Meaning of "Kosmos"

[HankD]

So your view of it remains to be that the term world, in this passage and others, despite of what I have shared, means every single person who ever lived and ever will live. Can you provide evidence of that, especially biblical evidence that contradicts the conclusions I have drawn from Scripture and/or history

Dear RB the context following John 3:16 proves IMO that this is exactly what "kosmos" means every person who has lived or will live

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.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

In the cosmos of the context in successor verses to 3:16 there are two kinds on persons in this kosmos, those who love the light and those who don't.​

Again as I mentioned before, it is not John's style to use "cosmos" as the "world" of believers but all of humanity.​

Another passage:​

John 1
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.​

Here John indeed contrasts Israel not as different than the world but as the same in their rejection of Him and IMO is including them in the "cosmos" which as periviously shown in John 3 that it is comprised of two kinds of people, those who love the darkness and those who love the light (presumably the elect who are predisposed to this light). To say that John 3 use of the word world is not all inclusive but singling out the world of believers (or elect) makes the entire passage a confusion.​

then we also have passages such as Paul gives to a mix of skeptical unbelieving gentiles and those who did hear him:

Acts 17
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.​

Here we see Paul preaching that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent claiming that God will judge the world (presumably all who lived and ever will live - granted this is the word "oikomene" and not "kosmos") and has given ALL (same presumption) assurance in that He raised Him (Jesus) from the dead. This being the essential reason why all men everywhere should repent seemingly making God Himself a supporter of a general atonement.​

HankD​

 

[TCGreek]

Well friend, given that the Scriptures were not given in English, but Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I find Word studies to be essential. As for old commentaries, I suppose some could be guesswork, but most are extraordinary scholarship. And I have found NONE to parallel Dr. Gill. Not yet anyway. And I don't think there is any reason to cause us to shy away from knowledge.

1. Older books should be our friends not foes.

So your view of it remains to be that the term world, in this passage and others, despite of what I have shared, means every single person who ever lived and ever will live. Can you provide evidence of that, especially biblical evidence that contradicts the conclusions I have drawn from Scripture and/or history?

2. I've always thought that the "kosmos" meant every one who has ever lived or will ever live, but the context of Scripture would overpower me.

Also, one's own theology may be suited better by the "world" being inclusive of every single person who ever lived and ever will live, namely the theology of universal redemption.

3. It is like the man who is says he is objective in all things.

I don't want the Scriptures to suit my doctrine. I want it to dictate it.

4. Reminiscient of the great Reformer.

 

[TCGreek]

I still take the minimalist stance which says that the conext determines the sense. As such arguments based on word studies, old commentaries etc are just guesswork.

1. And how do you use the context to determine sense? How do you determine the meaning of words? How do you get into the Jewish and Hellenistic minds?

This passage seems to be about Jesus being a light coming into a dark world so to speak. I see no implied reason to consider the world as something else than the world - unless one's own theology would be better suited by the "world" not being an inclusive term.

2. While you appear to be refuting one position, you are neither affirm another suitable position, except to engage in circular reasoning.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

I concur with your thoughts and have some of my own to add.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

While many words in the Bible and every other document in the world have many contextual uses, it is not the use in OTHER contexts that determines the use in a specific context but the use in that SPECIFIC context determines it use. And here the contextual use is clearly, even to the most elementary observer, referencing all of mankind.

An example of this can be seen with the word "cool" in our language. No matter how many times cool is used to describe something of low temperature it doesn't determine or have weight in deciding its meaning when used in the context of describing something hip or popular such as "she is cool".

And here, unfortunately, is what is being attempted. Instead of dealing with the self-evident context and accepting it, it is assaulted with a long list of other uses in other places as a way of not having to admit to its natural and contextual use.

Anyone can pick just about any word and find a place where it is used once, twice or many times in one or more alternate fashions and contexts. So what? All that establishes is that it can be legitmately used that way...IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT and here...where "God so loved the world" the context clearly all of mankind.

The only way around this of course is constructing an argument pointing away from the immediate and obvious context to other uses elsewhere. That doesn't work of course in reality but for the person who is unable to come to grips with the fault in the structure of their theological system it is devastating. Often too devastating to accept and make the necessary corrections.

It can't be all of mankind individually, because the Bible lists exceptions.

"For God so loved the world, (except: Esau Mal 1:3, Rom 9:13, the wicked Psa 5:5, the covetous Psa 10:3, etc.) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


BGTF

 

[Allan]

May the Lord have mercy on you, cause His face to shine upon you, and give you His peace on this great and glorious Lord's Day. :godisgood:

RB, I'm sorry for the way you have been treated by such a one who disagree's with his brother in Christ. Arrogance rapped in ignorance is still nothing more than billigerance.

