Meaning of "Kosmos"

[David Lamb]

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.

You don't get the actual words "absolute sovereignty", but the fact that God is absolutely sovereign is there. Psalm 33.8-11, for instance:

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations.​

Then there is Isaiah 46.9-11:

9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’
11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.​

Even wicked King Nebuchadnezzar was forced to admit in Daniel 4.34-35:

34 ¶ And at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation.
35 All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?"​

If you are going to say that you don't believe God is absulutely sovereign because those exact words don't appear in our English translations of the bible, to be consistent, you must also not believe in the Trinity, Sunday Schools, missionary work, prayer meetings, bible studies, eschatology, soteriology, the second coming, and a host of other things, because you won't find any of those words and phrases in the bible either. Yet the principles behind those words are there.

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

I don't know that I would agree with that wholeheartedly. Which is more clear and straightforward? "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," or "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God"?

By the way, I don't know about RB, but I have never "enrolled in some "Systematic Theology" class," ( not that I am against such things - I just haven't done it). Yet I firmly believe that God is absolutely sovereign. How could I trust Him if that were not so?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

I have never advocated believers only. Perhaps Pink did, but I didn't. My use of Pink was to bring knowledge to use of the word Kosmos. So this issue, with me, is put to rest right? The only difference between us is that of the "whole world" meaning all nations that Jesus came to save, only the elect will be, for them only did Christ die in a substitionary fashion.

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?

Yes, of both Jew and Gentile.

And yet they did not receive Him. He came unto the World (Gentile sinners) and knew Him not.

My exact point, both Jew and Gentile He came to.

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.

I understand the reasoning here. And it is true, He came to His people (Israel) and they rejected Him. This resulted in the Gospel going to the Gentiles (which was God's plan from eternity) that their rejection would become the salvation of the Gentiles. I cannot even pretend to understand God's ways in this manner. All I know is that He planned it from eternity and elected a People to called HIs own People, Israel (for there is only one people Israel regarded by God, not two) of both Jew and Gentile. When I behold these things in Scripture I confess them, but do not fully comprehend them all. It leaves me with only praise. Which is the end to which the Apostle takes us.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Rom 11:33

Does not scripture states that "he tasted death for every man".

Yes. That is Hebrews 2:9. Why should I not let verses 10-17 aid my understanding here?

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. ELECTION!! (I couldn't help it)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Given what is written in Hebrews 2, I see no people in view other than the children God has given to Jesus.

 

[Charles Meadows]

RB,

I too am convinced of the absolute sovereignty of God. But to me much of reformed systematic theology actually seems to limit God by defining what he can and cannot do (by defining His nature).

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

I too am convinced of the absolute sovereignty of God. But to me much of reformed systematic theology actually seems to limit God by defining what he can and cannot do (by defining His nature).

Ok. I don't want to "limit" God in any way other than what is written in Scripture. I think the Scripture limits God. i.e. God cannot lie. Why not? Because His nature is good and holy and righteous.

 

[MB]

Hi David Lamb,
I've read a few of your post and this one caught my eye and I want to respond to this,

If you are going to say that you don't believe God is absulutely sovereign because those exact words don't appear in our English translations of the bible, to be consistent, you must also not believe in the Trinity, Sunday Schools, missionary work, prayer meetings, bible studies, eschatology, soteriology, the second coming, and a host of other things, because you won't find any of those words and phrases in the bible either. Yet the principles behind those words are there.

Logical conclusions aren't scriptural although I don't deny that our God is Sovereign. My reply is to the point that the reformed believe that God has to be the way that they perceive Him to be. Especially when men can only discern the likeness of God through a very dark glass. No one has seen God.

