Meaning of "Kosmos"

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

You are one of the most "evangelical" non-calvie on this board. I had read something Spurgeon wrote that I questioned. That if a person strongly adheres to the inspiration of the Scriptures they will be quite calvinistic. In what you wrote to me I see quite a bit of "calvinism" just like I do in Wesley's writings. I am not saying this to bring glory to calvinism or try to gain an advantage, but to rejoice in the truth. Indeed no one can thwart what God has set for to accomplish.

And what could be more forceful than the sending of His Son into the world to save sinners? I think its the Arminain scheme that must have a very difficult time trying to explain how God the Father could will (God's will!!!!!) the salvation of every single person, God the Son redeem every single person, and God the Spirit work by His power to bring every single person to Christ, and yet some not come, some not believe, and some not be saved...and that hinged on the almighty will of man????? The notion so dimishes the glory, majesty, and power of a Sovereign Lord that I cannot affirm it. What makes more sense and seems consistent with Scripture is that all whom the Lord foreknew, all whom the Father has given the Son, will come. And the rest God has left in their sin unto their just condemnation.

 

[TCGreek]

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.

1. If Christ came to save every single person, then why isn't every single person saved, or will be saved?

2. Did Christ fail on his mission of trying to save every single person?

 

[Charles Meadows]

RB,

Obviously you will have guessed that this topic has been hashed out over and over here.

Every so often I put in my 2 cents worth. Several observations on my part are:

1. Scripture has tension. Notice I did not say contradiction - but rather tension. Some passages seem to indicate a free will and others a bound will. Some passages seem to favor eternal security while others hint, at least, at a "favored" status which can be lost. This is a source of headache for systematic theologians - but it is the nature of the scriptures we were given.

2. Most believers have a predetermined understanding of things and will, sometimes not realizing it, simply interpret everything else according to that predetermined stance. A good example would be eternal security. There have been may attempts to explain away the warning passages in Hebrews (10:26, 6:4) as not indicative of losing salvation. These explanations are given many times because the believer, citing John 10 and other scriptures has already decided that salvation cannot be lost. On the other hand there will be those who, based on Hebrews, believe that salvation can be lost and thus they interpret the other salient scriptures in light of that. We are all, more or less, heavily influenced by systematic theologies.

3. Most believers refer to the stances of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" without any real knowledge of the theology of either Calvin or Arminius. I personally think Calvinism only partially represents Calvin and the the theology of Jacob Arminius bears no resemblance whatsoever to modern day "Arminianism" (I really do not know what this is actually...)

4. My own opinion is that we are completely dependent on God for salvation and that because of the nature of God's preexistence and the nature of His will we are all in a sense predestinated. Since God's will is inviolable that which occurs must be in accordance with His will. But this is in a sense an a posteriori observation. From our perspective our will is free to choose. I eschew systematic theologies as they attempt to explain the unexplainable - namely God's will. God is above all. As such God is not bound to act in a righteous manner. That would imply that He is subject to a standard. Rather that which we call righteous is only so because it happens to be in accordance with God's nature. There is no exterior standard to which He can be compared.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

Obviously you will have guessed that this topic has been hashed out over and over here.

Every so often I put in my 2 cents worth. Several observations on my part are:

1. Scripture has tension. Notice I did not say contradiction - but rather tension. Some passages seem to indicate a free will and others a bound will. Some passages seem to favor eternal security while others hint, at least, at a "favored" status which can be lost. This is a source of headache for systematic theologians - but it is the nature of the scriptures we were given.

2. Most believers have a predetermined understanding of things and will, sometimes not realizing it, simply interpret everything else according to that predetermined stance. A good example would be eternal security. There have been may attempts to explain away the warning passages in Hebrews (10:26, 6:4) as not indicative of losing salvation. These explanations are given many times because the believer, citing John 10 and other scriptures has already decided that salvation cannot be lost. On the other hand there will be those who, based on Hebrews, believe that salvation can be lost and thus they interpret the other salient scriptures in light of that. We are all, more or less, heavily influenced by systematic theologies.