Since it was a diatride coming from a non-cal view, who came on the scene in an obscene manner, I am compelled to appologize. NOT for him, but those who stand aolng the lines of his theological view. Nothing warrents such unchristlikeness but your responce is worthy of the name you and I hold so dear. God be praised.

 

[joycebuckner]

Alex, I am not a Calvinist, but I must say that your attach on Reformed because he was not going to argue is repulsive. There is a difference in debate and arguing. I am a southern baptist and have been almost all of my life.
I do not know what type church you attend but Brother you need to seek out the meaning of discussion.
See if you can find what the bible says to do about a one that wants to argue scripture. And sir, you were acting anything but as a Christian. Reformed, I praise God for such a one as yourself that is willing to explain your point and ALLOW the Holy Spirit to do any father work.
I know that I do not come in here often and it is not nice to come into this...
God's blessings shine on you all

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB, I'm sorry for the way you have been treated by such a one who disagree's with his brother in Christ. Arrogance rapped in ignorance is still nothing more than billigerance.

Since it was a diatride coming from a non-cal view, who came on the scene in an obscene manner, I am compelled to appologize. NOT for him, but those who stand aolng the lines of his theological view. Nothing warrents such unchristlikeness but your responce is worthy of the name you and I hold so dear. God be praised.

Thanks allen. Your words are comforting. And HankD has provided a well-thought out position, grounding it in the Word of God, which we all love and hold dear, and as the true ground of our faith. I will take some time to think through the Scriptures he has provided and his reasoning.

God be praised indeed.

 

[Allan]

Alex, I am not a Calvinist, but I must say that your attach on Reformed because he was not going to argue is repulsive. There is a difference in debate and arguing. I am a southern baptist and have been almost all of my life.
I do not know what type church you attend but Brother you need to seek out the meaning of discussion.
See if you can find what the bible says to do about a one that wants to argue scripture. And sir, you were acting anything but as a Christian. Reformed, I praise God for such a one as yourself that is willing to explain your point and ALLOW the Holy Spirit to do any father work.
I know that I do not come in here often and it is not nice to come into this...
God's blessings shine on you all

And that's from my mom :thumbs: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Allan]

Thanks allen. Your words are comforting. And HankD has provided a well-thought out position, grounding it in the Word of God, which we all love and hold dear, and as the true ground of our faith. I will take some time to think through the Scriptures he has provided and his reasoning.

God be praised indeed.

That is all either side would hope to hear, agreed?

I am glad HandD has been able to discuss at more length than I have been able (Thanks Hank). But I would also like to take you back to ponder an earlier post of mine (more specifically the later portion dealing with John and his consistancy of the term "whole world" as he used it).
It can be found back on Post #21 but below is mostly the post but shortened.

Editted In --->>>
Also since John uses the term 'world' more than most of the writers it allows us to get a more firm grasp as to the intent of it's usage (albeit through context maintianed by consistent defintion and usage).

As I stated before "world" has three core or root form:
World:
1. Universe or the planet itself
2. Geographical system regarding an area (ie. Roman world)
3. All sinful man
...a. all mankind without Christ throughout the ages (example #1)
...b. all sinful mankind apart from the Gods people. (Example #2)

Each has variations but never devating from their core or root principle.

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

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 unCalvinistic as that might sound to your Current theological position it is (IMO) more contextual and consistant regarding scriptura. And in fact many Calvinists believe it (4 pointers)

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...

That said:
I believe (as do most Non-Cals) the bible teaches Specific Redemption but that it also teaches General 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)
Therefore not every man is redeemed but for every man Atonement has been made.

The propitation (according to scripture) is 'applied' THROUGH or by Faith. It fully accomplised it's intent by satisifing God but that satification in not applied to ANY man until the first believe. For as says the scriptures: He is the propitaition of ours sins but not ours only but the sins of the whole world.
However, propitiation is not that the ARE propitiated for because usless (as stated above) they believe they no part in it - so it would be considered a more accurate view in OUR understanding to say it is 'potentially effect' (as Hand has stated) but from Gods stand point something done on behalf of all though not to be applied to All.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Hank,

I have to admit that is one of the better defenses of a general atonement I have read. I know that in my OP I made mention of Pink and his view of John 3:16. I thought interpreting the text as to the world of believers was odd, but not impossible. When I read the text, I saw it as a statement that Christ was given not to Jews only, but also to Gentiles.

