Ye must be born again !

[Thinkingstuff]

ts:



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.

That is not the case of all the definitions you chose the one that agrees with your view.

 

[quantumfaith]

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[/B]

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 do you think this was the definition in the first century hebrew dictionary? I think (and I am indeed speculating here) Occam's Razor may apply here.

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

Don't feel sorry for me friend. I know this isn't a command, it's not in the imperative mood.

No need for negative innuendos about me as a person, OK? Like you told someone else personal attacks start proving you're losing.

Stick to the facts and perhaps refrain from forcing your meaning upon a text, adn claiming the English translation gets it right, as if correcting the inspired text?

In addition, the English translation doesn't turn it into an imperative. That's one of your fallacies.

No more need to go back and forth on this, you're clearly and definitely incorrect and will do whatever you need to to prove yourself correct. But you're still incorrect. This is where you will remain on this matter.

If you called the tail on a dog a leg, how many legs would it have? It would still have four. Just because you call it's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Just because you call an indicative an imperative, well, guess what? That's right, it's still an indicative, or, not a command. No matter how many times you CAPS "YOU" in your quote of John 3:7 it won't change this fact.

- Peace

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

I suggest you go look at any recognized standard lexicon and you will see that no standard lexicogopher shares your limited definition of kosmos. Take a look at Thayer, or Colin Brown or any standard recognized word study.

However, I would guess that you will refuse all standard reference works on this word and demand that your own narrow view is the Biblical view - period!

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.

You got to be kidding me? You believe that "kosmos" used in John 17:9,14,16 and 1 John 2:15-16 means "all creation"?????????????

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


So, Jesus can love and die for "all creation" (Jn. 3;16) but he will not pray for "all creation"???????

When he says he as well as those he chose were not "of the kosmos" he means they were not of "ALL creation" thus they must be eternal and uncreated like Christ??????? So when John condemns the "world" and the "things of the world" he is condeming "ALL creation" and all things in "all creation"??? You have got to be joking?

1 Jn.2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

So, God loves "all creation" but John commands us NOT TO LOVE "all creation" so who is right? God or John?

This is the kind of nonsense you get when you simply ignore standard works dealing with the meaning and usage of Biblical words and demand "kosmos" means only "all creation." I could go on and show many other rediculous and contradictions with the position that it only means "all creation."

No. You've speculated....... So, in the Context of the passage its for all nations and all peoples which was abhorant to the Pharisees.

Thank you. You just vindicated my position as your own words aptly describe my exact position which you confirm is true for the word kosmos "So, in the Context of the passage its for ALL NATIONS and ALL PEOPLES which was abhorant to the Pharisees." That is exactly my position. It is not for "all creation" or "all humans who have lived, do live and shall live" BUT IT IS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF RACE, CLASS OR GENDER.

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

It is not the grammar of John 3:17 I spelled out in detail but the grammatical facts of Romans 9:14-18 and you have not dealt with it at all.

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.

I have never ever suggested such a thing nor have I ever said such a thing. At no time have I ever taken a position that any non-elect does not make choices or is not held accountable for his choices. That idea was your idea which you presented as my idea! At no time have I ever said that any human being is programmed - that is your conclusion that you impute to me and put in my mouth as though it were my conclusion.

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.

Again you misrepresent what I said. I never said Paul anticipated YOU! I said Paul anticipated YOUR OBJECTION. That is precisely your objection. You object to the words of Paul, the words that I simply quoted from Romans 9:13-18 by saying this means Pharoah was nothing but a robot, Pharoah would have no choice and that would make God unjust to condemn him for something God raised him up for. Go back and read my statement and you will see!

 

[Dr. Walter]

As I have said before, John 3:3,5,7 and the words "born" in the Greek text is not only indicative in mode but is PASSIVE in voice. That means the pronoun "YOU" is not the doer of the action and cannot be the doer of the action. Thus "you" cannot produce the birth or participate in producing the birth. The passive voice makes it foolish to suggest it is imperative in mode or in practicality.

 

[DHK]

As I have said before, John 3:3,5,7 and the words "born" in the Greek text is not only indicative in mode but is PASSIVE in voice. That means the pronoun "YOU" is not the doer of the action and cannot be the doer of the action. Thus "you" cannot produce the birth or participate in producing the birth. The passive voice makes it foolish to suggest it is imperative in mode or in practicality.

