What in the "World" does that word mean?

I think it's more an issue of passionate about doctrine than a matter of ego.

 

What's the 'doctrine' that's arousing such 'passion' here?:

​

 

Calvinism
Non-Calvinism

 

One could John is passionate about the doctrine of Special Revelation and how we transmit this Special Revelation into a different language.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Any Calvinist is an egotist.
They always consider themselves to be special chosen of God, one of the elect when God says He does not have favorites,'

Have anyone claimed to be on the non elect?

Either election is true or God lies. which do you suppose?

 

Yeah.....ok.

And JoJ, who was accused of being an egotist 8s NOT a Calvinist.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Okay, brother, thanks. Post #21 was confusing because you used it as a chance to further your OP rather than say you were wrong per se, so I had a hard time seeing any withdrawal there.

Carry on.

 

please explain,

I did not say egotists are Calvinists , I said Calvinists are egotists

 

What would it have to say to mean every individual person in John 3:17?

 

1 John 2:2

2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.



No one in the WHOLE COSMOS is going to read this and think to themselves elect, unless distorted by a gnostic philosophy to read it in.

 

So God's wrath has appeased appeased towards every person? The sins of every person is forgiven as well?

You just picked the most obvious verse where Κόσμος must be limited. Unless you are a universalist.

*If Jesus has propitiated the sins of every single person, then all are saved.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

"Unless you are a universalist."

No I am not a Calvinist.

Irresistible grace is your luggage not mine.

And indeed there are CALVINIST who are universalist because of the brick wall of Irresistible grace.

Notice you didn't go just plainly by what scripture says rather you came packing a philosophy so something had to mean this or that to appease the philosophy.

Just because Jesus paid for your meal doesn't mean you will eat it.

 

I believe it means the exact same thing every time it is used by the Holy Spirit. I suggest all pick your favorite meaning (singular).

 

There is no "Calvinist " who is a universalist.

Irresistible Grace has nothing to do with this passage. This passage is not about calling in anyway. And you accuse me of not going by Scripture? Propitation is a pretty clear term. Your philosophy your brought ignores its implication.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

You don't accept the propitiation. It is offered to and was accepted by God. Not man. Poor philosophy there


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

1 John 5

10The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.11And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

Wouldn't the one who does NOT BELIEVE that God gave them eternal life in his son be telling THE TRUTH? so why does scripture say he makes God a Liar?


Do you believe God has given ME eternal life and this life is in His Son?

 

Not true! You're not a universalist just because you believe all men's sins have been propitiated. You used the word "must" so I'll tell you what the must is. One can have acquired benefits that belong to them in a covenant but if they don't take proper action to appropriate or receive they'll never have them manifested as a reality. By experience it would be the same as if their sins were not propitiated.

I mean the truth of this is not some strange foreign concept that one doesn't see demonstrated in the world in front of them every day. Acquired benefits and rights many times are not appropriated by those to whom they belong. To become real by experience they MUST be received.

Naturally speaking, companies or management make covenants (contracts) with labor. Employees have acquired rights in their agreement . Such doesn't mean they'll draw upon such rights. But one can't say they didn't have them merely because they weren't manifested in experience.

 

if the sins of all men are forgiven and God's wrath is appeased for all men, why would they go hell? Peace has been made to God for all men. There is nothing left to punish them for.

Propitation is real and is made between God Head. There is nothing for us to receive in regards propitation.

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. We do not receive the propitiation. If the sins of every individual has been propitiated, he has been made whole to God. There is no sin to be punished for. Go has been paid for our sins and is appeased. There would be no reason to send anyone to Hell if all sin has been is covered and removed from between us and God.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

You're right on this. Theologians may never come into agreement or be unified in regard to whatever the truth is on this. Of course such doesn't mean one side isn't right. I tend to like to keep things simple as I believe our Lord did. We see much parsing of words here about the way "kosmos" "world" is meant to be understood. I question as to why the need to parse the word so. Shouldn't the context of the passage dictate it's intended meaning.

Jesus talking to Nicoduemous talked about Israel in the wilderness and when God told him to put up a bronze snake, of course a type of Jesus being made a curse for us on the cross. EVERYONE....EVERYONE in Israel, not just a few or some lucky ones but everyone who looked upon it were healed. And lest some might say well that's just it that was for the elect Israel. They forget as well that strangers, foreigners came out of Egypt with Israel as well and we're allowed into the covenant. So ALL, A double L, who looked were saved or healed. It's in this context that John 3 was even written!

Also this very significant point. Do you really think God would do this to us? What I mean is God didn't hesitate to use the word "elect" or "election" in other places. (about 23 times I see in the New Testament) So are we to believe that a passage some would argue is perhaps the most important or revealing of who Jesus came to die for that he wouldn't have used "elect" instead of "world" in John 3:16 or some of the other times world is used in John 3? Don't we believe God in his wisdom wouldn't have guaranteed there was no argument whatsoever....that if he meant elect in this passage that he wouldn't have used it to do away with all confusion or misunderstandings?

My thought is in the next world Jesus will tell some, "You should have known it was self-evident that world meant ALL humanity and not just some. If I would have meant elect (eklektos) I would have said elect. Instead I used, kosmos meaning world!"

Granted on this subject you're not going to see any great swing over to another position. Some have spent and invested in YEARS of defending a certain position and have spent untold great sums of money to be educated in whatever. To change would have to mean all their money spent and time were wasted . Some would rather die than to change which I think is one reason educated men in Jesus day were so obstinate towards his message. It wasn't that the things he said were absolutely unreasonable but rather what does this mean with what I've done with my life?