Why? Because I am taking into account also the audience. Nicodemus was a Rabbi. A Jew. And one of the greatest mysteries Scripture tells us was hidden from the Jews was that the Gentiles would be grafted into Israel. I can't get away from the force of this because of what the Apostle Paul declares of it in his epistles. For Jesus to say to Rabbi that God so loved the world, this Jew would endoubtably be astonished. Perhaps his mind thought of some prophetic Scriptures that the Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles.

"I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles" Isa 42:6

and,

"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." Isa 49:6

We see this teaching and unveiling in the epistles, and the great controversy in Acts over it. The Church of God was astonished that the Gentiles had received salvation "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 10:15

And, as we all know, after it was explained to them they believed "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:18

So, I suppose I can say the passage is universal in a sense, but not a redemptive one. It is universal in the sense that no family of the earth is exluded. But the redemption of Christ, and eternal life in Him, and His sacrifice for the redemption is for His people whom He foreknew. The Jews thought it was just for them. But it was indeed for the whole world. The glorious promise we find in John 3:16 and subsequent verses cannot be understood (by either side here) to be for anyone except those who believe. The whosoever isn't broadly defined here as just anyone no matter what. It is defined as whosoever BELIEVES may have eternal life, not whosover believes not. And on that we are both agreed.

So you can see, I am not concluding as Pink that John is singling out the world of believers. I don't think that is the real force of this passage. I think this is the revelation of God to this Rabbi (and us) that God did not send His Son into the world only for Jews. God so loved (His special and particular love which the Jews knew well) the whole world, and has granted them (by election) repentance unto life.

Concerning John 1:9 I will make a few comments. However other Reformed persons have attemtped to explain this verse as it concerns a particular or general atonement, I can't imagine any reasonable explaination than its plainest meaning. Christ is the light, and it teaches us that He lights, or enlightens every man that comes into to the world. However they may try to intrepret it, every man is qualified by "that comes into the world." And I can't imagine an understanding where this phrase will not include each and every person who has lived or ever will live in this world.

With that being agreed upon, what we have not discussed in the nature of the light by which every single person is enlightened. I think we both would be hard pressed to suggest that the light spoken of here is knowledge unto salvation. One only must begin with God choosing Israel as a nation and leaving the others separated and in darkness. Also it is plain that not everyone under the adminstration of the Gospel has possesed this knowledge in their lifetimes.

I think the reasonable conclusion is that this is that knoweldge spoken of by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 so that all are without excuse. These were made by Christ but knew Him not. And as you pointed out, He came to His own, Israel, and they did not recieve Him.

I think this can be strengthed by v. 5 of chapter 1 "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

This light is explained by verse 4 "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." And what is the life but eternal life? Unregenerate men may see Christ yet not comprehend eternal life.

Now keeping with John 1 and finishing the thought, we know that Christ came into the world and the world did not know Him. He came to His own speical nation, and they would not recieve Him. But was He believed on in the world? Yes, of course. How and why?

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." v. 12-13

There were those who received Him. And those who did, He gave the power to become the sons of God. How? By being born agan by the will of God. It was the will of God the Father that a people would be given to the Son and that the Son of God would redeem them. And that the Holy Spirit in the appointed time would call. "Of his own will he begat us..." James 1:18

And what does Jesus begin His conversation with Nicodemus but that he must be born again. The convo progresses in the teaching on salvation being not only for Jews but the whole world, and the Lord gives the example of Moses lifting the serpent up and likening it to His being crucified. "That whosover believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

I think that this is the ground in which some have said Christ's death is sufficient for all, but effective in the elect (believers) only. It is sufficient for all who will repent and believe. Even 10,000 worlds could the power and efficacy of Christ's atonement save. But it is efficacous for the elect alone.

What God did through Moses with the serpant was sufficient for all, but only saved those who turned and looked trusting in the word of God and were saved. And who are they that will turn and look to Christ, trusting in the Word of God and be saved? Are they not the one's who do receive Him, to whom He gives the power to become the sons of God, which are born of the will of God? Yes indeed.

Concerning the Acts passage I would only comment that God has every right to command every man to repent, even as He has every right to prescribe moral law upon the human race. It is not necessary for God to ensure that every single man every hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they have not. Many have died never knowing the name of Jesus. And it is not necessary they do in order to be condemned. Jesus tells us they are condemned already. It is sufficient that the be sinners, and on account of their sin, whether by knowledge of the Law of God, or by the law of the conscience, but justly guilty before an almight God. The call is indeed universal, but the redemption particular. For even those who hear the Gospel call do not always obey it. And what makes them to differ from you but the grace of God?