God's Absolute Sovereignty means that God can do what ever He wises and He still remains Sovereign. This argument has been on this and other boards many times. What I'd like you to see is that God doesn't loose His Sovereignty by allowing men to be willing to follow or believe in Him. God doesn't loose anything by making allowances for any thing even sin. You see God could have disallowed sin but He didn't because it served His purpose for man. If man can have the freewill to sin and it doesn't effect the sovereignty of God then why would a positive decision to be willing in man's own Salvation be any different?
What part of man's willingness would be offensive to God?, and most importantly what part of man's unwillingness would God want?
How could man's willingness to believe in God or Love God have an effect on His Sovereignty when it was God who designed it to be this way?.
When God commanded that Man love God do you really believe that God Himself was going to do this for man instead of the man doing it from his own heart? I agree that if man Loves God He does indeed because of the influence of God but, this doesn't mean that God made or forced the man to love Him. If this were so then the Jews would have accepted Christ as there Messiah instead of rejecting Him.
In the very beginning of God's own word man's willingness to comply has played a part in God own plan for the Salvation of men. It all began with the decision to eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. The man Adam ate of the fruit despite him knowing the consequences. A willing decision. Sure God prophesied that the man would then die but God didn't make Him eat that fruit.

It just seems to me if regeneration is with out choice to believe first then the whole process of Salvation is with out real meaning. The whole idea of God, men, and Salvation is totally pointless when God could have just created men to love Him and only created those whom he knew would.
There is a huge difference between forced love and willing love which is by far the most real.
If the Absolute Sovereignty of God means there is no willingness from man's own heart to believe then no one would trully believe from there heart. If God made them love Him, then man's love for God would not be from man, but God. Thus man would not in reallity love God at all. God would only be loving Himself through man.
MB

 

[Charles Meadows]

Ok. I don't want to "limit" God in any way other than what is written in Scripture. I think the Scripture limits God. i.e. God cannot lie. Why not? Because His nature is good and holy and righteous.

But the way you write this seems to assume that there ia a normative code of "goodness" or "righteousness" that exists to which God must conform Himself.

My take would be that righteousness is only righteousness because it conforms to God.

 

[David Lamb]

Hi David Lamb,
I've read a few of your post and this one caught my eye and I want to respond to this,


Logical conclusions aren't scriptural although I don't deny that our God is Sovereign. My reply is to the point that the reformed believe that God has to be the way that they perceive Him to be. Especially when men can only discern the likeness of God through a very dark glass. No one has seen God.

God's Absolute Sovereignty means that God can do what ever He wises and He still remains Sovereign. This argument has been on this and other boards many times. What I'd like you to see is that God doesn't loose His Sovereignty by allowing men to be willing to follow or believe in Him. God doesn't loose anything by making allowances for any thing even sin. You see God could have disallowed sin but He didn't because it served His purpose for man. If man can have the freewill to sin and it doesn't effect the sovereignty of God then why would a positive decision to be willing in man's own Salvation be any different?
What part of man's willingness would be offensive to God?, and most importantly what part of man's unwillingness would God want?
How could man's willingness to believe in God or Love God have an effect on His Sovereignty when it was God who designed it to be this way?.
When God commanded that Man love God do you really believe that God Himself was going to do this for man instead of the man doing it from his own heart? I agree that if man Loves God He does indeed because of the influence of God but, this doesn't mean that God made or forced the man to love Him. If this were so then the Jews would have accepted Christ as there Messiah instead of rejecting Him.
In the very beginning of God's own word man's willingness to comply has played a part in God own plan for the Salvation of men. It all began with the decision to eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. The man Adam ate of the fruit despite him knowing the consequences. A willing decision. Sure God prophesied that the man would then die but God didn't make Him eat that fruit.

It just seems to me if regeneration is with out choice to believe first then the whole process of Salvation is with out real meaning. The whole idea of God, men, and Salvation is totally pointless when God could have just created men to love Him and only created those whom he knew would.
There is a huge difference between forced love and willing love which is by far the most real.
If the Absolute Sovereignty of God means there is no willingness from man's own heart to believe then no one would trully believe from there heart. If God made them love Him, then man's love for God would not be from man, but God. Thus man would not in reallity love God at all. God would only be loving Himself through man.
MB

Thank you for your calm and polite reply. It is much appreciated.

