Meaning of "Kosmos"

[Allan]

In a previous thread, which some are calling for close because its too long, I didn't want this to escape the notice of many here. In commenting concerning John 3:16 I made the following post regarding the meaning of the word "world" translated from the Greek Kosmos.

What I hear in your reply here is that "world" means world, meaning you, me, everyone. How could it possibly mean any other thing?

Well, that's the nature of words. Let me give an illustration. The Hebrew term for day is "yom" and can mean a period of time, long or short, a 24-hour period, the first half of the day, a section of time out of a period of time, or 1000 years.

If I say, "I am going to take one day at a time." What, by context, would be my meaning? You would think i am saying that I am going to worry about 1 24-hour period at a time. If I said, "Back in the day, I was a wild man." (which is true) You would naturally assume I am referring a period of time in my past.

The point is that the word is "neutral" and its scope must be determined by context, not by the word alone.

The word "kosmos' which is translated "world" falls into this category as well. It is not used uniformally throughout the New Testament. Being that it is used in a number of ways, we need to show its scope by context, if possible, or use other Scriptures that shed light on the scope, in our case, of Christ's redemption.

A.W. Pink outlined 7 different uses of the word kosmos in Scripture. They are as follows:



In learning what the scope of the use of the world may be for a particular passage Pink wisely suggests,



Now lest I be called a Pinkite :tongue3: , I am not in agreement with Pink on everything. While I believe Pink's reasoning is sound in applying the term "world" in John 3:16 to the world of believers, I am more inclinded at this point to believe what is meant here is not Jews only, but also Gentiles. I have several reasons, biblically, for thinking this, but I think this answers the reply that since John 3:16 and other passages use the term "world" (kosmos) it MUST mean you, me, and everyone. This is simply not the case.

RB

There are few that I know of who state 'world or Kosmos' means all humanity and nothing else. However, that said, a few of Pink's meanings for 'kosmos' are off the plain teaching of scripture but two are only a theological opinion. I will go through them but instead of 'Kosmos" I will just use the term world for others sake.

1. World is used of earth. - I agree
2. World is used the world system - It is arguable in the way he put it (Geographical area relating to a system is better- ie. Roman World) but I have no prob with it.
3. World is used of the whole human race - I disagree. It refers to all sinful wicken men.
4. World refers to humanity minus believers - I agree but this is merely #3 reworded.
5. World is used of Gentiles in contrast with the Jews. - I agree but again this is #3 restated.
6. Not once does scripture ever use world to mean believers. We get the defintions we use from the way it is consistantly used in the scriptures. Since the NT is based off of the OT, all words in the NT should be the same and have the same meanings as the OT. God will not change the meaning of a word from one testament to the other. The larger portion of scripture is given to the OT and defined meaning of world will have been utilized numerous times there that its meaning will be established as the NT writters set down under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit to write those things with consistancy in the NT already established in the OT.

World not once is ever used in the OT to refer to Gods people or believers therefore to use it as such would be inconsistant with scripture regarding its prediscribed definition. It IS used to descirbe the (1) World (as in earth itself), (2) Geographical specific (world system), and (3) all sinful wicked men.

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

The reason some scripture in Pinks view can not mean ALL sinful and wicked men isn't becaust this is contextual nor consistant, but the definition is changed to support a theological view. We (as believers) are called OUT OF the World, we are told not to be OF THE World, for the World will be Judged. It is inconsistant with the predefined OT definition already given, ESPECIALLY since much of the time when the world is used it is regarding prophesy from the OT or quote from the OT.

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.

Job 34:11 For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.
12 Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.
13 Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

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.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

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'.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:

Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty

.
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 abhorent as that might sound to your theological opinion it is in fact contextuall and consistantly scriptural.


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...

 

[MB]

So, are you just gonna spit at it, or attempt some sort of reasoned response? lol

Before I spit at it as you so eloguently put it. Why not read the scripture I posted. I believe everyone who reads Jn 3:16 understands the meaning of it. "World" and it's meaning in Jn 3:16 is understood by it adjective. The "whosoevers" are who is being spoken of.
Who are the whosoevers? they are those who come to believe through the work of the Holy Spirit.
MB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There are few that I know of who state 'world or Kosmos' means all humanity and nothing else. However, that said, a few of Pink's meanings for 'kosmos' are off the plain teaching of scripture but two are only a theological opinion. I will go through them but instead of 'Kosmos" I will just use the term world for others sake.