May the Lord Jesus Christ richly bless you my brother,

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That is all either side would hope to hear, agreed?

I am glad HandD has been able to discuss at more length than I have been able (Thanks Hank). But I would also like to take you back to ponder an earlier post of mine (more specifically the later portion dealing with John and his consistancy of the term "whole world" as he used it).
It can be found back on Post #21 but below is mostly the post but shortened.

Editted In --->>>
Also since John uses the term 'world' more than most of the writers it allows us to get a more firm grasp as to the intent of it's usage (albeit through context maintianed by consistent defintion and usage).

As I stated before "world" has three core or root form:
World:
1. Universe or the planet itself
2. Geographical system regarding an area (ie. Roman world)
3. All sinful man
...a. all mankind without Christ throughout the ages (example #1)
...b. all sinful mankind apart from the Gods people. (Example #2)

Each has variations but never devating from their core or root principle.

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

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 unCalvinistic as that might sound to your Current theological position it is in fact contextuall and consistantly scriptural. And in fact many Calvinists believe it (4 pointers)

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...

That said:
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)
Therefore not every man is redeemed but for every man Atonement has been made.

The propitation (according to scripture) is 'applied' THROUGH or by Faith. It fully accomplised it's intent by satisifing God but that satification in not applied to ANY man until the first believe. For as says the scriptures: He is the propitaition of ours sins but not ours only but the sins of the whole world.

Thanks for the reminder. I had not forgotten the post, and made a reply to it here in post #57. Check it out.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Alex, I am not a Calvinist, but I must say that your attach on Reformed because he was not going to argue is repulsive. There is a difference in debate and arguing. I am a southern baptist and have been almost all of my life.
I do not know what type church you attend but Brother you need to seek out the meaning of discussion.
See if you can find what the bible says to do about a one that wants to argue scripture. And sir, you were acting anything but as a Christian. Reformed, I praise God for such a one as yourself that is willing to explain your point and ALLOW the Holy Spirit to do any father work.
I know that I do not come in here often and it is not nice to come into this...
God's blessings shine on you all

Joyce,

Thanks for yoru kidn words. May the Lord bless you as well, as indeed I see He has given you one of the greatest blessing a mother or father could recieve, and that is a son who walks in the truth. Glory to God! All the great men of God of old that I admire all had great godly mothers. My wife and I have been blessed with 5 children (our 5th, a little girl, Elizabeth Joy will be her name, God willing) is due December 31st. They are still little, being 9,7,4, and 2. Just the other day my oldest son asked me when he could be baptized. He asked because I told him that to be saved he must believe and be baptized (using the apostle words) but explaining it. I asked him if he believed on Jesus with all his heart, and he said yes...(thinking of the Etheopian). But I told him he should ask the pastor the same question. The pastor asked him if he knew what is meant to be saved. And he said, "No, I am just a kid." lol kinda funny, but as a parent you know our heart's cry to see the salvation of our children. My heart yearns more and more to see their salvation and it be genuine and true.

What a great blessing that your son is in Christ Jesus.

 

[Allan]

One last thing for clarification:
Christ had to fulfil ALL of the Law, and that included His death regarding the Atonement.

Now:
When God commanded the sacrifice of Atonement be done for all or the whole of Israel, did God mean only some of Israel?

No, because it was done on behalf of the entire Nation.

Now:
Was all in the Nation saved because they were all Atoned for (even those is defient rebellion, homosexual, adulters, or just plain disbelievers of and in the Nation)?

No. Yet the Atonement was made for them all but was specific only to those of faith, who by faith had the propitiation applied to them. Though some were saved by God grace in giving it, others were condemned by it because they could be saved but would not.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

One last thing for clarification:
Christ had to fulfil ALL of the Law, and that included His death regarding the Atonement.

Now:
When God commanded the sacrifice of Atonement be done for all or the whole of Israel, did God mean only some of Israel?

No, because it was done on behalf of the entire Nation.

Now:
Was all in the Nation saved because they were all Atoned for (even those is defient rebellion, homosexual, adulters, or just plain disbelievers of and in the Nation)?

No. Yet the Atonement was made for them all but was specific only to those of faith, who by faith had the propitiation applied to them. Though some were saved by God grace in giving it, others were condemned by it because they could be saved but would not.

Good thought. Since all the sacrifices under the Mosaic Covenant foreshadowed Christ this should, and must, be considered. I will reply, but want to take some time with this as I have not sufficiently considered it all, or think myself so wise that I understand it. I think I will spend some time in Hebrews as a starting place because it seems a very fit commentary on this particular matter.

