Meaning of "Kosmos"

1. If Christ came to save every single person, then why isn't every single person saved, or will be saved?

2. Did Christ fail on his mission of trying to save every single person?

 

RB,

Obviously you will have guessed that this topic has been hashed out over and over here.

Every so often I put in my 2 cents worth. Several observations on my part are:

1. Scripture has tension. Notice I did not say contradiction - but rather tension. Some passages seem to indicate a free will and others a bound will. Some passages seem to favor eternal security while others hint, at least, at a "favored" status which can be lost. This is a source of headache for systematic theologians - but it is the nature of the scriptures we were given.

2. Most believers have a predetermined understanding of things and will, sometimes not realizing it, simply interpret everything else according to that predetermined stance. A good example would be eternal security. There have been may attempts to explain away the warning passages in Hebrews (10:26, 6:4) as not indicative of losing salvation. These explanations are given many times because the believer, citing John 10 and other scriptures has already decided that salvation cannot be lost. On the other hand there will be those who, based on Hebrews, believe that salvation can be lost and thus they interpret the other salient scriptures in light of that. We are all, more or less, heavily influenced by systematic theologies.

3. Most believers refer to the stances of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" without any real knowledge of the theology of either Calvin or Arminius. I personally think Calvinism only partially represents Calvin and the the theology of Jacob Arminius bears no resemblance whatsoever to modern day "Arminianism" (I really do not know what this is actually...)

4. My own opinion is that we are completely dependent on God for salvation and that because of the nature of God's preexistence and the nature of His will we are all in a sense predestinated. Since God's will is inviolable that which occurs must be in accordance with His will. But this is in a sense an a posteriori observation. From our perspective our will is free to choose. I eschew systematic theologies as they attempt to explain the unexplainable - namely God's will. God is above all. As such God is not bound to act in a righteous manner. That would imply that He is subject to a standard. Rather that which we call righteous is only so because it happens to be in accordance with God's nature. There is no exterior standard to which He can be compared.

 

RB,

I have read neither Boyce nor Owen. I have read a good bit of systematic theology in the past - Hodge, and Van Til among others. I have also read a good deal of Calvin's Institutes and commentaries.

No doubt these are works by men of great learning. But they are the works of men. They are also quite different then some of the theology I have read by Wesley and various catholic authors.

My big problem with systematic theologies is that the attempt to "put God in a box". Systematic theology in many cases leads us to interpret certain difficult passages of scripture in light of doctrines which we have already established. An example here would be Heb 10:26. Many "calvinists" would look at this passages with the idea that salvation cannot be lost and thus any interpretation of this passage as suggesting that one could "fall from grace" would be dismissed a priori.

As this regards the "kosmos" discussion...

I think that your reformed position leads to to look for ways to see John 3 as potentially not universal. Your initial suggestions regarding Arthur Pink et al are not at all unreasonable - but they seem to hint that you already believe that redemption is not universal (based on your systematic theology) and are seeking to fit the scripture into that mold. The reasons you offered represent plausible possibilities - but in my estimation they are not the best interpretation because they are 1). less consistent with context and 2). seemingly driven by predetermined conviction.

I do not claim to have all the answers or to have better answers than men more learned and experienced than I. But I do not feel compelled to agree with something just because it was written by a "theologian".

And my personal bias is that systematic theology not only allows us but (seemingly) encourages us to approach scripture with presuppositions.

 

I am not implying that you are deliberately trying to twist scripture. But I am most definitely saying that your systematic theology affects how you approach scripture. That exemplifies my problems with systematic theology.

Let me ask you this...

How do you interpret Hebrews 10:26-27? What is the nature of this warning? Does it mean that salvation can be lost?

 

RB,

Set up? Well...

Your explanation I think underscores a bit of my problem with systematic theology. Rather than explaining the Hebrews passage you offered another scripture which clearly supports the truth that salvation is a permanent change. For what it's worth I do believe in preservation of the sanits. But that does not mean I would not be willing to read each passage of scripture with the openness to change my mind if necessary.

At one time I considered myself a "calvinist" but I found it all too restrictive of God's nature.

 

I would also like to add to that, RB, if I may that one truth of Scripture taken out of context to support another text out of context is also in error. I'm not saying you did this, but needs to be pointed out to the readers.

