Ye must be born again !

[Dr. Walter]

One that indicates a statement of truth. You must be born again. Not much difference than a command is it?

I was under the impression that you took more than beginning Greek grammar? No Greek grammarian would ever make the statement you made above because they know better than to make such a statement because there is a tremendous difference between the indicative mood and the imperative mood. The indicative mood does not convey any kind of responsibility whatsoever but the imperative mood does.

Not if you had any kind of soteriological understanding of the gospel

What in the world are you talking about?????? It most certainly is found in the imperative mood and it is a command. It is not an option nor is it merely indicating a fact but it pointing out a responsibility and that is precisely the proper use of the imperative mode.

John 3:7
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7)
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: (John 1:12)

Why stop at verse 12? Does the continuity of the context demand you stop at verse 12 or does your type of soteriology drive you to stop at verse 12? There is a continuity with verse 13 as verse 13 explicitly denies the very positon you take concerning the new birth. You take the position that it is the will of man that is the cause of the new birth and therefore it is their responsibility to reborn themselves. That is precisely what you have stated in a previous post and I quote "YOU MUST DO IT" - DHK

John 1:12 provides the external consequence of the new birth while verse 13 denies its cause is "YOU DO IT" or to be the consequence of the will of man but defines its cause and power to be the will "of God."

As far as the English translation is concerned John 3:7 is a command.

That is not true! John 3:7 only presents a necessary declaration not a command. Jesus only declares the birth to be necessary without defining how it is obtained or where the ability to perform it originates from. For example, I might tell you that "unless you buy a ticket you cannot enter the stadium." That is no command. Neither does it prove you have the means or the ability to buy a ticket. It only sets forth the factual requirement to enter the stadium.

Romans 6:23 says that eternal life is the gift of God. Eternal life is the result of the new birth.

That is not true either. The new birth is inclusive of eternal life as the new birth is divine QUICKENING or being MADE ALIVE and that is not attributed to what any man does but to what God does as Ephesians 2:1, 5,10 make very clear. The new birth is an INTERNAL spiritual change wrought by God something no man can do!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Eph. 4:17 ¶ This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

The unregenerated state is "being alienated from the life of God" and therefore spiritually dead but regeneration is being given life by God:

Eph. 2:1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Who quickened them? Did they do it OR did "HE quicken" them? Who made them spiritually alive? Did they do it OR did "HE" make them alive?

Can those "alienated from the life of God" and "dead in tresspasses and sins" be at the same time "born of God" or is it one or the other? Are spiritually dead children the result of the new birth or does God give "still birth"????

Can children of God birth themselves or give themselves spiritual life or raise themselves from the spiritual dead???????

That is precisely your position when you say "YOU CAN DO IT"


Ephesians 2:10 says "For WE ARE HIS WORKmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus"- Question - "Is there spiritual life, eternal life OUTSIDE of Christ Jesus?" - Question - "Are we Co-Creators with God and can create ourselves "in Christ"? That is your position because you claim "YOU CAN DO IT" when it comes to the new birth? Are "still born" children the product the new birth? Can you be born again and yet be OUTSIDE of Christ Jesus? Can you have eternal life and be OUTSIDE Jesus Christ? Paul claims that the new birth - divine quickening (vv. 1,5,10) is a work of creation that God alone can do but you claim "YOU CAN DO IT."

 

[DHK]

I was under the impression that you took more than beginning Greek grammar? No Greek grammarian would ever make the statement you made above because they know better than to make such a statement because there is a tremendous difference between the indicative mood and the imperative mood. The indicative mood does not convey any kind of responsibility whatsoever but the imperative mood does.

I admit my Greek is a bit rusty and I don't have access to my books right now. I assume verse 3 is in the indicative mood. But I don't possibly see how verse 7 is in the indicative mood but must be an imperative; a command. Am I right or wrong on this?

What in the world are you talking about?????? It most certainly is found in the imperative mood and it is a command. It is not an option nor is it merely indicating a fact but it pointing out a responsibility and that is precisely the proper use of the imperative mode.

Verse 7? That is what I thought. Bit I have two people on this board trying to tell me otherwise.

Why stop at verse 12? Does the continuity of the context demand you stop at verse 12 or does your type of soteriology drive you to stop at verse 12? There is a continuity with verse 13 as verse 13 explicitly denies the very positon you take concerning the new birth. You take the position that it is the will of man that is the cause of the new birth and therefore it is their responsibility to reborn themselves. That is precisely what you have stated in a previous post and I quote "YOU MUST DO IT" - DHK

Verse 13 fits in fine with verse 12. Just don't take your own preconceived ideas out of it. I have already explained it elsewhere.