 

[Allan]

It has been asserted that when the phrase is use, whole world, it must mean every single person who has lived or shall live, the word world being qualified by the word "whole" making it of necessity every single person who live and ever lived.

This is not what I have stated. The phrase or term 'Whole Word' is used to to reflect the scope of the writters intent in accordence with it's scripturally predefined defintion of and to the word to which it is related - world. In the case of John he does not use the term in such a way as to question how it is used but gives a flat and consistant defintion of it. - The Whole World lies in wickedness, the Whole World follows after Satan (that is a paraphrase). He does not speak and define it one and then turn around and use it again in an exact opposite meaning.

This can be disproved on two fronts, one historical and one Divine. First, the historical.

1. That the phrase whole world was not always understood as of every single person by Hebrews is evidenced by the writiings of the Hebrews. Dr. John Gill brings this point to bear:

Yes, it is good to see how a phrase was used historically so as to get a handle on many of the phrasologies. However, Gill only shows a generality regarding the secular view of the phrase whole world - meaning it looks like everyone is following such and such. This is true and have no dispute over it. But this is not applicable to scripture since it IS specific and predefined FROM scripture hundreds and thousands of years before the NT writers set down with their pens.

The divine use. The phrase is often used in Scripture in a limited sense.

1. And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2:1

This one doesn't even have the phrase 'Whole World' in it?
'All' can mean all of a thing or all can mean all of a part of the whole. This come back to the word 'world' having three root meanings, and one is a geographical area regarding a system (ie Roman Empire).
But again, the phrase is not even used here, so the example is moot.

2. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. Romans 1:8

This cannot be designed for every living person but of all the churches of God.

Now THIS ONE he has an arguememt with
However, I completely disagree with his assuption that 'whole world' means all of the believers. One can assume such but the defintion of world has never included God's people. The OT already established the definintions of the term 'world'. Since the NT writers understood the terminologies of the OT, we must can contend consistancy of those predefined terms from the OT into the NT. Can you think of one word that was one way in the OT, and God changed it to mean the exact opposite in the NT?

However, Rome was the Capital of the of the known world, and since Paul frequent visits paid to the capital as well as to and from all the provinces;he could see and hear from the people around the influence they would exercise upon others, as well as their own blessedness. He was speaking of the all the people (believers and non-believers alike) in the Roman world knew about THEIR faith.
Oh that this could be said of us and our church!!

3. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Rev 12:9

The saints and elect of God cannot be included in this because they are not decieved by the wicked one nor can he harm them. For, "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." 1 John 5:18

This is my point (and he is right here), 'Whole world' and the term 'world' CAN NOT mean believers ever.
We are called out of the World, we are to be seperate from the world, the whole world lies in wickedness... and then turn around and say we the believers are the 'world' to ??

4. 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. Rev 16:14

It should be plain to all that this cannot include every single person who has ever lived or ever will. It only includes those alive at the time and certainly distinct from saints.

He is right again here, because 'world' and 'whole world' when speaking of the spiritual conditions of men ALWAYS speaks of the lost/wicked/sinners but context determines the scope of the term or phrase used. Here it is in a time period, and at others it encompasses all times.

This should be sufficient from divine Scripture that the term world, and whole world, is used in a limited sense and does not extend to every person that has been, or will be in the world.

He hasn't established this, since there are many more verses in scripture that use World and Whole World. He was quite selective (IMO) for what about John 3:16 - EVEN IF you hold to 'world' meaning elect only, that verse encompasses both past and those who will be. Along with a host of others.
Other verse he denies this same terminology, is because it would make scripture conflict with what he came to understand and was taught. If 'world' maintains it OT definitions then Christ did have to die for more than the elect alone. Please note that I am not speaking of the word 'all' but the word and pre-defined defintion of 'world' and 'Whole World".

There is one verse of Scripture that inludes all wicked men, and that is:

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1 John 5:19 Here the entire compass of mankind lies in wickedness, saints exepted. Which still adds futher proof of the limited sense of the phrase.

It is then evident that when we read "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2 that we read of this in its limited sense. We do no violence to the Scriptures or insert a meaning or use of a phrase upon the Scirptures.

OK, here he gets confusing. He now arguing the limited sense of the 'whole world' being sinners (those not saved) and then states that Christ died for them. The limited sense is not regarding believers but all sinners and that Christ died for them as well?? And since I know he does not believe this, I'm lost.

Maybe you can clarify this for me.