I think you may have misunderstood what those who believe in the sovereignty of God actually believe. I can't speak for others, of course, but I know that if God had not first worked on my sinful heart, I would have had no desire to choose Christ, whether or not I had the ability to do so. As I understand it, God changes a sinner's desires so that his (the sinner's) will is changed, not to force the sinner to do something against his will. I think of Lydia:

Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.​

I think, too, of Saul/Paul himself, who was on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus with the express purpose of persecuting the Christians there. What, or rather Who, stopped him in his course? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It was only after that encounter that Paul acknowledged Jesus as his Lord, and aked Him what He would have him do.

You mentioned forced love. No, it is not forced. It is a grateful response to Christ's love.

1John 4:19 We love Him because He first loved us.​

Incidentally, I quite agree with you that logical conclusions are not always scriptural - I know that when the Mormons come round to my house, and I seek to tell them about the Saviour, their reply is often, "But that is not logical!"

One final point - you said that the reformed believe that God has to be the way that they perceive Him to be. But could that not be equally true of the "non-reformed" too? Those who believe that God gave man a free will and the ability to choose for himself whether or not to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation could equally have that view of what God is like, and cannot perceive Him as being any different to that.

I apologise that I have not replied to every point you raised, and would just like to thank you once again for your courtesy.

 

[MB]

Hi David,

Thank you for your calm and polite reply. It is much appreciated.

I try to choose my words carefully, It's not my wish to hurt anyone's feelings especially a brother in Christ. I could say the same of you, Your post are well written and thought out.

I think you may have misunderstood what those who believe in the sovereignty of God actually believe. I can't speak for others, of course, but I know that if God had not first worked on my sinful heart, I would have had no desire to choose Christ, whether or not I had the ability to do so. As I understand it, God changes a sinner's desires so that his (the sinner's) will is changed, not to force the sinner to do something against his will. I think of Lydia:

Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.​

I agree that God does work on our hearts. What I deny is the regeneration before one believes in Christ. Since regeneration is being born again.

I believe that God chooses us, calls us , draw us, convicts us, and convinces us. Like when we were children. We hear someone tell us a story, the accepting of it as truth, is up to us. It has nothing to do with the law, or with being chosen. The Jews were chosen yet still the majority are still lost. Many have died and there choosing didn't mean anything to them. God is solely responsible for our Salvation. Our believing only means we might be saved as in Gal 2:16
​

I think, too, of Saul/Paul himself, who was on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus with the express purpose of persecuting the Christians there. What, or rather Who, stopped him in his course? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It was only after that encounter that Paul acknowledged Jesus as his Lord, and aked Him what He would have him do.

You mentioned forced love. No, it is not forced. It is a grateful response to Christ's love.

The vision Paul had on the road to Damascus wasn't a regeneration before faith though. First Christ told Paul who he was then asked him why. Paul's surrender was in the question "what would you have me do"

1John 4:19 We love Him because He first loved us.​

Incidentally, I quite agree with you that logical conclusions are not always scriptural - I know that when the Mormons come round to my house, and I seek to tell them about the Saviour, their reply is often, "But that is not logical!"

One final point - you said that the reformed believe that God has to be the way that they perceive Him to be. But could that not be equally true of the "non-reformed" too? Those who believe that God gave man a free will and the ability to choose for himself whether or not to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation could equally have that view of what God is like, and cannot perceive Him as being any different to that.

The smartest man who ever lived wrote of God telling him this.

1Ch 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.
While I'm really glad that you obviously love God and His word. You must realize that His word alone shows that the willingness of man is a necessity as in the verse above. There is the willingness of man for Salvation all through scripture. Some have said this is a works for Salvation idea and isn't true. If so then God lied to Solomon. Truthfully we can't be saved with out being of a willing mind. All I have to go by is God's word. His Word is the authority, not mine.

I apologise that I have not replied to every point you raised, and would just like to thank you once again for your courtesy.

You're quite welcome it was a pleasure communicating with you.
MB

 

[TCGreek]

1. Personally, I think Rev. 5:9 tells us what the word world was alll along: "And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (emphasis added).

2. This I propose is what happens when we compare Scripture with Scripture.

 

[Charles Meadows]

1. Personally, I think Rev. 5:9 tells us what the word world was alll along: "And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (emphasis added).