3. Most believers refer to the stances of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" without any real knowledge of the theology of either Calvin or Arminius. I personally think Calvinism only partially represents Calvin and the the theology of Jacob Arminius bears no resemblance whatsoever to modern day "Arminianism" (I really do not know what this is actually...)

4. My own opinion is that we are completely dependent on God for salvation and that because of the nature of God's preexistence and the nature of His will we are all in a sense predestinated. Since God's will is inviolable that which occurs must be in accordance with His will. But this is in a sense an a posteriori observation. From our perspective our will is free to choose. I eschew systematic theologies as they attempt to explain the unexplainable - namely God's will. God is above all. As such God is not bound to act in a righteous manner. That would imply that He is subject to a standard. Rather that which we call righteous is only so because it happens to be in accordance with God's nature. There is no exterior standard to which He can be compared.

Interesting points of opinon. Have you ever read either Boyce's first chapter in his Abrstract of Systematic Theology or John Owen's work on it? Apparantly, godly men (including all those who have studied in seminary) have had a high regard for such study. When I first came accross a systematic theology I found them to be one of the things missing out of my Chrisitian life and have derived great benefit from them. Having an accurate theology has been the spring of godly living and love of God in my life.

In our church one of the pastors has been teaching a seriers on the Covenants. Gaining a theological understanding of these things brought me to great joy and tears as I am gaining a deeper understanding of God's love for His people.

But I trust the Lord will guide each one of us as seem good to Him in bringing many sons to glory.

 

[Charles Meadows]

RB,

I have read neither Boyce nor Owen. I have read a good bit of systematic theology in the past - Hodge, and Van Til among others. I have also read a good deal of Calvin's Institutes and commentaries.

No doubt these are works by men of great learning. But they are the works of men. They are also quite different then some of the theology I have read by Wesley and various catholic authors.

My big problem with systematic theologies is that the attempt to "put God in a box". Systematic theology in many cases leads us to interpret certain difficult passages of scripture in light of doctrines which we have already established. An example here would be Heb 10:26. Many "calvinists" would look at this passages with the idea that salvation cannot be lost and thus any interpretation of this passage as suggesting that one could "fall from grace" would be dismissed a priori.

As this regards the "kosmos" discussion...

I think that your reformed position leads to to look for ways to see John 3 as potentially not universal. Your initial suggestions regarding Arthur Pink et al are not at all unreasonable - but they seem to hint that you already believe that redemption is not universal (based on your systematic theology) and are seeking to fit the scripture into that mold. The reasons you offered represent plausible possibilities - but in my estimation they are not the best interpretation because they are 1). less consistent with context and 2). seemingly driven by predetermined conviction.

I do not claim to have all the answers or to have better answers than men more learned and experienced than I. But I do not feel compelled to agree with something just because it was written by a "theologian".

And my personal bias is that systematic theology not only allows us but (seemingly) encourages us to approach scripture with presuppositions.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

I have read neither Boyce nor Owen. I have read a good bit of systematic theology in the past - Hodge, and Van Til among others. I have also read a good deal of Calvin's Institutes and commentaries.

No doubt these are works by men of great learning. But they are the works of men. They are also quite different then some of the theology I have read by Wesley and various catholic authors.

My big problem with systematic theologies is that the attempt to "put God in a box". Systematic theology in many cases leads us to interpret certain difficult passages of scripture in light of doctrines which we have already established. An example here would be Heb 10:26. Many "calvinists" would look at this passages with the idea that salvation cannot be lost and thus any interpretation of this passage as suggesting that one could "fall from grace" would be dismissed a priori.

As this regards the "kosmos" discussion...

I think that your reformed position leads to to look for ways to see John 3 as potentially not universal. Your initial suggestions regarding Arthur Pink et al are not at all unreasonable - but they seem to hint that you already believe that redemption is not universal (based on your systematic theology) and are seeking to fit the scripture into that mold. The reasons you offered represent plausible possibilities - but in my estimation they are not the best interpretation because they are 1). less consistent with context and 2). seemingly driven by predetermined conviction.