It is also good to bring Romans 3:25 to shed light on this verse. "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;"

The propitiation of Christ is through faith in His blood, which not all men have, and so adds further proof of its limited sense. And what man among us would declare that Christ is a propitation for men and not also their advocate, as the Apostle John say He is of us? It is plain from Scripture that Christ does not advocate for the world, but for the elect only.

The fact the propitation is only applied to those who believe does not negate the fact it was still done on their (sinners) behalf but that it is not imputed to them unless they believe.

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." John 17:9

I have before, in other posts, brought to light the fact that one of the greatest mysteries which was hidden, but revealed by Christ and His apostles, was that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs with Israel, grafted in, and granted by God repentance to life. It should be noted that the Apostle John was a Jew and writing to Jews, so in considering the auidence this adds further weight to the limited sense of 1 John and other Scriptures that Christ is being revealed as the Saviour, not of Jews only, but of the whole world. Those familiar with Jewish thinking and understanding know that the Jews when referring to the whole world meant the Gentiles. Of this Dr. Gill comments,

Actaully not only Gentiles but Jews who were outside the fold (so to speak as well). It was a reference to anyone who was not God's people and that is the crux of the arguement. It is not used for God's people but those NOT OF God's people.

Indeed, blessed be God, who has chosen to redeem people out of every nation. It is sealed and secure. It is unfrustratable by the wickedness of men, their impentitant hearts, stubbroness of will, or blindness to truth. The blood of the Lamb will have its full satisfaction. For:

"...they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" Rev 5:9

Guess what, I agree here. No one can thwart what God has set forth to accomplish. We just see it from different positions but still coming to the same truths.

 

[Allan]

Joyce,
My wife and I have been blessed with 5 children (our 5th, a little girl, Elizabeth Joy will be her name, God willing) is due December 31st.

BTW- Congradulations on your next child !! May God be so gracious as richly bless your home with such a gift - Amen.

And you humble me with your kind words as well.
May the peace of God richly dwell in you, my brother.

 

[Charles Meadows]

RB,

Well friend, given that the Scriptures were not given in English, but Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I find Word studies to be essential. As for old commentaries, I suppose some could be guesswork, but most are extraordinary scholarship. And I have found NONE to parallel Dr. Gill. Not yet anyway. And I don't think there is any reason to cause us to shy away from knowledge.

I realize the implications of the original languages. I confess to being only an "armchair" theologian and linguist - although I can comfortably read the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.

We must remember that these were and are real languages spoken by real people. Words get their meanings from context - not from lists of possible definitions. The "word study" approach certainly has some value for those who are not native speakers of a language - but it has resulted in many gross misinterpretations. In the past decades there has been a movement, much-needed in my opinion, to approach bibical linguistics in more of a modern synchronic way. I think several past generations of theologians have approached the text more as a code to be deciphered and not as a real living language, used colloquially by native speakers. While men of immense learning the way overdid the whole "word study" thing.

In this case the context is a fairly universal one. I am not accusing you of twisting scripture. But if you are strongly reformed in your doctrine then I assume you would perhaps have more of an affinity for possible interpretations which would comport with the rest of your theology. In any regard I see this as a "universal" passage - with "kosmos" meaning the "world" in a general inclusive sense. As such the onus would be on you to show conclusively that this is not the case.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

Well friend, given that the Scriptures were not given in English, but Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I find Word studies to be essential. As for old commentaries, I suppose some could be guesswork, but most are extraordinary scholarship. And I have found NONE to parallel Dr. Gill. Not yet anyway. And I don't think there is any reason to cause us to shy away from knowledge.

I realize the implications of the original languages. I confess to being only an "armchair" theologian and linguist - although I can comfortably read the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.

We must remember that these were and are real languages spoken by real people. Words get their meanings from context - not from lists of possible definitions. The "word study" approach certainly has some value for those who are not native speakers of a language - but it has resulted in many gross misinterpretations. In the past decades there has been a movement, much-needed in my opinion, to approach bibical linguistics in more of a modern synchronic way. I think several past generations of theologians have approached the text more as a code to be deciphered and not as a real living language, used colloquially by native speakers. While men of immense learning the way overdid the whole "word study" thing.

In this case the context is a fairly universal one. I am not accusing you of twisting scripture. But if you are strongly reformed in your doctrine then I assume you would perhaps have more of an affinity for possible interpretations which would comport with the rest of your theology. In any regard I see this as a "universal" passage - with "kosmos" meaning the "world" in a general inclusive sense. As such the onus would be on you to show conclusively that this is not the case.