John 1:12 provides the external consequence of the new birth while verse 13 denies its cause is "YOU DO IT" or to be the consequence of the will of man but defines its cause and power to be the will "of God."

Verse 13: "Being born....of God." The how is given in verse 12.

That is not true! John 3:7 only presents a necessary declaration not a command.

I am a bit confused now. I thought you just said it was a command.
In English it is a command.
Whether I say to my child: Go to school, or You must go to school; it is necessary for her to go to school and she knows it. In the second example it is put an absolute necessity perhaps even stronger than a straight imperative.

Jesus only declares the birth to be necessary without defining how it is obtained or where the ability to perform it originates from. For example, I might tell you that "unless you buy a ticket you cannot enter the stadium." That is no command. Neither does it prove you have the means or the ability to buy a ticket. It only sets forth the factual requirement to enter the stadium.

The requirements were given in verse 5 which I spent a great deal of time explaining. One cannot be born again without the word of God or the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God works through the Word of God (the gospel) in bringing one to Christ--into the family of God.

That is not true either. The new birth is inclusive of eternal life as the new birth is divine QUICKENING or being MADE ALIVE and that is not attributed to what any man does but to what God does as Ephesians 2:1, 5,10 make very clear. The new birth is an INTERNAL spiritual change wrought by God something no man can do!

You argue against Scripture?
I simply quoted Rom.6:23. The gift of God is eternal life. That is something that is given us when we are born again.

 

[preacher4truth]

I admit my Greek is a bit rusty and I don't have access to my books right now.

Aha. Verse 7 is in the indicative mood. Case closed.

- Peace

 

[DHK]

Aha. Verse 7 is in the indicative mood. Case closed.

- Peace

You don't get it do you? An indicative statement is a statement of truth; it can be stated so strongly that its necessity can be stronger than a command. It is imperative.

 

[preacher4truth]

You don't get it do you? An indicative statement is a statement of truth; it can be stated so strongly that its necessity can be stronger than a command. It is imperative.

This is becoming comical.

Nope, you are completely wrong here. A fact doesn't necessitate a command. The fact is John 3:7 is indicative. Point blank.

You need to go find your "books."

John 3:7, indicative mood, not an imperative. Even when you read it in your "book" you'll still argue that a non-imperative is an imperative, because you say so.

And let's not forget that the English translation corrects this according to you, and that John 1:12 proves John 3:7 is a command!

- Peace

 

[savedbymercy]

dhk:

You must be born again! A statement of necessity. You must do it.

No, but it must be done to one in order to have life pleasing to God.

Thats the distinction between True Religion and the religion of the natural man. The natural man can always make himself religiously better within the flesh, but we cannot give ourselves a new spiritual life, we must be born into it, and that is something outside the ability of ourselves. One must be born, not go get born.

 

[savedbymercy]

dw

The indicative mood does not convey any kind of responsibility whatsoever but the imperative mood does.

I would disagree with that statement because it does indicate a responsibility of having to be done, but only not the responsibility of the one who is to be born, but the one who is going to be the author of the birth or the New Life. The New Birth is also a necessity for everyone Christ died for, because in view of Justice having been fully paid in their behalf, and Christ Righteousness laid to their account, Righteousness demands Life, as did sin and condemnation demanded death. Rom 5:17-18

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

As the effects of one man's disobedience demanded judgment and condemnation for all he represented, so likewise, Justification of life is demanded to all for the obedience of Christ and all He represented.

So Jesus had a view to His death in Jn 3:16 and understood the dire necessity of all for whom He was to die must receive Life from His death, Justice demands it.

Justification of life. Justification is the legal verdict for all Christ died, and Life is the vital principal that is the effect , so it reads Justification of Life. Justification demands life and spiritual life at that, for the Last Adam became a quickening Spirit 1 Cor 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Therein lies the necessity of the New Birth, to be quickened, it must be done by Christ the Head of the seed. And so when it occurs, its what Peter calls being born of incorruptible seed, that would be Christ, the Word of God. 1 Pet 1:23

23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

[DHK]

dhk:

No, but it must be done to one in order to have life pleasing to God.