1. World is used of earth. - I agree
2. World is used the world system - It is arguable in the way he put it (Geographical area relating to a system is better- ie. Roman World) but I have no prob with it.
3. World is used of the whole human race - I disagree. It refers to all sinful wicken men.
4. World refers to humanity minus believers - I agree but this is merely #3 reworded.
5. World is used of Gentiles in contrast with the Jews. - I agree but again this is #3 restated.
6. Not once does scripture ever use world to mean believers. We get the defintions we use from the way it is consistantly used in the scriptures. Since the NT is based off of the OT, all words in the NT should be the same and have the same meanings as the OT. God will not change the meaning of a word from one testament to the other. The larger portion of scripture is given to the OT and defined meaning of world will have been utilized numerous times there that its meaning will be established as the NT writters set down under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit to write those things with consistancy in the NT already established in the OT.

World not once is ever used in the OT to refer to Gods people or believers therefore to use it as such would be inconsistant with scripture regarding its prediscribed definition. It IS used to descirbe the (1) World (as in earth itself), (2) Geographical specific (world system), and (3) all sinful wicked men.

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

The reason some scripture in Pinks view can not mean ALL sinful and wicked men isn't becaust this is contextual nor consistant, but the definition is changed to support a theological view. We (as believers) are called OUT OF the World, we are told not to be OF THE World, for the World will be Judged. It is inconsistant with the predefined OT definition already given, ESPECIALLY since much of the time when the world is used it is regarding prophesy from the OT or quote from the OT.

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 abhorent as that might sound to your theological opinion it is in fact contextuall and consistantly scriptural.


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...

While your reply is certainly deserving a response, it will require another lengthy one. I have time today, but not that much. I will respond at a later date and keep focused primarily on the DR thread. Thanks for the reply though. It's thought provoking. The "abhorent" rhetoric was a little overboard. I believe the Scriptures teach a particular redemption. If I believed that Christ's redemption and atonement was made for every single man in a salvific way, I would become a universalist.

 

[Allan]

While your reply is certainly deserving a response, it will require another lengthy one. I have time today, but not that much. I will respond at a later date and keep focused primarily on the DR thread. Thanks for the reply though. It's thought provoking. The "abhorent" rhetoric was a little overboard. I believe the Scriptures teach a particular redemption. If I believed that Christ's redemption and atonement was made for every single man in a salvific way, I would become a universalist.

The 'abhorent' peice is what I hear it called all the time (even by Spurgeon ) and not necessarily FROM you. I appologize for that.

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

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

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare, his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

It is by faith the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)


He is the propitation THROUGH Faith, not the propitiation that brings us TO faith.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The 'abhorent' peice is what I hear it called all the time (even by Spurgeon ) and not necessarily FROM you. I appologize for that.

I believe (as do most Non-Cals) the bible teaches Specific Redemption but that it also teaches Universal 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)


He is the propitation THROUGH Faith, not the propitiation that brings us TO faith.

Perhaps we should have some time in the near future to discuss our understanding or penal substition and what was accomplished in the death of Christ.

 

[skypair]

The irony is that Skypair often talks about "unity" and what-not. His idea of unity is belittling everyone into submission to Skypair's theology.

As RB and others have said, unity must be in the TRUTH. While "accompanying observations" may be distractors, they do communicate the utter incredibility of the poster's assertions.

Further evidence, if such were necessary, comes in the fact that the respondent reacts to the "distractor" and not to the issue. My usual "modus operandi" is to QUOTE the poster deleting their "special messages" to me (forgive them, they know not what they do) and go ahead and illustrate or reposit my point in hopefully more understandable terms.

I doubt if you know how many times RB has denigrated me, Andy. And it does appear that RB has given up on finding unity with any free willer unless it is by converting them to Calvinism. Whereas I have introduced some plausible ideas regarding belief vs. faith, soul vs. spirit, sovereignty of God over outcomes vs "total sovereignty," filling vs. indwelling Spirit, dispensational vs covenant theology, ... we just seem to go nowhere on account of Calvinism is literally "captive" to TULIP, it's bogus terminology, and its whole errant, outdated paradigm of man and God.