I am not quite the armchair linguist when it comes to any languages of the Bible. I do understand that ancient languages have things in common with our own. Like a word have diffenet possible meanings depending on context.

If a take the all the Scriptures that specifically teach of Christ's atonement then I perieve that Christ died for His people, church, et. I can bring that understanding to this text, both coming from Scripture and ask, "Do these two ideas contradict one another?" Let me offer an example:

"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." John 3:16

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matt 1:21

In the John passage my general redemption brethren tell me that this means Christ came to save every single person who ever lived by dying for them is a salvific maner. In Matthew we learn He came to save His people from their sins.

So which is it? Is it a universal salvation of one for His people?

I am not trying to maintain a theology and thus do violence to the Scriptures. I am trying to understand them in light of the Scriptures.

 

[HankD]

With that being agreed upon, what we have not discussed in the nature of the light by which every single person is enlightened. I think we both would be hard pressed to suggest that the light spoken of here is knowledge unto salvation. One only must begin with God choosing Israel as a nation and leaving the others separated and in darkness. Also it is plain that not everyone under the adminstration of the Gospel has possesed this knowledge in their lifetimes.

Consider this:

John 16

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.​

Here we have a possibility of "light" or enlightment. Everyone is involved here, the world (cosmos) and believers. IMO this passage clearly presents the Holy Spirit as enlightening the "world" (reproval or conviction of sin) though they believe not on Christ.​

Putting this passage together with the John 3 passage we have the definite possibility that the light given to every person coming into the world is this reproval or conviction of sin.​

John 3
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

Reproval or conviction of sin then is a common grace gift from God enlightening every man who comes into the world. Without it presumably no one can be saved as they have no sensibility of the gravity of sin or their own condition and have no reason for the need of a Savior.​

This heavenly light can be likened somewhat to nature itself.​

When the dawning comes the nocturnal creatures go back into their holes, caves, hiding places, etc (hate the light) . But those of the day are awakened and go about the business of the day (love the light).​

1 Thessalonians 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.​

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.​

I suppose the essential question which comes out of this is - do those of the day/night choose the light/darkness or do they, in response to the light/darkness, prove what they are by seeking the light/darkness?​

Or, does God provide the power of choice along with the reproval?​

Could God do even that?​

It seems so from the beginning:​

Genesis 4
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.​

While it might not be a "choice" proof text, this conversation with Cain seems out of character for God and His love of Truth if Cain had no choice in the matter. The "if" of verse 7 implies choice followed by an imperative.​

If not, why is God even having this conversation with Cain?​

HankD​

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This is not what I have stated. The phrase or term 'Whole Word' is used to to reflect the scope of the writters intent in accordence with it's scripturally predefined defintion of and to the word to which it is related - world. In the case of John he does not use the term in such a way as to question how it is used but gives a flat and consistant defintion of it. - The Whole World lies in wickedness, the Whole World follows after Satan (that is a paraphrase). He does not speak and define it one and then turn around and use it again in an exact opposite meaning.

If I am understanding you correctly, even whole world has its limit here. How is my understanding in error? Whole world includes Jews and Gentiles as I have been saying. Christ came not to redeem the Jews only, but also men of the whole world. Maybe I am missing something. The whole world lies in wickedness, except the elect.

Yes, it is good to see how a phrase was used historically so as to get a handle on many of the phrasologies. However, Gill only shows a generality regarding the secular view of the phrase whole world - meaning it looks like everyone is following such and such. This is true and have no dispute over it. But this is not applicable to scripture since it IS specific and predefined FROM scripture hundreds and thousands of years before the NT writers set down with their pens.

It simply aids our understanding. If we want to get as close to the meaning and intent of the author (God) we must take into consideration the auidence.

This one doesn't even have the phrase 'Whole World' in it?
'All' can mean all of a thing or all can mean all of a part of the whole. This come back to the word 'world' having three root meanings, and one is a geographical area regarding a system (ie Roman Empire).
But again, the phrase is not even used here, so the example is moot.

The world whole "holos" in the greek has as part of its definition "all" according to the my dictionaries. So i am not so sure it is moot.

Now THIS ONE he has an arguememt with
However, I completely disagree with his assuption that 'whole world' means all of the believers. One can assume such but the defintion of world has never included God's people. The OT already established the definintions of the term 'world'. Since the NT writers understood the terminologies of the OT, we must can contend consistancy of those predefined terms from the OT into the NT. Can you think of one word that was one way in the OT, and God changed it to mean the exact opposite in the NT?