Odd it never says that isn't it?
Three times Jesus says YOU must be born again.
Not once does he say "born again must be done," making your theology totally false.

 

[DHK]

This is becoming comical.

Nope, you are completely wrong here. A fact doesn't necessitate a command. The fact is John 3:7 is indicative. Point blank.

You need to go find your "books."

John 3:7, indicative mood, not an imperative. Even when you read it in your "book" you'll still argue that a non-imperative is an imperative, because you say so.

And let's not forget that the English translation corrects this according to you, and that John 1:12 proves John 3:7 is a command!

- Peace

I have a Bible, wherein three times Jesus says: "YOU must be born again."
You deny this very basic and most necessary truth of the Bible.
I feel sorry for you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My view of John 3:16-17 has not changed. The term world does not mean every living human from Adam to the last person born in verse 16 but all classes, genders, and races of society and in verse 17 it refers to the realm of human existence then present. That is not an eisgetical view when you consider who Jesus is talking to and how the Jews used the term "world" and how it is used in scriptures.

Nonsense, the Greek term used is Cosmos which is indicative of all creation.

Anyone who says that the term "world" means one thing throughout scripture simply has not done their homework. The Jews used the term "world" to mean the same thing as the "nations" or Gentiles" as in Romans 11:11-12. It is used as a hyperbole to mean only a great number of people. It is used for the natural realm. It is used for a system or world order that is in opposition to God.

Now you switch it to being no more than Hyperbole! You can only do that if you don't take the text at its word but read it from a bias which you are obviously doing. The term again is Kosmos and in this statement its inclusive of all creation as well. So Paul is saying (which by the way has nothing to do with John 3:17) "if the jews sin caused to give them the riches of all creation (the world - speaking figuratively of the greatness of salvation in the person of Jesus Christ.) And if the Jews failure means richness for the Gentiles imagine what their full inclusion means!" is the meaning of Romans 11:12. And even with this explanation it is suggestive of all creation. Not just a great amount. That is a device of your own making in the context of the passages.

In John 3:1-18 the context of discussion is between Christ and a Jewish theologion - "master of Israel" who believed in a doctrine of salvation much like the Roman Catholic Church that was inclusive and restricted (Jews; church). The Jewish theological use of the term "world" in a soteriological setting could only mean one thing - all classes, all genders and all races of mankind something repugnant to a Jewish theologion.

You're purposely being speculative here. Thus by the nature of speculation you are reading into the passage a bias.

Finally, YOU CANNOT RESPOND TO THE EVIDENCE I PLACED BEFORE YOU and so you side track the discussion to another subject and thus PIT SCRIPTURE AGAINST SCRIPTURE in order to avoid dealing honestly with the text and evidence I presented. This shows the weakness of your position.

I have not pitted "scripture against scripture". What I have in fact done is Pitted your persepective of scripture against scripture solidly opposed to your perspective. That is different. You're proposal is that Pharoah was created for destruction and had no determination in the matter. Yet Peter says God would like that all men would repent. Which is diametrically opposed to your view. I suggest there is a mystery in that God created pharoah to show his glory and soveriegnty despite the decisions pharoah would make. Yet Pharoah made those decisions of his own accord and is fully responsible for them. The Moral is that no matter what evil decisions or great our power is God always comes out on top and his will is always done. However, that doesn't deminish pharoahs role in the incident. From your perspective it would. What is clear is that your failure to respond rationally to my last quotation of 2 peter which takes into account both OT and NT or the "big picture" by the assertion you made shows you have limited your argument to what is said about a specific situation regarding pharoah and have not taken into account the "context of the whole bible." So you read pharoah only in the context of pharoah which people everywhere do to support supposition.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I admit my Greek is a bit rusty and I don't have access to my books right now. I assume verse 3 is in the indicative mood. But I don't possibly see how verse 7 is in the indicative mood but must be an imperative; a command. Am I right or wrong on this?

It is the indicative mood and "born" is found in the PASSIVE voice which denies that YOU are the responsible party doing this but rather are PASSIVE in the action and merely RECEIVING IT.

Verse 7? That is what I thought. Bit I have two people on this board trying to tell me otherwise.

I was responding to your comment on "repent" not on John 3:7. Repent is found in the imperative mood.

Verse 13: "Being born....of God." The how is given in verse 12.

No, verse 13 is explicitly stating HOW it does not occur and WHO is responsible for it. It does not occur by the will of man and it is God WHO performs it.