That doesn't mean that I quit -- RB is doing the quitting here. All in a huff about his "feathers" being "ruffled" -- no interest at this point in any issue other than his pride.

skypair

 

[skypair]

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

It might well be stated that Christ died for all so that ALL may be resurrected from death and hell. Some will be resurrected bodily to heaven (believers) and some bodily to the GWT (the lost). What allows them into the presence of God the 2nd time is that their sins are paid for -- it is their belief or unbelief that is judged.

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

Maybe these few words are not close dnought for your [attack on individual deleted-personal attacks can get you an all expense paid vacation from the Baptist Board, especially types of this nature]at one sitting so let me condense the verse some:

God so loved the world that ... WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH on Him should not perish but have everlasting life." There, does that bring out the meaning that ANY individual can have eternal life though the Son by BELIEVING??

skypair

Yes, any individual who believes in Jesus Christ not just can have, but has eternal life. I agree. In fact I have not yet seen anyone on the BB disagree. The disagreement comes when we get to the reason why some people believe and are saved, and others don't and are condemned, but that is another subject to the one of this thread, perhaps.

 

[HankD]

Had the Scripture said "they that believe on Him" rather than "whosoever" in John 3:16 then the OP premise that the "world" of John 3:16 means the "world" of believers might have credence. However it says "whosoever"

John 3

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.​

As in John 7:

John 7

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)​

Also in 1 John​

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.​

1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.​

HankD​

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Unless I am mistaken, this seems to be your premise from which you draw your conlusions and interpretations:

Since the NT is based off of the OT, all words in the NT should be the same and have the same meanings as the OT. God will not change the meaning of a word from one testament to the other. The larger portion of scripture is given to the OT and defined meaning of world will have been utilized numerous times there that its meaning will be established as the NT writters set down under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit to write those things with consistancy in the NT already established in the OT.

I want to understand you correctly here before I comment more fully. Are you saying that the OT interprets the NT? I see, and agree, that the same Spirit that inspired the writers of OT Scripture inspired the writers of the NT. And His truth does not change. But I want to understand how you interpret the NT.

Does the OT interpret the NT or does the NT interpret the OT. Or do you think this is not an either or, that they interpret each other?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Had the Scripture said "they that believe on Him" rather than "whosoever" in John 3:16 then the OP premise that the "world" of John 3:16 means the "world" of believers might have credence. However it says "whosoever"

John 3

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.​

As in John 7:

John 7

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)​

Also in 1 John​

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.​

1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.​

HankD​

This might have some merit if it actually was against what I proposed. It is Pink, not Reformed Baptist, that see John 3:16 of the world of believers. It seems an odd understanding of the passge to me, but not altogether impossible.

What seems more realistic to me is that this is teaching the God's love, His special love whereby He redeems His people, is not just for Jews. It is for the whole world (of men), all nations, all kinds of men, et. (and you see how we have limited the scope of kosmos to men)

This blessing of Redemption and salvation does not come to the unbeliever, for he/she is condemned aleady. But to the believer, to whosoever believes, not to whosoever does not believe. So I don't think Pink's understanding is a far stretch.

We know we are of God, the elect, and the whole world (of unbelievers) lie in wickeness.

1 John 2 is teaching the Advocacy and Redemption of Christ. 1 John 5 is distingushing between believers and unbelievers, sons of the devil and sons of God. Context is important my friend.

 

[HankD]

This might have some merit if it actually was against what I proposed. It is Pink, not Reformed Baptist, that see John 3:16 of the world of believers. It seems an odd understanding of the passge to me, but not altogether impossible.

What seems more realistic to me is that this is teaching the God's love, His special love whereby He redeems His people, is not just for Jews. It is for the whole world (of men), all nations, all kinds of men, et. (and you see how we have limited the scope of kosmos to men)

This blessing of Redemption and salvation does not come to the unbeliever, for he/she is condemned aleady. But to the believer, to whosoever believes, not to whosoever does not believe. So I don't think Pink's understanding is a far stretch.

We know we are of God, the elect, and the whole world (of unbelievers) lie in wickeness.

1 John 2 is teaching the Advocacy and Redemption of Christ. 1 John 5 is distingushing between believers and unbelievers, sons of the devil and sons of God. Context is important my friend.