2. This I propose is a what happens when we compare Scripture with Scripture.

This is very reasonable. But like RB's argument I think yours is also conditioned by your systematic theology.

I see John 3:16 as paralleled by John 14:23 "If anyone loves Me he will obey my teaching. My father will love him and We will come to him and make out home with him."

That is to say I think both put forth a seemingly universal offer, without any implications of world meaning a group which was predestinated.

I don't claim my interpretation is better than yours. But I do think that your argument is more "systematic theology interpreting scripture" than "scripture interpreting scripture". I

:wavey:

 

[TCGreek]

This is very reasonable. But like RB's argument I think yours is also conditioned by your systematic theology.

I see John 3:16 as paralleled by John 14:23 "If anyone loves Me he will obey my teaching. My father will love him and We will come to him and make out home with him."

1. How can we avoid systematizing? It is the very nature of understanding Scripture. For example, you have just compared John 3:16 with 14:23 to arrive at a conclusion.

2. The real question is, What is the bottomline issue?

3. On one occasion, Jesus says that some didn't believe on him because they were not given to him by the Father, and all whom the Father has given Him will come and he will not cast out or lose none, but raise them up on the last day (John 6:35ff).

4. Something is going on with these verses. Whatever is going on must not be ignored.

5. Should we not compare what is said in John 3:16 with 6:35ff and following and therefore conclude that those who will believe are those given by the Father to the Son and therefore, that should influence our understanding of the word "world" in John's Gospel narrative.

I don't claim my interpretation is better than yours. But I do think that your argument is more "systematic theology interpreting scripture" than "scripture interpreting scripture". I

:wavey:

6. We're both involve in systematizing as I've just proven above.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But the way you write this seems to assume that there ia a normative code of "goodness" or "righteousness" that exists to which God must conform Himself.

My take would be that righteousness is only righteousness because it conforms to God.

It is Scripture that says God cannot lie? Why not? I say it is because He is Truth. Righteousness exists, or at least known by us, because God is righteousn. By what you say it creates an impression that righteousness would exist apart from God. I cannot concieve of such a notion.

 

[Charles Meadows]

It is Scripture that says God cannot lie? Why not? I say it is because He is Truth. Righteousness exists, or at least known by us, because God is righteousn. By what you say it creates an impression that righteousness would exist apart from God. I cannot concieve of such a notion.

To me the key is that righteousness is defined in terms of conformity to God. God is righteous because He is - not because He follows a "rule".

 

[Charles Meadows]

6. We're both involve in systematizing as I've just proven above.

I agree. We both bring our own bias. But I think it is important to recognize that a priori.

 

[TCGreek]

I agree. We both bring our own bias. But I think it is important to recognize that a priori.

Yes, a priori, but it was never always like that. We're both the product of two separate camps.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

To me the key is that righteousness is defined in terms of conformity to God. God is righteous because He is - not because He follows a "rule".

Then, I think, after all we are saying the same thing. Righteousness is defined according to God - He is righteous. Righteousness is made known to us by the Law and Person of Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

"The LORD is righteous in all His ways,Gracious in all His works." Psalm 145:17

 

[Charles Meadows]

Yes, a priori, but it was never always like that. We're both the product of two separate camps.

How do you know in which camp I sit? :smilewinkgrin:

Actually I was raised RC.

Upon returning from apostasy I was saved in a Baptist church. I subsequently became "reformed" in doctrine for several years before further tweaking my stance to yield my current position, which seems to defy classification.

I read volumes and volumes of reformed theology appreciate it still - although I appreciate some authors (Van Til, Curt Daniel, and Calvin himself) much more than others (Gill, Perkins, Zanchi)!

I actually still agree with all 5 points in a certain sense. But I have found too much dependence on systematization in most reformed theology. To me it seems that scripture is not allowed to always speak for itself. It is as if the 5 points are taken as a given with all scripture then interpreted according to the 5 point grid.

As I said I readily admit my bias and the opinionated nature of my stance.