The requirements were given in verse 5 which I spent a great deal of time explaining. One cannot be born again without the word of God or the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God works through the Word of God (the gospel) in bringing one to Christ--into the family of God.

John 3:5 explains the instruments involved in the new birth and neither is you! Second John 3:3;5 defines why the new birth is necessary - one cannot "see" or "enter" the kingdom of God without it. Thus the point of the indicative is the declarative fact that one "must" be born again to "see" or "enter" the kingdom of God.

John 3:7 does not provide new criteria but simply repeats the fact based upon the criteria already provided in verses 3 and 5.

If I told you to see the president and enter his office you must be chosen by the vice president and his staff. I am not commanding you to do anything but am conveying the facts for anyone to enter the president's office and see the president. If I followed this up by saying "don't be surprised that you must be chosen" I am not commanding you to do anything but merely reinforcing the stated criteria.

The same is true with John 3:3,5,7. There is no command for YOU to do anything as the text plainly states that the birth is "OF Spirit and OF the word" but not "OF YOU." John 1:13 has already denied the new birth is of the HUMAN WILL power. Other related scriptures repeatedly describe the act of the new birth in language that prohibits any human participation in doing it ("created" "quickened" born "of God" etc.).

You argue against Scripture?
I simply quoted Rom.6:23. The gift of God is eternal life. That is something that is given us when we are born again.

The new birth IS quickening or being made alive by God (Eph. 2:1,4,10; 3:24). The unregenerated state IS being alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:24). There is no such thing as a STILL BORN child of God. The new birth is found in the PASSIVE voice which denies your whole interpretation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nonsense, the Greek term used is Cosmos which is indicative of all creation.

You obviously have not studied the usage of "kosmos" by John and Paul and other writers. Very little study is required to see that it is used various ways. For example, John, the writer of the gospel of John uses "kosmos" to mean this "world system or order under satan" many times. He uses it as a hyperbole. Paul uses it clearly as a synonym for "gentile" in Romans 11:11-12. There are at least seven different ways the term is used in scripture. You cannot arbritrarily dismiss these uses and arbritarily demand that your particular choice must be the usage in soteriological passages unless you can PROVE it.

So Paul is saying (which by the way has nothing to do with John 3:17) "if the jews sin caused to give them the riches of all creation (the world - speaking figuratively of the greatness of salvation in the person of Jesus Christ.) And if the Jews failure means richness for the Gentiles imagine what their full inclusion means!" is the meaning of Romans 11:12. And even with this explanation it is suggestive of all creation. Not just a great amount. That is a device of your own making in the context of the passages.

No, that is not what he is saying or how he uses the term "world." Neither is it how Jesus uses the term "world" in John 17 where he expressly states "I pray not for the world"! How can he come to save "the world" and yet not be willing to even pray "for the world." If the term "world" means "all creation" then how can he say that his disciples are "not of the world" when they are evidently still found in "all creation"?

You're purposely being speculative here. Thus by the nature of speculation you are reading into the passage a bias.

I am doing what every good exegete should do in order to avoid eigesis! I am considering CONTEXT. I am considering the person being spoken to - a Jewish theologion and the person who is speaking a JEWISH theologion. I am grounding this on a well known cultural fact that even you have asserted in past discussion and that is the Jews did not believe one could be saved unless they were a Jew. I am basing it on repeated soteriological expressions found throughout the New Testament "neither male or female, bond or free, Jew or Gentile" and I am basing it upon the description given of all the saved in Revelation 5:9. This is not speculation but well based evidence drawn from the cultural context, Biblical context and various uses of the term "kosmos."

It is you making unfounded assertions due to bias. You have no contextual basis for your assertion but your bias.

I have not pitted "scripture against scripture". What I have in fact done is Pitted your persepective of scripture against scripture solidly opposed to your perspective. That is different.

Yes you have pitted scripture against scripture. Instead of dealing with the grammatical evidence placed before concerning Romans 9:14-18 you simply jumped to John 3:16 and ignored it just as you continue to ignore it below. Below you simply speculate instead of deal with the black and white grammatical evidence.