True, context is very important but so is the style of the human author and in the context of the Book of both 1st John and the Revelation and the way John uses the phrase "the whole world". In addition John was not shy about identifying and using specific words in distinguishing between Jew and Gentile which he does not do here. It is my opinion therefore that John (inspired by the Spirit) meant "the whole world" as those who are of "the wicked one" (which is the usage of 1 John 5:19).

So Yes, in my understanding that therefore means that Christ propitiation was sufficient and even potentially effective for the satisfaction of the wrath of God for sin for "the whole world" that is, all of those who are of the wicked one and not just the elect.

As John the Baptist said:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.​

This would explain:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
​

So, even the wicked are His by right not only of creation but by right of purchase (as the Lord that bought them) to do with as He pleases, being His property.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Some are vessels of destruction headed for the lake of fire, others for eternity in His presence. But all are His and subject to His Sovereignty.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


Please don't feel that this is a personal thing RB or even a slam on Pink but a difference of opinion (or conviction). After all, this is a debate board.

You may be right brother, I may be wrong, though I agree that Pink's view seems an odd understanding of John 3:16.

HankD​

 

[ReformedBaptist]

True, context is very important but so is the style of the human author and in the context of the Book of both 1st John and the Revelation and the way John uses the phrase "the whole world". In addition John was not shy about identifying and using specific words in distinguishing between Jew and Gentile which he does not do here. It is my opinion therefore that John (inspired by the Spirit) meant "the whole world" as those who are of "the wicked one" (which is the usage of 1 John 5:19).

So Yes, in my understanding that therefore means that Christ propitiation was sufficient and even potentially effective for the satisfaction of the wrath of God for sin for "the whole world" that is, all of those who are of the wicked one and not just the elect.

As John the Baptist said:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.​

This would explain:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
​

So, even the wicked are His by right not only of creation but by right of purchase (as the Lord that bought them) to do with as He pleases, being His property.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Some are vessels of destruction headed for the lake of fire, others for eternity in His presence. But all are His and subject to His Sovereignty.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


Please don't feel that this is a personal thing RB or even a slam on Pink but a difference of opinion (or conviction). After all, this is a debate board.

You may be right brother, I may be wrong, though I agree that Pink's view seems an odd understanding of John 3:16.

HankD​

No offence at all brother. The only offenses given is when certain ones attack the character of another, which some have done on these boards, but which the majority of the Evangelical Arminians here do not. Not to call you an Evangelical Arminian...

I may be different than the way some think on this board in that I regard men like Pink, Wesley, Gill, et. far more educated in matters of theology, language, et. And do take advantage of their skills often. It doesn't mean that I don't pray, study the Scriptures, et. for myself. I just don't consider myself so taught above others by the Holy Spirit that I have nothing to learn from men whom God has used mightily, and whom we have seen their end. There is benefit in studying "dead" men in that we see the end, that they were faithful unto death.

I think its the general consensus of Calvinists that there is indeed a sense in which Christ died for all, but not redemptively. This is what your saying, but allowing that it could even be effective, of efficacious. Personally, I am certain that Christ's atonement was efficacious for whom it was given and 100% effective.

I cannot fathom the blood of Christ not accomplishing that for which it was shed, and that is a full satisfaction. It is not on this reasoning alone that I reject a universal redemption, but it is part of it. Both the Evangelical Arminain and the Calvnist "limit" the atonement. One limits the scope, the calvinist, and the other limits the efficacy, Christ made salvation possible. But this would turn into a very lenghty convo.

I have dealt with some of the other Scriptures you have mentioned here about unbelievers who apparantly will be damned being bought.

This verse is often sited because anyone reading it will ask (or conclude) isn't this verse teaching us that Christ died for these destined for destruction, and therefore included in the redemption of Christ? Then the atonement must be general. This was a verse I had to understand, without twisting it, before I was willing to accept a particular redemption.

One question helped me: Is there anywhere in Scripture where God bought anyone in a non-salvific sense? The answer is yes and is worth being a part of our determining the meaning of this verse.

Deut 32:5-6
"They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?"

As you have mention, God's Sovereignty over mankind as creator and maker means he owns them. Ex 15:16 is another example.

The word bought here is "agorazo" in Greek and means to purchase or buy, and does not have to have reference to redemption. It may, but it doesn't have to. The term for Lord in this passage means master, and doesn't have to refer specifically to Christ as Lord, but could mean the Father.