 

If using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a problem, then I don't know what to tell you. One truth of God will not contradict another.

Using scripture to interpret scripture is perfectly fine. My point is that because of your predetermined stance I would wager that you would not even consider the Heb 10:26 could mean loss of salvation. This is not letting scripture interpret itself.

My assertion here is that you, in this case, are allowing your reformed beliefs determine how you interpret scripture. Citing other scriptures to make a point does not exonerate - who doesn't (reformed or otherwise) do that!

And back to the "kosmos" thing - you have asserted that scripture in John 3 (and Heb 10) validates your interpretation. My critique is that your systematic theology, a priori, determined your position. And you selected scriptures that seem to support this as prooftexts.

Again - don't get me wrong - I am not imputing bad faith to you. No doubt many things I think correct are really in error. We all have our biases. But to me it doesn't seem that you're willing to admit it!

 

Part 1 - sorry it is so long but can not give my thoughts in the brevity as you do. That I WISH I could do, and envy (in a good way ) you on that.

I think we are talking 'around' each other here.

Yes, the phrase 'whole world' as used in scripture has limits that are always determined by context. As I have stated numerous times, there are ONLY 3 main definitions that are derived from the context of scritpure regarding the term 'world'. The addition of 'whole' to the term 'world' simply accentuates the contextual definition by the writter desires to enforce a point.

The Job passage in no different. It contrasts the world (the planet) and the whole world. Now is scripture speaking of the planet earth (meaning #1) again, no. It is referencing a specific portion of the and in fact 'all' of that portion (meaning #2). This is specifically referencing a geographic area (that which is habitable). Now what makes this corrispond to John is the context in which this verse is placed, that being God as a Righteous and Just Judge because He has the authority TO judge His creation but will not do so wickedly nor in evil but with Justice and Righesouness.
So what it the conection between the whole world (geograph area) and Gods Judgment? The men living in that habitable area. The term whole world being under the authority God and therefore under His judgment still advocates Not a People Of God but a Sinful People in Wickedness.

You might think that is taking it a bit to far but I ask you is it not the context? Is not the context in that portion of scripture about God's Judgment being Righteous and Just against evil, and that He BEING God has the every right to execute His judgment and by implication also states in contrast that He is God so why question Him at all. We know He IS God who is not to be questioned yet He is a Just and Righteous God so we have no need to fear of Him being 'evil' toward us that it be laid against His Charge for it is against His nature. - Whoa! My head started spinning :laugh: :laugh:

Actaully "tebel' doesn't mean 'whole world' but 'world'. The term 'whole' here is used to broaden the usage to meaning not just of A 'habitable area' but encompassing ALL habitable areas.

Agreed as I am not advocating the whole world means at all times all people who ever lived, but that it is limited by context as context dictates. The term 'whole'accentuates the discription of the term 'world'. As I stated before and maintain through and by scrpture that as the scriptures speak of the term 'world' to illistrate mankind it is ALWAYS referencing the sinful and wicked but NEVER Gods People.

Yes. BUt as stated (I know I'm redundant) before it is based on it three root meanings.
1. The Planet or Universe
2. Geographical area or system (ie. Roman World)
3. All 'sinful and wicked' men

You are correct, in the sense that limiting the scope does no damage to the text if the context substantiates. However giving it a NEW defintion DOES harm the text.
The term world NOT once in the OT ever stood for nor insinuated Gods people but always (when dealing with man as the content) sinners and wicked. Thus we can not change the meaning of world by inverting it and assume no damage is caused to the text. To give the term 'world' the NEW meaning of believers AS WELL as sinners pollutes the text and distorts the teachings in which the word is so used.