I am not actually argumentative. But I feel the need to bring these issues up when those of a certain doctrinal position (not necessarily reformed) make seemingly authoritative, and ostensibly unbiased, statements backed with Hebrew or Greek words and lots of old quotes, as if these make the statements unassailable. I merely attempt to point out that most if not all of our arguments, no matter how erudite in presentation, are largely products of our predetremined beliefs.

I guess I think that by at least realizing the weaknesses of systematic theology (though not doubting its benefits) we can minimize its sometimes overdogmatizing effects.

 

[TCGreek]

How do you know in which camp I sit? :smilewinkgrin:

Actually I was raised RC.

Upon returning from apostasy I was saved in a Baptist church. I subsequently became "reformed" in doctrine for several years before further tweaking my stance to yield my current position, which seems to defy classification.

1. Eclectic, then. :thumbs:

I read volumes and volumes of reformed theology appreciate it still - although I appreciate some authors (Van Til, Curt Daniel, and Calvin himself) much more than others (Gill, Perkins, Zanchi)!

2. Good choices.

I actually still agree with all 5 points in a certain sense. But I have found too much dependence on systematization in most reformed theology. To me it seems that scripture is not allowed to always speak for itself. It is as if the 5 points are taken as a given with all scripture then interpreted according to the 5 point grid.

3. I am willing to live with certain tensions of Scripture, but not until I've explored all of the possibilities. I agree we should not force Scripture into the 5-point-grid.

As I said I readily admit my bias and the opinionated nature of my stance.

I am not actually argumentative. But I feel the need to bring these issues up when those of a certain doctrinal position (not necessarily reformed) make seemingly authoritative, and ostensibly unbiased, statements backed with Hebrew or Greek words and lots of old quotes, as if these make the statements unassailable. I merely attempt to point out that most if not all of our arguments, no matter how erudite in presentation, are largely products of our predetremined beliefs.

4. I agree that we can mishandle the biblical languages, but I do not believe we must dismiss them a priori.

I guess I think that by at least realizing the weaknesses of systematic theology (though not doubting its benefits) we can minimize its sometimes overdogmatizing effects.

5. Though I myself am a convinced five-point Calvinist, I seek to be biblical above all else and live with what I cannot resolve, after much reflections.

 

[Allan]

I have never advocated believers only. Perhaps Pink did, but I didn't. My use of Pink was to bring knowledge to use of the word Kosmos. So this issue, with me, is put to rest right? The only difference between us is that of the "whole world" meaning all nations that Jesus came to save, only the elect will be, for them only did Christ die in a substitionary fashion.

OK, just so I am clear with your usage.
1. World is NOT used regarding believers only but ONLY the non-believers
EXCEPT when speaking in a geographical sense - Roman world - which includes all there-in)
BUT when regarding non-believers the term world is used in the general sense regarding people of all types and nations.

Is that right thus far??

If so then the general form of 'world' (lexample- John 3:16) must take on a SPECIFIC meaning when the term 'whole' is added, meaning ALL OF something and in this case we are refering to the non-believers (wicked sinners).

Therefore Chirst being the propitiation for our sins and not our only but the sins of the WHOLE WORLD, establishes the 'whole' meaning ALL OF makes the term 'world' no longer general but inclusive of ALL OF the World (Sinners) which he became the propitiation for.

This is exact meaning of all the other times the phrase 'whole world' is used by John. John is thoughly consistant with his usage of the phrase so to gernalize it's meaning in one place alone (with no contexual reason to) when all the other times it is used is inclusive of ALL OF the Wicked and Sinful; strikes an odd note with me.

No matter how we would like it to read, this and many others speak specifically of Christ dieing for ALL mankind - or what is called the Gerenal Atonement. Though it is not speaking of Redemption which according to scripture IS Specific. As I have stated earlier.

My exact point, both Jew and Gentile He came to.

Where does scripture state Jesus came to the Gentiles??
Remember what Jesus said to the Apostles concerning the Gentile woman:

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Or the Mark Version:

Mar 7:25 For a [certain] woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
Mar 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not right to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.