Remember, I am not contending for Pink's interpretation. And the OT use of the term as has limits. Your question seems to ask me to answer a question like "Did God mean one thing by His Spirit in ages past, and a completely other meaning today?" As if truth can change. The answer is no. I have only found the phrase "whole world" in one passage of the OT translated with this phrase, and that is in Job 34:13 "Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?"

Here the Sovereign rule of God is in view over inhabitable earth. "tebel" is the Hebrew word used for "whole world" here. The term is used in Prov 8:31 and Psalm 90:2 "Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." Prov, and "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

However, Rome was the Capital of the of the known world, and since Paul frequent visits paid to the capital as well as to and from all the provinces;he could see and hear from the people around the influence they would exercise upon others, as well as their own blessedness. He was speaking of the all the people (believers and non-believers alike) in the Roman world knew about THEIR faith.
Oh that this could be said of us and our church!!

I don't think your understanding is a stretch, taking to mean the Roman Empire, but it still shows the limit of the use of the term. Meaning, all the churches and the Roman Empire, but not every single person who ever lived or ever will live, which would make the verse odd, impossible, and contrary to what we know. God did leave the Gentiles in dakrness for many, many years before the advent of Christ and many nations, tribes, and tongues went without the Gospel and do to this day.

This is my point (and he is right here), 'Whole world' and the term 'world' CAN NOT mean believers ever.
We are called out of the World, we are to be seperate from the world, the whole world lies in wickedness... and then turn around and say we the believers are the 'world' to ??

So we are agreed that the term is used in a limited sense.

He is right again here, because 'world' and 'whole world' when speaking of the spiritual conditions of men ALWAYS speaks of the lost/wicked/sinners but context determines the scope of the term or phrase used. Here it is in a time period, and at others it encompasses all times.

Only to add that my point was that the term can be used in a limited sense, which we seem to be agreed on this point. Then the calvinist view in limiting the scope is not doing damage to the text. Neither is the general view doing damage to the text. What we are both trying to determine is what God the Holy Spirit intended to mean. This is where I bring other Scriptures to bear when they speak of GOd sending Christ, and that to save His people, not of Jews only which are rightly called His people, but also of the Gentiles. And this limits the scope. Because not all are His people.

He hasn't established this, since there are many more verses in scripture that use World and Whole World. He was quite selective (IMO) for what about John 3:16 - EVEN IF you hold to 'world' meaning elect only, that verse encompasses both past and those who will be. Along with a host of others.
Other verse he denies this same terminology, is because it would make scripture conflict with what he came to understand and was taught. If 'world' maintains it OT definitions then Christ did have to die for more than the elect alone. Please note that I am not speaking of the word 'all' but the word and pre-defined defintion of 'world' and 'Whole World".

Just an FYI, while I followed to some extent Gill's use of Scripture, most of this reply was mine. lol And again, I am understanding the passage to mean "Not Jewsish men only, but also Gentile men." Or, "All kinds of men.

OK, here he gets confusing. He now arguing the limited sense of the 'whole world' being sinners (those not saved) and then states that Christ died for them. The limited sense is not regarding believers but all sinners and that Christ died for them as well?? And since I know he does not believe this, I'm lost.

Maybe you can clarify this for me.

This was my understanding. When God says the whole world lies in wickedness, it is understood by the context that John and the Christians are excluded, and the rest are included. In the verse concering lying in wickedness what is included in the scope of whole world is all those in wickedness other than believers, and this always true until one is translated out of the kingdom of darkness. Then that person is not properly included as lying in wickedness. In the other Scripture it speaks of atonement and includes both Jews and Gentiles. Hence, this proves a various use of the term.

The fact the propitation is only applied to those who believe does not negate the fact it was still done on their (sinners) behalf but that it is not imputed to them unless they believe.

I think this does harm to the doctrine of substitution, which I know you affirm. God does not save His people apart from faith, but through faith, but He has saved His people. I cannot imagine Christ dying for a people and those people not being saved. Neither can you. Therefore, if he expiated the sins of everything single human being ever, all will be saved. There is no frustrating the grace and power of God in this matter. God is not limited and made imputant by the decisions of finite creatures. It here that Calvinists take their stand on the Sovereignty of God over the salvation of men.

Actaully not only Gentiles but Jews who were outside the fold (so to speak as well). It was a reference to anyone who was not God's people and that is the crux of the arguement. It is not used for God's people but those NOT OF God's people.

There is a sense in which the Jews are called the people of God, but in a sense also you are correct. One is a Jew who is not one of the flesh, but inwardly. And those of the flesh are not counted as the seed (in the promise) but those of faith.