You're proposal is that Pharoah was created for destruction and had no determination in the matter. Yet Peter says God would like that all men would repent. Which is diametrically opposed to your view. I suggest there is a mystery in that God created pharoah to show his glory and soveriegnty despite the decisions pharoah would make. Yet Pharoah made those decisions of his own accord and is fully responsible for them. The Moral is that no matter what evil decisions or great our power is God always comes out on top and his will is always done. However, that doesn't deminish pharoahs role in the incident. From your perspective it would. What is clear is that your failure to respond rationally to my last quotation of 2 peter which takes into account both OT and NT or the "big picture" by the assertion you made shows you have limited your argument to what is said about a specific situation regarding pharoah and have not taken into account the "context of the whole bible." So you read pharoah only in the context of pharoah which people everywhere do to support supposition.

Again, you cannot honestly and straightforwardly deal with the black and white grammatical evidence I have placed before you so you jump to speculative interpretations and rationalizations. DEAL WITH THE GRAMMAR as the grammar simply forbids your speculative reasonings.

Furthermore, your speculation of my position on Pharoah is your response to the grammatical evidence instead of any statement of mine - that is telling! I did not write the passage or select the pronouns or grammar in this passage. I am simply pointing out the pronouns and grammar Paul used and you cannot honestly deal with it but jump to speculative idealogy and conclusions in response to the grammar and terms Paul used. Hence, your accusations are against Paul not me as I only pointed out his choice of terms not mine.

Moreover, Paul anticipates your very speculative objection concerning Pharoah and says:

Rom. 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Meaning, IF God raised Pharoah up for this very purpose then how can Pharoah be held responsible for who can resist God's will! That is exactly the objection you are raising. This should be telling for you!!!! You are precisely the kind of theologion Paul is responding to. Hence, who is right here? Paul or You? As Paul anticipates the very objection YOU are giving and answers YOU!

However, Paul does not deny that Pharoah or any of the non-elect make choices and are held responsible for their choices. In John 3:18-20 Jesus anticipates the choices of lost people to be THE SAME and says they are already CONDEMNED or held accountable by God from the time they come into the world:

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.

Paul anticipates your objection and condemns you because of your objection. Both Paul and Christ characterize the depraved condition to be the same as the condition of Pharoah and all the non-elect and yet still hold them accountable for their condition and choices.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You obviously have not studied the usage of "kosmos" by John and Paul and other writers. Very little study is required to see that it is used various ways. For example, John, the writer of the gospel of John uses "kosmos" to mean this "world system or order under satan" many times. He uses it as a hyperbole. Paul uses it clearly as a synonym for "gentile" in Romans 11:11-12. There are at least seven different ways the term is used in scripture. You cannot arbritrarily dismiss these uses and arbritarily demand that your particular choice must be the usage in soteriological passages unless you can PROVE it.

The question is not whether the word Cosmos can be used in Hyperbole. But how it is used in the context of the Passage in John 3:17. Which is inclusive of all creation Even using your Jewish theology perspective in means all peoples of all nations not just the Jews which is no different from saying the Whole world. There is no part of that passage that means a select tasting of each nation.

No, that is not what he is saying or how he uses the term "world." Neither is it how Jesus uses the term "world" in John 17 where he expressly states "I pray not for the world"! How can he come to save "the world" and yet not be willing to even pray "for the world." If the term "world" means "all creation" then how can he say that his disciples are "not of the world" when they are evidently still found in "all creation"?

That is exactly what he means. The greater discourse of that passage is whether God rejected the Jews or not and how being a gentile comes into play.


I

am doing what every good exegete should do in order to avoid eigesis! I am considering CONTEXT.

No. You've speculated. Fact: Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus. Fact Nicodemus is a Pharisee as specific sect of Jew that gave rise to latter rabbinical Judaism. Fact Jews believe that they were God's chosen people who upon upholding the Law were based on upholding the law were righteous and could be "saved". Fact a Jewish perspective of Salvation is different than a Christian view of salvation. Fact

Judaism of the second Temple period (and prior) considered the concept of salvation more national (corporate) than exclusively personal, as modern Christianity views it. The salvation of the individual Jew was connected to the salvation of the entire people. This belief stemmed directly from the teachings of the Torah.

Thus a whole people is considered with salvation. And this was only for the Jews. Fact Jesus suggested it for the kosmos. So, in the Context of the passage its for all nations and all peoples which was abhorant to the Pharisees. To suggest it was for a tasting of peoples is not the context as you suggest. My assertion is the cultural context.

IIt is you making unfounded assertions due to bias. You have no contextual basis for your assertion but your bias.

I just showed you I do. And it inlcudes understanding something about Judaism.

