Meaning of "Kosmos"

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.

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?

 

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).

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Hi David,

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 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
​

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"

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.

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

 

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.

 

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:

 

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.

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

 

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".

 

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.

 

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.

 

1. Eclectic, then. :thumbs:

2. Good choices.

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.

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

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.

 

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.

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

Or the Mark Version:

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.