I do not claim to have all the answers or to have better answers than men more learned and experienced than I. But I do not feel compelled to agree with something just because it was written by a "theologian".

And my personal bias is that systematic theology not only allows us but (seemingly) encourages us to approach scripture with presuppositions.

I have not read Wesley, and pretty much avoid all Roman Catholic theology. I am not saying that there isn't something good to be found in it, but going to an antichristian media seems, well, silly.

I reject the notion that I, certain theologians, or others are seeking to fit our theologies into Scripture. You may disagree with our conclusions or interpretations, but to charge with such a deliberate error seems unjust. The Reformed position operates from a complete rejection of authoritative interpretation, and that of the most henious--Roman Catholic dogma. It does encourage us to turn to the Scriptures as our sole rule and faith and final authority in all such matters.

I would rather have 300,000 such denominations like this than 1 universal church with a false head, a false gospel, and a false communion.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Accidental double post.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I have not read Wesley, and pretty much avoid all Roman Catholic theology. I am not saying that there isn't something good to be found in it, but going to an antichristian media seems, well, silly.

I reject the notion that I, certain theologians, or others are seeking to fit our theologies into Scripture. You may disagree with our conclusions or interpretations, but to charge with such a deliberate error seems unjust. The Reformed position operates from a complete rejection of authoritative interpretation, and that of the most henious--Roman Catholic dogma. It does encourage us to turn to the Scriptures as our sole rule and faith and final authority in all such matters.

I would rather have 300,000 such denominations like this than 1 universal church with a false head, a false gospel, and a false communion.

I am not implying that you are deliberately trying to twist scripture. But I am most definitely saying that your systematic theology affects how you approach scripture. That exemplifies my problems with systematic theology.

Let me ask you this...

How do you interpret Hebrews 10:26-27? What is the nature of this warning? Does it mean that salvation can be lost?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I am not implying that you are deliberately trying to twist scripture. But I am most definitely saying that your systematic theology affects how you approach scripture. That exemplifies my problems with systematic theology.

Let me ask you this...

How do you interpret Hebrews 10:26-27? What is the nature of this warning? Does it mean that salvation can be lost?

Methinks I feel a set up. lol :tongue3:

Should I bite or no? Perhaps a little. Rather than getting into how I understand what is written in Hebrews (meaning exposition), I bring to my understanding of this passage at least this other one:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. -John 10:27-29

And others can be brought as to the certainty of and unshakable security of the "sheep."

So, again without al lenghty treatment of the Hebrews passage in particular, no....I would not conclude that what God is teaching through the Hebrews writer is different from what the Lord Jesus Christ taught.

 

[Charles Meadows]

RB,

Set up? Well...

Your explanation I think underscores a bit of my problem with systematic theology. Rather than explaining the Hebrews passage you offered another scripture which clearly supports the truth that salvation is a permanent change. For what it's worth I do believe in preservation of the sanits. But that does not mean I would not be willing to read each passage of scripture with the openness to change my mind if necessary.

At one time I considered myself a "calvinist" but I found it all too restrictive of God's nature.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

Set up? Well...

Your explanation I think underscores a bit of my problem with systematic theology. Rather than explaining the Hebrews passage you offered another scripture which clearly supports the truth that salvation is a permanent change. For what it's worth I do believe in preservation of the sanits. But that does not mean I would not be willing to read each passage of scripture with the openness to change my mind if necessary.

At one time I considered myself a "calvinist" but I found it all too restrictive of God's nature.

If using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a problem, then I don't know what to tell you. One truth of God will not contradict another.

 

[webdog]

I would also like to add to that, RB, if I may that one truth of Scripture taken out of context to support another text out of context is also in error. I'm not saying you did this, but needs to be pointed out to the readers.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I would also like to add to that, RB, if I may that one truth of Scripture taken out of context to support another text out of context is also in error. I'm not saying you did this, but needs to be pointed out to the readers.

