememt with
However, I completely disagree with his assuption that 'whole world' means all of the believers. One can assume such but the defintion of world has never included God's people. The OT already established the definintions of the term 'world'. Since the NT writers understood the terminologies of the OT, we must can contend consistancy of those predefined terms from the OT into the NT. Can you think of one word that was one way in the OT, and God changed it to mean the exact opposite in the NT?

However, Rome was the Capital of the of the known world, and since Paul frequent visits paid to the capital as well as to and from all the provinces;he could see and hear from the people around the influence they would exercise upon others, as well as their own blessedness. He was speaking of the all the people (believers and non-believers alike) in the Roman world knew about THEIR faith.
Oh that this could be said of us and our church!!

This is my point (and he is right here), 'Whole world' and the term 'world' CAN NOT mean believers ever.
We are called out of the World, we are to be seperate from the world, the whole world lies in wickedness... and then turn around and say we the believers are the 'world' to ??

He is right again here, because 'world' and 'whole world' when speaking of the spiritual conditions of men ALWAYS speaks of the lost/wicked/sinners but context determines the scope of the term or phrase used. Here it is in a time period, and at others it encompasses all times.

He hasn't established this, since there are many more verses in scripture that use World and Whole World. He was quite selective (IMO) for what about John 3:16 - EVEN IF you hold to 'world' meaning elect only, that verse encompasses both past and those who will be. Along with a host of others.
Other verse he denies this same terminology, is because it would make scripture conflict with what he came to understand and was taught. If 'world' maintains it OT definitions then Christ did have to die for more than the elect alone. Please note that I am not speaking of the word 'all' but the word and pre-defined defintion of 'world' and 'Whole World".

OK, here he gets confusing. He now arguing the limited sense of the 'whole world' being sinners (those not saved) and then states that Christ died for them. The limited sense is not regarding believers but all sinners and that Christ died for them as well?? And since I know he does not believe this, I'm lost.

Maybe you can clarify this for me.

The fact the propitation is only applied to those who believe does not negate the fact it was still done on their (sinners) behalf but that it is not imputed to them unless they believe.

Actaully not only Gentiles but Jews who were outside the fold (so to speak as well). It was a reference to anyone who was not God's people and that is the crux of the arguement. It is not used for God's people but those NOT OF God's people.

Guess what, I agree here. No one can thwart what God has set forth to accomplish. We just see it from different positions but still coming to the same truths.

 

BTW- Congradulations on your next child !! May God be so gracious as richly bless your home with such a gift - Amen.

And you humble me with your kind words as well.
May the peace of God richly dwell in you, my brother.

 

RB,

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.

I realize the implications of the original languages. I confess to being only an "armchair" theologian and linguist - although I can comfortably read the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.

We must remember that these were and are real languages spoken by real people. Words get their meanings from context - not from lists of possible definitions. The "word study" approach certainly has some value for those who are not native speakers of a language - but it has resulted in many gross misinterpretations. In the past decades there has been a movement, much-needed in my opinion, to approach bibical linguistics in more of a modern synchronic way. I think several past generations of theologians have approached the text more as a code to be deciphered and not as a real living language, used colloquially by native speakers. While men of immense learning the way overdid the whole "word study" thing.

In this case the context is a fairly universal one. I am not accusing you of twisting scripture. But if you are strongly reformed in your doctrine then I assume you would perhaps have more of an affinity for possible interpretations which would comport with the rest of your theology. In any regard I see this as a "universal" passage - with "kosmos" meaning the "world" in a general inclusive sense. As such the onus would be on you to show conclusively that this is not the case.

 

Consider this:

John 16

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.​

Here we have a possibility of "light" or enlightment. Everyone is involved here, the world (cosmos) and believers. IMO this passage clearly presents the Holy Spirit as enlightening the "world" (reproval or conviction of sin) though they believe not on Christ.​

Putting this passage together with the John 3 passage we have the definite possibility that the light given to every person coming into the world is this reproval or conviction of sin.​

John 3
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

Reproval or conviction of sin then is a common grace gift from God enlightening every man who comes into the world. Without it presumably no one can be saved as they have no sensibility of the gravity of sin or their own condition and have no reason for the need of a Savior.​

This heavenly light can be likened somewhat to nature itself.​

When the dawning comes the nocturnal creatures go back into their holes, caves, hiding places, etc (hate the light) . But those of the day are awakened and go about the business of the day (love the light).​

1 Thessalonians 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.​

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.​

I suppose the essential question which comes out of this is - do those of the day/night choose the light/darkness or do they, in response to the light/darkness, prove what they are by seeking the light/darkness?​

Or, does God provide the power of choice along with the reproval?​

Could God do even that?​

It seems so from the beginning:​

Genesis 4
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.​

While it might not be a "choice" proof text, this conversation with Cain seems out of character for God and His love of Truth if Cain had no choice in the matter. The "if" of verse 7 implies choice followed by an imperative. ​

If not, why is God even having this conversation with Cain?​

HankD​