Yes, but we must also look at the prophet sense in which Christ coming to save His people as well. Christ came unto His people did He not? And yet they did not receive Him. He came unto the World (Gentile sinners) and knew Him not. However the prophetic sense is still in play regarding the Nation (His people) that God will bring the Nation BACK to Himself through Christ thereby saving as scripture promised regarding the prophesy "He will save His people from their sins"(their sins of rejection and rebellion) Though we may see principles lining much of the text we should not super-impose beyond the context to often. Remember Jesus came first to the Jews, He came to seek and save that which was lost - a direct reference to the prophesies regarding Israel (Isaiah and Jerimiah), though we can establish principles regarding it, the meaning of the text is plainly addressing Israel. Not one NT writter ever uses it in relation to the Gentiles. However, this is where I bring other scriptures to bear where we see God sending His Son for the whole world, the world, to save sinners (universal term), whosoevers (universal term), and so on and so forth. You are right though, not all are His people and He knows those whom are/will be His - by name. Yet this does not take away from the fact scripture states without apologies that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. But that the propitiation is only 'applicalble' through faith.
Does not scripture states that "he tasted death for every man".

 

Part 2:

How do you get that? Look at every time He uses the term world in just 1 John. It has a definate and distinct meaning - all sinful and wicked men.
Though I do not agree specifically with you here it still does not change the intent of the meaning.
1. Are all Jews saved? No. So how is Christ the propitiation for the Jews, if not all Jews are saved? If you deem this to be in a general sense, I'll stay my though for a bit.
2. Whole world means Gentiles?
It can BUT, let us allow the intent of the writter to settle the issue. He did not use a general sense (if that was what he did concerning the word 'us' relating to Jews), he used a specific and all encompassing adjective describing a part of the mass; the whole (all) world (Gentiles). Not all types and kinds which can be infered through the use of "all". World has no such inferences since it denotes specific things not a varible of things like 'all' can.

So even in your perspective the general sense of some Jews is not limited to kind and types but encompassing when coupled with the meaning of the Whole of the Gentile World in relation to the propititiation made. I guess this is what the author of Heb 2:9 ment when he stated that "that He by the grace of God should taste death for Every Man".

I think we are agreed here. So if the term 'world' in relation to the discription OF man speaks consistantly of those as in wickedness and sin (sinners) then to state the term 'world' means the exact opposite in other instances reveals a contradiction, does it not?
Can the term 'Atonement' mean also the non-atoned?
Can the term 'Priest' mean also a non-priest?
Can the term 'Believer' mean also a non-believer?

Answer: No, it can not because the definitions of them are established, first in the Old and so also in the NT.

What harm is done? I provide scripture as the basis for mine and others belief which has been around since the Apostles and Christ (which you affirm for your view as well - yet both have been there). Many Calvinists as well hold this same truth and many historical figures (Calvinists) have as well. I feel I stand I good company but they do not persuade me, the scriptures do.

I can not imagine God sending His precious Son (King of Glory) for the likes of a sinner such as me. But since God says He did, I must believe Him and not what I can or can not imagine. - Agreed?

No my brother, the expiation of our sins is only through faith, though the Atonement is made for all men.

You are correct that God can not be frustrated in this matter. Yet God is not frustrated for all that He determined IS accomplished. The fact the Atonement was made for ALL Israel did not frustrate the Will of God to save His people by faith. For those of faith believed God and were saved and those who did not were condemned by their unbelief. They were already condemned in eternity as a fact but in time it was due to unbelief of that which could have saved them because it was offered on their behalf as well. Why do you thing the judgment of unbelief is eternal? It is because the offerings for their sins (which was rejected) was of eternal value.

If you truly took your stand on the Sovereignty of God, who are you to tell God He can not die for all men, and that man must choose to believe or not. The Sovereignty of God simply means that God has the right to do all that is within His pleasure to do, and answer to none but Himself regarding it.

Correct.

 

I have a friend who became a Catholic for the same reason. He didn't have to think about or study out the questions he had by himself. And, of course, you didn't get words "Absolute Sovereignty" from scripture. You had to have been doing a little "peeking" at Calvinism on the side. I'd bet off hand you enrolled in some "Systematic Theology" class, right? What used to be called "Reform Dogma" until "dogmas" --- something that must be believed without understanding --- went out of vogue.

Been there myself. It often takes time, doesn't it? Sometimes we don't want to wait so we find someone else to explain, often missing a blessing. I've ended up in a few "blind alleys" that way.

Genesis isn't a good place to start for the person who already pleads ignorance, bro. OT is types and pictures of what the church has been clearly and plainly told. Most I know started in John, the "Believer's Gospel."

skypair