I agree. We do not want to wrest the meaning of a verse from its context. If we have, or if I have I should say, I have done it unwittingly. I would expect a brother in Christ to help me see how I did this.

 

[Charles Meadows]

If using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a problem, then I don't know what to tell you. One truth of God will not contradict another.

Using scripture to interpret scripture is perfectly fine. My point is that because of your predetermined stance I would wager that you would not even consider the Heb 10:26 could mean loss of salvation. This is not letting scripture interpret itself.

My assertion here is that you, in this case, are allowing your reformed beliefs determine how you interpret scripture. Citing other scriptures to make a point does not exonerate - who doesn't (reformed or otherwise) do that!

And back to the "kosmos" thing - you have asserted that scripture in John 3 (and Heb 10) validates your interpretation. My critique is that your systematic theology, a priori, determined your position. And you selected scriptures that seem to support this as prooftexts.

Again - don't get me wrong - I am not imputing bad faith to you. No doubt many things I think correct are really in error. We all have our biases. But to me it doesn't seem that you're willing to admit it!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a problem, then I don't know what to tell you. One truth of God will not contradict another.

Using scripture to interpret scripture is perfectly fine. My point is that because of your predetermined stance I would wager that you would not even consider the Heb 10:26 could mean loss of salvation. This is not letting scripture interpret itself.

My assertion here is that you, in this case, are allowing your reformed beliefs determine how you interpret scripture. Citing other scriptures to make a point does not exonerate - who doesn't (reformed or otherwise) do that!

And back to the "kosmos" thing - you have asserted that scripture in John 3 (and Heb 10) validates your interpretation. My critique is that your systematic theology, a priori, determined your position. And you selected scriptures that seem to support this as prooftexts.

Again - don't get me wrong - I am not imputing bad faith to you. No doubt many things I think correct are really in error. We all have our biases. But to me it doesn't seem that you're willing to admit it!

I am sure you mean well, but I don't really see any fruit in this. I believe I have derived my beliefs from Scripture, as you do. You want to insist that I derive them from my "reformed" beliefs which I can only assume you mean I got them from men and not from God. Your welcome to your opinion of of me, but I believe the Scriptures.

After some consideration, I must admit a bias I brought to the Scriptures. I have been a born-again Christian for 14 years. I have been reformed for about 4 of those. I can assure you that the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation, free-grace, predestination, et. were not doctrines I presupposed into Scripture. I was far more naturally inclinded to an evangelical arminian theology. When I changed my view it was because I found myself trying to explain the Scriptures in some other way, and found myself to be fighting against the truth. When I realized this I sought the Lord with all my heart and asked Him to teach me. Beginning in Genesis I determined to read through the Scirptures praying the Lord would make know His way to me on these subjects. By the time I got to Pharoah I was fully persuaded of the Absolute Sovereign rule of God over the affairs of men and nations, including the salvation of souls.

 

[Allan]

Part 1 - sorry it is so long but can not give my thoughts in the brevity as you do. That I WISH I could do, and envy (in a good way ) you on that.

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.

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?"

I think we are talking 'around' each other here.

Yes, the phrase 'whole world' as used in scripture has limits that are always determined by context. As I have stated numerous times, there are ONLY 3 main definitions that are derived from the context of scritpure regarding the term 'world'. The addition of 'whole' to the term 'world' simply accentuates the contextual definition by the writter desires to enforce a point.

The Job passage in no different. It contrasts the world (the planet) and the whole world. Now is scripture speaking of the planet earth (meaning #1) again, no. It is referencing a specific portion of the and in fact 'all' of that portion (meaning #2). This is specifically referencing a geographic area (that which is habitable). Now what makes this corrispond to John is the context in which this verse is placed, that being God as a Righteous and Just Judge because He has the authority TO judge His creation but will not do so wickedly nor in evil but with Justice and Righesouness.
So what it the conection between the whole world (geograph area) and Gods Judgment? The men living in that habitable area. The term whole world being under the authority God and therefore under His judgment still advocates Not a People Of God but a Sinful People in Wickedness.