The fulness of His work extends to and for both Jews and Gentiles but during His earthly ministry He came to and for the Jews.

I understand the reasoning here. And it is true, He came to His people (Israel) and they rejected Him. This resulted in the Gospel going to the Gentiles (which was God's plan from eternity) that their rejection would become the salvation of the Gentiles. I cannot even pretend to understand God's ways in this manner. All I know is that He planned it from eternity and elected a People to called HIs own People, Israel (for there is only one people Israel regarded by God, not two) of both Jew and Gentile. When I behold these things in Scripture I confess them, but do not fully comprehend them all. It leaves me with only praise. Which is the end to which the Apostle takes us.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Rom 11:33
Amen!! God and God alone be praised !!

Yes. That is Hebrews 2:9. Why should I not let verses 10-17 aid my understanding here?

But if you begin there you loose what it is speaking to. You should begin with verse 5 and notice through verse 9 He is speaking of ALL MANKIND thus in verse 9 it is only contexual to see that His dieing for EVERY MAN is consistant with what was spoke of before.

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. ELECTION!! (I couldn't help it)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Given what is written in Hebrews 2, I see no people in view other than the children God has given to Jesus.

ANd what of this do you assume I deny. The writter just stated Jesus died for EVERY Man not Every 'type' of Man nor some of Every Kind of Man but EVERY MAN. And in the very next verse he states "This was fitting for Him" The very God (all things part) in bringing many sons unto Glory. IOW - Christ death for all Mankind was necessary to bring Many into Glory. It is PART OF GODS PLAN. He determinded it, planned it, purposed it, because it pleased Him to do it this way. The rest speaks of those who ARE His through that work but not that the work was only for the few because verse 9 declares in context of the preceding passages speaking of All Mankind that He died for Every Man. Consistency is paramount with the context, and you will note that verse 10 shows a distinct seperation of the ALL or EVERY to Many who will be/are saved through His work and brought unto Glory. There is no doubt in my mind God forknew Himself a people through His Son and in eternity Past claimed them as His own but only 'in Time' did we fulfill His decree. Though we being His in the eternal sence and Yet His in the temporal, we were given to Christ that His perfect work would secure 'us' unto glory by faith, and establish the others unto condemnation by unbelief.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

OK, just so I am clear with your usage.
1. World is NOT used regarding believers only but ONLY the non-believers
EXCEPT when speaking in a geographical sense - Roman world - which includes all there-in)
BUT when regarding non-believers the term world is used in the general sense regarding people of all types and nations.

As far as I have read the use of the term in Scripture, perhaps I missed a few, I can’t think of the term being used in Scripture to refer to only believers. This doesn’t mean it COULDN’T be used that way, its just I can’t think of a verse where it does.

No matter how we would like it to read, this and many others speak specifically of Christ dieing for ALL mankind

Yes, not of Jews only but also of Gentiles. I can’t see how I have been unclear on this? Which is perfectly consistent with Christ's particular redemption.

The fulness of His work extends to and for both Jews and Gentiles but during His earthly ministry He came to and for the Jews.

I made the distinction but somehow it was missed in my post. Jesus’ earthly ministry was to the Jews, although He did minister to some degree to others. Romans, Samaritans, et. His Redemption was not for the Jewish nation only, but also for the whole world ( to use the term). Lol

Concerning the Hebrews passage:

ANd what of this do you assume I deny.

You are denying that the verses following verse 9 qualify and limit the scope of verse 9. In one breath the Holy Spirit tells us that Christ died for every single individual to save them, but then in another tells us that His sufferings are for bringing many SONS to glory? I think not.

The phrase “for every man” is translated from Greek “huper pas” NOT huper pas anthropos. Anthropos is the most common use of “man” in Greek from my limited understanding of the language. Keep in mind, I don’t even know if huper pas anthropos would be proper Greek! But the fact remains that the word “man” is non-existent in the original text. It is simply huper pas, or “for all” or “for everyone” or “for the whole”

So, it is for the whole of, everyone, and all of the many sons God is bringing to glory and for whom Christ tasted death.