Meaning of "Kosmos"

RB,

Are you STILL not seeing that men's theology is described in men's terms but God's theology is described plainly by God's word?

God is not the author of so much confusion, brother.

God told Jeremiah that Israel was worshipping other gods -- "queen of heaven," in fact -- and had "confusion of face." God said, "Will you inquire of Me? I will not be inquired of while you still have idols before you!" Ezek 20:31


TC's confession (or Sproul's) -- "I seek to be biblical above all else and live with what I cannot resolve, after much reflections." -- speaks volumes about his faith. Cannot resolve?? Why? And what, pray tell, is "hidden" from "the mind of Christ?" Is it not, rather, willful ignorance than that the Bible and the Spirit offer no answer?

skypair

 

Can I assume from what you have written, Skypair, that you believe you have perfect knowledge of God's Word, and that nothing within its pages remains "unresolved" for you?

 

Ok, you lost me here. Specifically what I highlighted:
If the term 'world' has only 3 distinct meanings with only variations of each but never contradicting them:
1. The Planet/Universe
2. Geographical location/system
3. All wicked and sinful man (unsaved)

Then HOW can the word which has an established meaning (specifically in relation to men - #3) be the exact opposite. That is no different than to say in the OT a believer means those saved and in the NT it means both saved and unsaved.

You would have this:
1. World also meaning beleivers would be no different than this; that we are called out of the world and into the world.
2. We are not OF the world but OF the World
3. Father, the world has not known you but the world knows you.
and so on and so forth.

I am using the first part of the actual scriptures regarding the use of the term world (meaning #3) and showing that the term world CAN NOT be used as having the exact opposite meaning. The only time you will see this type of usage is when the scriptures say one thing and theology disagrees with it. SO the definition must be changed so the scripture stays cohesive to one's theology. I mean this REGARDING ANY THEOLOGY across the board.

You can not change the established definition from one Testimant to the next unless you are doing it to fit something there that should not be.

That my friend is what I have been trying to show you. It is not that it is consistant with scripture but your theological view of Particular Redemption.

The portion you keep trying to make say 'Jew and Gentiles' is not some thing that is set forth in the scriptures but in a view of the historical sayings. Now if you can find where this is established in scripture, then fine. SHow me both it's OT usage/passage and NT usage/passage that it may be a confirmed definition.

However, as I stated before - Gentiles were known as the world because they were not God's chosen poeple but considered reprobate sinners who would not conform to and come under the Jewish (God's) religion and authority. A better way to put it is 'world' are all those not in a relationship with God both presently (though some will be just are not yet) and it can also be encompassing of time (past, present. future) but either of course are dependent on context.

Are you moving to universal Redemption (it was made for the whole world) :laugh: Just kidding.
I will state that You only have one problem with trying to allow 'world' to mean all types of all kinds as is one of the definitions of the term 'all'. It has no such scriptural definition. It must be 'redefined' in order to hold such view.

I have denied nothing. The verses preceding 9 speak of ALL mankind and thus it is proper exegesis to read 9 the phrase 'every man' in the context of the preceding verses, or am I wrong? His death for every man speaks specifically to what many reformed and Calinist believers both today and historically held to - General Atonement. Verse 10 distiinguishes between those whom He died for and those whom He brought unto Glory. Verse 10 simply says: it was fitting or proper for Him to do in order that Him might bring many sons unto Glory to make the author of their salvation perfect (or acceptable) through suffering.

I am simply affirming scripture not a theology.

Methinks you misread the scripture. It does not state He died to save every individual (as in redemption). It states He tasted death for every man, just as the Mosaic Law of Atonment was commanded.
Though you may not agree with it from a non-cal, why do you not give it's due when it was a definate view amoung Reformers and Calvinists along side the Specific view.

Actaully the Greek 'huper' means 'in behalf of' or 'for';
and 'pas' means 'all' (just as you noted). The translators taking their cue from the context of the passages included the word 'man' but that really doesn't change the context in anyway. Christ tasted death in behalf of all . As you stated it means “for all” or “for everyone” or “for the whole” . There is no doubt in the linguistics nor context my brother - Christ tasted death on behalf of the whole of Man. Ever you acknowledge the meaning being not all types or kinds because its usage is consistant with ALL, EVERY, The Whole. There is no other scriptural explination than this.

This makes no sense at all. It is "for all of the many??
Come on brother, seriously. That is not what scripture says.

First you must realize THIS passage is not about specific Redeption but the 'Qualified Saviour". In that "God saw fit for Christ to go through this to establish Him as the author of the salvation of many which He will bring to Glory. What He did is what God wanted to bring in the many children of God.

THAT is what the passage of verse 10 is about, and verse 9 simply declares He tasted death for ALL or Everyone

On A SIDE NOTE:
and just for fun (not argument):

Christ took on him 'the seed' of Abraham. desendant after the flesh :laugh:

Sorry, it was cute. I dont want hard feelings in going over this stuff to much. What say we pause and just enjoy our brotherhood in Christ who called us unto Himself and all others who will be His. - Amen?

 

It's "hyper pantos" in the GNT. One might also have said "hyper panton anthropon" if not intending to use "pas" as a substantive.

But once again the "linguistics" Allan refers to tell us nothing about the context. "pas" theoretically is more like "each one" whereas the "panton anthropon" might be construed as more inclusive. But these are semantic nit-picks. It could reasonably be translated either way. The key is the context of the passage.