You might think that is taking it a bit to far but I ask you is it not the context? Is not the context in that portion of scripture about God's Judgment being Righteous and Just against evil, and that He BEING God has the every right to execute His judgment and by implication also states in contrast that He is God so why question Him at all. We know He IS God who is not to be questioned yet He is a Just and Righteous God so we have no need to fear of Him being 'evil' toward us that it be laid against His Charge for it is against His nature. - Whoa! My head started spinning :laugh: :laugh:

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."

Actaully "tebel' doesn't mean 'whole world' but 'world'. The term 'whole' here is used to broaden the usage to meaning not just of A 'habitable area' but encompassing ALL habitable areas.

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.

Agreed as I am not advocating the whole world means at all times all people who ever lived, but that it is limited by context as context dictates. The term 'whole'accentuates the discription of the term 'world'. As I stated before and maintain through and by scrpture that as the scriptures speak of the term 'world' to illistrate mankind it is ALWAYS referencing the sinful and wicked but NEVER Gods People.

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

Yes. BUt as stated (I know I'm redundant) before it is based on it three root meanings.
1. The Planet or Universe
2. Geographical area or system (ie. Roman World)
3. All 'sinful and wicked' men

Then the calvinist view in limiting the scope is not doing damage to the text.

You are correct, in the sense that limiting the scope does no damage to the text if the context substantiates. However giving it a NEW defintion DOES harm the text.
The term world NOT once in the OT ever stood for nor insinuated Gods people but always (when dealing with man as the content) sinners and wicked. Thus we can not change the meaning of world by inverting it and assume no damage is caused to the text. To give the term 'world' the NEW meaning of believers AS WELL as sinners pollutes the text and distorts the teachings in which the word is so used.

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.

Yes, but we must also look at the prophet sense in which Christ coming to save His people as well. Christ came unto His people did He not? And yet they did not receive Him. He came unto the World (Gentile sinners) and knew Him not. However the prophetic sense is still in play regarding the Nation (His people) that God will bring the Nation BACK to Himself through Christ thereby saving as scripture promised regarding the prophesy "He will save His people from their sins"(their sins of rejection and rebellion) Though we may see principles lining much of the text we should not super-impose beyond the context to often. Remember Jesus came first to the Jews, He came to seek and save that which was lost - a direct reference to the prophesies regarding Israel (Isaiah and Jerimiah), though we can establish principles regarding it, the meaning of the text is plainly addressing Israel. Not one NT writter ever uses it in relation to the Gentiles. However, this is where I bring other scriptures to bear where we see God sending His Son for the whole world, the world, to save sinners (universal term), whosoevers (universal term), and so on and so forth. You are right though, not all are His people and He knows those whom are/will be His - by name. Yet this does not take away from the fact scripture states without apologies that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. But that the propitiation is only 'applicalble' through faith.
Does not scripture states that "he tasted death for every man".

 

[Allan]

Part 2:

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.

How do you get that? Look at every time He uses the term world in just 1 John. It has a definate and distinct meaning - all sinful and wicked men.
Though I do not agree specifically with you here it still does not change the intent of the meaning.
1. Are all Jews saved? No. So how is Christ the propitiation for the Jews, if not all Jews are saved? If you deem this to be in a general sense, I'll stay my though for a bit.
2. Whole world means Gentiles?
It can BUT, let us allow the intent of the writter to settle the issue. He did not use a general sense (if that was what he did concerning the word 'us' relating to Jews), he used a specific and all encompassing adjective describing a part of the mass; the whole (all) world (Gentiles). Not all types and kinds which can be infered through the use of "all". World has no such inferences since it denotes specific things not a varible of things like 'all' can.

So even in your perspective the general sense of some Jews is not limited to kind and types but encompassing when coupled with the meaning of the Whole of the Gentile World in relation to the propititiation made. I guess this is what the author of Heb 2:9 ment when he stated that "that He by the grace of God should taste death for Every Man".

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.