Yes you have pitted scripture against scripture. Instead of dealing with the grammatical evidence placed before concerning Romans 9:14-18 you simply jumped to John 3:16 and ignored it just as you continue to ignore it below. Below you simply speculate instead of deal with the black and white grammatical evidence.

Not at all. If you remember I suggested that what you accused DHK of you have done yourself by supposing that Jesus did not come into the world for the world but for a tasting of select people and showed you how that goes against John 3:17. You're the one who jumped to Romans 11. Also you support your view primarily with Exodus which didn't jive with 2nd Peter. So I pitted your perspetive against scripture. And as far as black and white sometimes I've seen people over rationalized all sorts of things. Often the simplist answer is the right one. And as for Romans 9:14-18 Remeber the context of the Passage which was Paul explaining whether God's word to the Jews had failed or not. God provides salvation as he wills! Is he unjust because of this? Not at all. And in this context he brings the discussion of Pharoah.

Again, you cannot honestly and straightforwardly deal with the black and white grammatical evidence I have placed before you so you jump to speculative interpretations and rationalizations. DEAL WITH THE GRAMMAR as the grammar simply forbids your speculative reasonings

I've dealt with the gramar of John 3:17 its clear and simple.

Furthermore, your speculation of my position on Pharoah is your response to the grammatical evidence instead of any statement of mine - that is telling! I did not write the passage or select the pronouns or grammar in this passage. I am simply pointing out the pronouns and grammar Paul used and you cannot honestly deal with it but jump to speculative idealogy and conclusions in response to the grammar and terms Paul used. Hence, your accusations are against Paul not me as I only pointed out his choice of terms not mine.

yet you take it out of context from the whole to prove a minor point which isn't what Paul is even in discourse about.

Moreover, Paul anticipates your very speculative objection concerning Pharoah and says:

Rom. 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Meaning, IF God raised Pharoah up for this very purpose then how can Pharoah be held responsible for who can resist God's will!

Paul isn't anticipating my "speculation". Its clear you didn't read what I actually wrote because you've proven my point God's will is done despite our obedience or disobenience or choices we make! God is glorified and his will done. I suggest there is this mystery but the mystery doesn't negate Pharoah of his responsibility as you suggest. Which even though you don't say that specifically your perspective does. According to you Pharoah could not have made any other decision than what he did. He was preprogrammed for such.

Paul anticipates your objection and condemns you because of your objection.

LOL!!! Paul had no idea I'd even exist!!!! I'm not important enough for Paul to have made mention of me! But thank you for characterizing me as one of the great bible villians.

Both Paul and Christ characterize the depraved condition to be the same as the condition of Pharoah and all the non-elect and yet still hold them accountable for their condition and choices.

This I don't have a problem with. Its you who have a problem with choice. Not I.

 

[savedbymercy]

ts

The question is not whether the word Cosmos can be used in Hyperbole

Though this is a divergent from the original intent of the Thread, I will say this about the word world Kosmos. The word can be used and in fact is used to denote a specific or particular group of people.

The word means :

an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe

4) the circle of the earth, the earth

5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

Now if we just look at that very first and primary definition of the word, any Harmonious arrangement or constitution, order or government is a World.

Such was the Nation of Israel

The Nation of Israel was Constituted by God to be a Type, A Shadow of the World or the People He came to save.

Another definition of world is :

any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

This means that a collection of all God's Sheep from all over the the world, constitutes a World, and yet the particular distinction of having been God's Sheep has not been lost. Jesus says of His Sheep as contrasted to people who were not of His Sheep This Jn 10:16

16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Now, this ONE FOLD of all Christ Sheep is Technically according to the definition of the word world. Again, any aggregate or general collection of particulars is a world.

In case you do not know what the word aggregate means, here is a definition:

formed by the conjunction or collection of particulars into a whole mass or sum; total; combined

If this does not describe the collection of All Christ Sheep, I don't know what does.

So for Christ to save all the Sheep of God that were Lost in Adam, He would have accomplished His objective of Jn 3:17

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ts



Though this is a divergent from the original intent of the Thread, I will say this about the word world Kosmos. The word can be used and in fact is used to denote a specific or particular group of people.

The word means :

an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe

4) the circle of the earth, the earth

5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

Now if we just look at that very first and primary definition of the word, any Harmonious arrangement or constitution, order or government is a World.

Such was the Nation of Israel

The Nation of Israel was Constituted by God to be a Type, A Shadow of the World or the People He came to save.