Since I am convinced that Peter knew Deut 32, I think he is making reference to it. Basically, Peter is likening, as it says, rebellious Jews to present false teachers who had denied God to whom they rightfully belonged.

It is also noteworthy that the word Lord, depotes in Greek, is never used to refer to Christ's mediation, but of His Sovereign Lordship.

This understanding, coupled with the numerous verses that do speak of Christ's mediation being for His people, church, believers, et. I am not convinced that this verse, even in its context, can necessarily be taken to mean the Christ redeemed men who will be damned.

 

[HankD]

For the most part RB we agree, that is why I used the phrase "potentially effective" concerning the redemption (but not the propitiating).

In my view, God's wrath for the sin of the entire cosmos is completely satisfied (propitiated) by the shed blood of Christ.

But because the atonement benefit of eternal life is only dispensed by grace through faith in that shed blood to the human race does not in my mind violate the economy of heaven.

Some perhaps see a "general" atonement as being illogical and retort that if Christ died for all men then all men will be saved (which perhaps in the council of heaven was an option) which seems to make good sense.

However, He makes the rules whether logical to us or not and whether we put our stamp of approval on them or not (which of course includes my own way of thinking).

Isaiah 55

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.​

So, we each find the best way of knowing the unknowable (at least on this side of heaven) without purposely "twisting" the Scripture.​

Peace and blessing to you RB.​

HankD​

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Reformed Theologians restrict the interpretation of words to best fit their doctrine and I feel that the attitude among our Reformed brethren is that we must consult with them to get the proper meaning of "world", "all", etc.

This cannot better represent the mentality and mechanics of Reformed Theology and its proponents.

Neverminding its spiritual misdirection and the dreadful consequences of its wrong understanding and application of the Scriptures, Reformed Theology along with its very present companion, "Calvinism" is intellectually malignant. They force one to be dishonest with the most plain and obvious simplicities of Scripture and of course result in convoluted theological constructs that are guarded with verbal games of rerouting and reinventing.

Ultimately they are reduced to parroting perceived theological superiors (quoting in mass their works), providing borderline parodies (often quite ridiculous) of honest theological discussions on issues such as 1 John 2:2, and too often succumbing to the silly but inevitable attraction to "self-righteousism"(that being the end of those who always believe they are the "most" enlightened).

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This cannot better represent the mentality and mechanics of Reformed Theology and its proponents.

Neverminding its spiritual misdirection and the dreadful consequences of its wrong understanding and application of the Scriptures, Reformed Theology along with its very present companion, "Calvinism" is intellectually malignant. They force one to be dishonest with the most plain and obvious simplicities of Scripture and of course result in convoluted theological constructs that are guarded with verbal games of rerouting and reinventing.

Ultimately they are reduced to parroting perceived theological superiors (quoting in mass their works), providing borderline parodies (often quite ridiculous) of honest theological discussions on issues such as 1 John 2:2, and too often succumbing to the silly but inevitable attraction to "self-righteousism"(that being the end of those who always believe they are the "most" enlightened).

Since you have saw fit to lay a few calumnous attacks upon that which is called Calvinism, seeking to paint in the such light as good an honest men would abhor to accept, perhaps you would also do us the service of actually providing some proof and evidence of your slanders. If Reformed Theology be the proper subject of such horrid charactaures.

Furthermore, provide evidence that those who have believed the doctines of grace are mere mindless parots who pervert the simplicity of the Scriptures, and are not rather diligent workmen in the Word of God.

If you have nothing but venom to offer, I conclude that this is a mere diatribe without substance or ground, and a display of anti-intellectualism as if the sons of God should be simpletons rather wise.

If my brother has been given more light into the Scriptures than I why should I be offended if he shares it with me? Does not the wicked and unbelieving world make the same charge against you who say that Jesus is the only way, truth and life? Do you not teach the world that they are in error and in darkness but you are in the light? And does this not offend them greatly?

Rather, let us be humble, in whatever theology we hold to in our knowledge of Jesus Christ and not think too highly of ourselves. True it may be that there exists elitism on both sides of any controversy, one seeing themselves as superior to the other. And I trust God will humble them in due time.