I think we are agreed here. So if the term 'world' in relation to the discription OF man speaks consistantly of those as in wickedness and sin (sinners) then to state the term 'world' means the exact opposite in other instances reveals a contradiction, does it not?
Can the term 'Atonement' mean also the non-atoned?
Can the term 'Priest' mean also a non-priest?
Can the term 'Believer' mean also a non-believer?

Answer: No, it can not because the definitions of them are established, first in the Old and so also in the NT.

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.

What harm is done? I provide scripture as the basis for mine and others belief which has been around since the Apostles and Christ (which you affirm for your view as well - yet both have been there). Many Calvinists as well hold this same truth and many historical figures (Calvinists) have as well. I feel I stand I good company but they do not persuade me, the scriptures do.

I cannot imagine Christ dying for a people and those people not being saved.

I can not imagine God sending His precious Son (King of Glory) for the likes of a sinner such as me. But since God says He did, I must believe Him and not what I can or can not imagine. - Agreed?

Therefore, if he expiated the sins of everything single human being ever, all will be saved.

No my brother, the expiation of our sins is only through faith, though the Atonement is made for all men.

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.

You are correct that God can not be frustrated in this matter. Yet God is not frustrated for all that He determined IS accomplished. The fact the Atonement was made for ALL Israel did not frustrate the Will of God to save His people by faith. For those of faith believed God and were saved and those who did not were condemned by their unbelief. They were already condemned in eternity as a fact but in time it was due to unbelief of that which could have saved them because it was offered on their behalf as well. Why do you thing the judgment of unbelief is eternal? It is because the offerings for their sins (which was rejected) was of eternal value.

It here that Calvinists take their stand on the Sovereignty of God over the salvation of men.

If you truly took your stand on the Sovereignty of God, who are you to tell God He can not die for all men, and that man must choose to believe or not. The Sovereignty of God simply means that God has the right to do all that is within His pleasure to do, and answer to none but Himself regarding it.

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.

Correct.

 

[skypair]

When I changed my view it was because I found myself trying to explain the Scriptures in some other way, and found myself to be fighting against the truth.

I have a friend who became a Catholic for the same reason. He didn't have to think about or study out the questions he had by himself. And, of course, you didn't get words "Absolute Sovereignty" from scripture. You had to have been doing a little "peeking" at Calvinism on the side. I'd bet off hand you enrolled in some "Systematic Theology" class, right? What used to be called "Reform Dogma" until "dogmas" --- something that must be believed without understanding --- went out of vogue.

When I realized this I sought the Lord with all my heart and asked Him to teach me.

Been there myself. It often takes time, doesn't it? Sometimes we don't want to wait so we find someone else to explain, often missing a blessing. I've ended up in a few "blind alleys" that way.

Beginning in Genesis I determined to read through the Scirptures praying the Lord would make know His way to me on these subjects. By the time I got to Pharoah I was fully persuaded of the Absolute Sovereign rule of God over the affairs of men and nations, including the salvation of souls.

Genesis isn't a good place to start for the person who already pleads ignorance, bro. OT is types and pictures of what the church has been clearly and plainly told. Most I know started in John, the "Believer's Gospel."

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I have a friend who became a Catholic for the same reason. He didn't have to think about or study out the questions he had by himself. And, of course, you didn't get words "Absolute Sovereignty" from scripture. You had to have been doing a little "peeking" at Calvinism on the side. I'd bet off hand you enrolled in some "Systematic Theology" class, right? What used to be called "Reform Dogma" until "dogmas" --- something that must be believed without understanding --- went out of vogue.

Either by word or mouth or otherwise, I do not know. I didn't look into reformed theology until I was convinced of Scripture of the absolute sovereignty of God. And that terminology was the way I described it.

[....]

Genesis isn't a good place to start for the person who already pleads ignorance, bro. OT is types and pictures of what the church has been clearly and plainly told. Most I know started in John, the "Believer's Gospel."

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," 2 Tim 3:16

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Part 1 - sorry it is so long but can not give my thoughts in the brevity as you do. That I WISH I could do, and envy (in a good way ) you on that.

Your right, it is long. lol I will try to reply when I have time.