Another definition of world is :

any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

This means that a collection of all God's Sheep from all over the the world, constitutes a World, and yet the particular distinction of having been God's Sheep has not been lost. Jesus says of His Sheep as contrasted to people who were not of His Sheep This Jn 10:16

16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Now, this ONE FOLD of all Christ Sheep is Technically according to the definition of the word world. Again, any aggregate or general collection of particulars is a world.

In case you do not know what the word aggregate means, here is a definition:

formed by the conjunction or collection of particulars into a whole mass or sum; total; combined

If this does not describe the collection of All Christ Sheep, I don't know what does.

So for Christ to save all the Sheep of God that were Lost in Adam, He would have accomplished His objective of Jn 3:17

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

So, in short what are you saying?

Also, by your statement. If in, Theory, according to you, would the world (in this sence the aggregate collection of all humanity) if desposed to believe in Jesus have access to salvation? Dr. Walter says no. I say yes.

Because He says Jesus only died for the elect and purposed not to die for anyone else. So it depends what group you find yourself in group A or B without your say. I say he died for the world but only those who believe are able to make use of his sacrifice towards salvation. (So to speak).

 

[savedbymercy]

ts asked:

So, in short what are you saying?

You are kidding me right ?

Also, by your statement. If in, Theory, according to you, would the world (in this sence the aggregate collection of all humanity)

Its not in theory, I looked the word up in Strongs concordance.

Because He says Jesus only died for the elect

I happen to believe that also, and the word world can denote the elect, all of them together, just as the Sheep can be described as a world, Israel can be a world with it's orderly arrangement under the constitution of God. Was not Israel a particular Chosen People apart from all other peoples of the earth ?

Duet 7:6

6For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Israel was the World of God's elect. So is Spiritual Israel, but only Spiritual Israel is comprised of people of all different nations, but nevertheless, she is still Israel, The Israel of God.

So I believe Jn 3:16,17 is the World of God's elect, the definition of the word world can mean that.

 

[DHK]

I happen to believe that also, and the word world can denote the elect, all of them together, just as the Sheep can be described as a world, Israel can be a world with it's orderly arrangement under the constitution of God. Was not Israel a particular Chosen People apart from all other peoples of the earth ?

Do you believe the Bible, or just everything Calvin tells you?

Duet 7:6

6For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Israel was the World of God's elect. So is Spiritual Israel, but only Spiritual Israel is comprised of people of all different nations, but nevertheless, she is still Israel, The Israel of God.

So I believe Jn 3:16,17 is the World of God's elect, the definition of the word world can mean that.

Not what the Bible teaches; not even what Calvin taught. Does this surprise you? You are alone except for a few hypers on this board. Are you following in their footsteps? Do you know what you believe and why you believe it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ts asked:



You are kidding me right ?



Its not in theory, I looked the word up in Strongs concordance.



I happen to believe that also, and the word world can denote the elect, all of them together, just as the Sheep can be described as a world, Israel can be a world with it's orderly arrangement under the constitution of God. Was not Israel a particular Chosen People apart from all other peoples of the earth ?

Duet 7:6

6For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Israel was the World of God's elect. So is Spiritual Israel, but only Spiritual Israel is comprised of people of all different nations, but nevertheless, she is still Israel, The Israel of God.

So I believe Jn 3:16,17 is the World of God's elect, the definition of the word world can mean that.

I always want to make sure what it is you are actually saying before I assume what it is you are saying.


Note you only highlighted one definition out of the list of definition listed by strongs why would you include one and disregard the others for instance

) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

this is what you quote. And in fact this can go either way but in either case it consitutes a whole. Also you did not choose the other definition of the word that can be used in this context namely

2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe4) the circle of the earth, the earth

5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

but choose the definition that best suites your election view.

Note You're statement is indicative of a belief that God preprogrammed all of us to either believe or disbelieve. Thus ultimately we have no say and Ultimately are not responsible for our choices. I do not hold that view. I hold that Jesus died for the world and if the entirety of Man were to choose salvation they all would be saved. In your perspective the entirety of man cannot be saved because Jesus sacrifice is insufficient for all humanity because he economically only died for the people in group "A". Thus salvation isn't offered to everyman but only those in group "A". To me this is antithetical to the scriptures.

 

[savedbymercy]

ts:

but choose the definition that best suites your election view.

I gave the definition of the word world as it used in the scripture and I have nothing else to say about it in this thread.