But if I say I understand the way of God more perfectly than you, and seek to help you understand it, then am judged a self-rightous nave, would you not also be condeming Aquilla and Priscilla who explained the way of God more perfectly to Apollos who was mighty in the Scriptures, but knowing only the baptism of John?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Furthermore, provide evidence that those who have believed the doctines of grace are mere mindless parots who pervert the simplicity of the Scriptures, and are not rather diligent workmen in the Word of God.

I never said mindless, you did. But if your conscience isn't bothered with misrepresentations, well you are far past my help.

If you have nothing but venom to offer, I conclude that this is a mere diatribe without substance or ground, and a display of anti-intellectualism as if the sons of God should be simpletons rather wise.

Let's see how this nasty attack on me compares to your next post.

Rather, let us be humble,

I see, the part above must be the "let us be humble" you are talking about. :laugh:

Get back to the topic. If you are unable to respond to people's opinions unless they are pleasant to you or echo your own then if not you can only have a tirade, then please respond only to those that make you happy and don't bring out ugly. I wasn't even responding to you but to someone else. But in the end, stay on topic and save the tridade. Thank you.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I never said mindless, you did. But if your conscience isn't bothered with misrepresentations, well you are far past my help.


Let's see how this nasty attack on me compares to your next post.

I see, the part above must be the "let us be humble" you are talking about. :laugh:

Get back to the topic. I wasn't even responding to you but to someone else. But in the end, stay on topic and save the diatribe. Thank you.

One would love to see how you can have someone parroting another and it not be mindless. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

I would love to be on topic, and your gross characterization of Reformed Theology, and by association, those of us called Reformed, is nothing more than a diatribe. I asked for evidence for the things you are asserting and as of yet you have provided none.

I have made no attack on your person or character, but the quality and nature of your argument. You have set negative characterizations of the doctrines of grace and those who hold to them, calling us parrots of theologians.

If those things be true, I expect you to provide some evidence for them. My reply to was not a diatribe, but a rebuke.

I am editing to show the plain meaning that your post attacked the character of men, rather than a theology alone:

Ultimately they are reduced to parroting perceived theological superiors (quoting in mass their works),

The "they" here must calvinists and are likened to parrots. Parrots do not think for themselves but only repeat what they hear. Hence, mindless.

providing borderline parodies (often quite ridiculous) of honest theological discussions on issues such as 1 John 2:2,

Here calvinists are over-generalized with the accusation they cannot, do not, have honest theological discussions, so now calvinists are dishonest people.

and too often succumbing to the silly but inevitable attraction to "self-righteousism"(that being the end of those who always believe they are the "most" enlightened).

Here calvinists are protrayed as weak and called self-righteous, arrogant, prideful.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

One would love to see how you can have someone parroting another and it not be mindless. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

I would love to be on topic, and your gross characterization of Reformed Theology, and by association, those of us called Reformed, is nothing more than a diatribe. I asked for evidence for the things you are asserting and as of yet you have provided none.

I have made no attack on your person or character, but the quality and nature of your argument. You have set negative characterizations of the doctrines of grace and those who hold to them, calling us parrots of theologians.

If those things be true, I expect you to provide some evidence for them. My reply to was not a diatribe, but a rebuke.

I am editing to show the plain meaning that your post attacked the character of men, rather than a theology alone:



The "they" here must calvinists and are likened to parrots. Parrots do not think for themselves but only repeat what they hear. Hence, mindless.



Here calvinists are over-generalized with the accusation they cannot, do not, have honest theological discussions, so now calvinists are dishonest people.



Here calvinists are protrayed as weak and called self-righteous, arrogant, prideful.

They doesn't mean all (and I know you are familiar with that line of debate) so if the shoe doesn't fit you personally, quit sweating it and let's talk about the issue. The posturing isn't necessary and only serves as a distraction.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

They doesn't mean all (and I know you are familiar with that line of debate) so if the shoe doesn't fit you personally, quit sweating it and let's talk about the issue. The posturing isn't necessary and only serves as a distraction.

I am glad to discuss the issues, but your post didn't address them. All I saw was another person attacking calvnism and calvinists which I see gains no one an advantage on one side of the issue or the other.

The topic of this thread is the meaning and use of the word Kosmos in Scripture, of which I saw no response in your posts. Perhaps I missed it. So, when you reply to the topic, instead of merely attacking calvinism and calvinists, I will reply, God willing.