It is very simple.
You must be born again means You must be born again.
It doesn't mean, Someone must get you born again.
In fact three times Jesus said YOU must be born again.
This is a simple basic truth of Christianity which you are blind to because of your Calvinistic glasses. Take them off. They blind you to the truth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is very simple.
You must be born again means You must be born again.
It doesn't mean, Someone must get you born again.
In fact three times Jesus said YOU must be born again.
This is a simple basic truth of Christianity which you are blind to because of your Calvinistic glasses. Take them off. They blind you to the truth.

The passive voice demands that the pronoun "you" RECEIVES the action of being born again and denies that the pronoun "you" is DOING the action. Remember, your position was summed up by your words "YOU CAN DO IT" but the passive voice denies "you" have any part in doing it. That is the grammar and your position is flatly opposed to the language used by the Holy Spirit. In other words, your position is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[DHK]

The passive voice demands that the pronoun "you" RECEIVES the action of being born again and denies that the pronoun "you" is DOING the action. Remember, your position was summed up by your words "YOU CAN DO IT" but the passive voice denies "you" have any part in doing it. That is the grammar and your position is flatly opposed to the language used by the Holy Spirit. In other words, your position is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You stand alone. Virtually every translation disagrees with you. You therefore put yourself on a pedestal higher than all authorities, as an authority unto yourself. Whatever you say must be right just because you said it.

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

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. (John 3:7) [ASV]

Do not wonder that I said to thee, It is needful that *ye* should be born anew. (John 3:7) [Darby]

Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' (John 3:7) [WEB]

`Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above; (John 3:7) [Young’s]

(Joh 3:7) Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' [ESV]

(ISV) Don't be astonished that I said to you, 'All of you must be born from above.'

(NET) Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must all14 be born from above.'

 

[Dr. Walter]

You stand alone. Virtually every translation disagrees with you. You therefore put yourself on a pedestal higher than all authorities, as an authority unto yourself. Whatever you say must be right just because you said it.

Nearly all these translations use the term "be" which again shows that "you" or "ye" is receiving the action rather than doing the action.

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

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. (John 3:7) [ASV]

Do not wonder that I said to thee, It is needful that *ye* should be born anew. (John 3:7) [Darby]

Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' (John 3:7) [WEB]

`Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above; (John 3:7) [Young’s]

(Joh 3:7) Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' [ESV]

(ISV) Don't be astonished that I said to you, 'All of you must be born from above.'

(NET) Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must all14 be born from above.'

All of these translation can be regarded in keeping with the indicative mode rather than the imperative mode.

Finally, it is the Greek text that is the final authority in judging all translations as they are all translations of the Greek text. If the Greek verb is PASSIVE and the mode is INDICATIVE than all translations that ignore that and translate it ACTIVE and IMPERATIVE are wrong - just that simple. Nearly every single translation above agrees with the passive voice and indicative mode.

Your position ("YOU CAN DO IT") would require the following kind of translations:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must birth yourselves again. (John 3:7) [KJV]

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must birth yourselves anew. (John 3:7) [ASV]

Do not wonder that I said to thee, It is needful that *ye* should birth yourselves anew. (John 3:7) [Darby]

Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must birth yourselves anew.' (John 3:7) [WEB]

`Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to birth yourselves from below: (John 3:7) [Young’s]

(Joh 3:7) Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must birth yourselves again.' [ESV]

(ISV) Don't be astonished that I said to you, 'All of you must birth yourselves below.'

(NET) Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must all birth yourselves below.'

All of these translation can be regarded in keeping with the indicative mode rather than the imperative mode.

No matter how many translations you find it is not the translation that is final in authority but the Greek text being used by the translator. The fact is that the Greek text will not support your position. Your position requires either the ACTIVE or MIDDLE voice and the IMPERATIVE mode but the Greek text which is God's choice of words use the PASSIVE voice and INDICATIVE mode - both contradict your interpretation of the text and your interpretation of these translations of the text.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There are four grammatical facts found in John 3:3-7 that absolutely forbid, prohibit and deny the "YOU CAN DO IT" theory of the new birth:

1. The Indicative mood instead of the imperative mood

2. The Passive voice instead of the active or middle voice

3. "born from ABOVE" not from below

4. The new birth is "OF God" not "of man"

Nearly all these translations use the term "be" which again shows that "you" or "ye" is receiving the action rather than doing the action.

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

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. (John 3:7) [ASV]

Do not wonder that I said to thee, It is needful that *ye* should be born anew. (John 3:7) [Darby]

Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' (John 3:7) [WEB]

`Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above; (John 3:7) [Young’s]

(Joh 3:7) Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' [ESV]

(ISV) Don't be astonished that I said to you, 'All of you must be born from above.'

(NET) Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must all14 be born from above.'

All of these translation can be regarded in keeping with the indicative mode rather than the imperative mode.

Finally, it is the Greek text that is the final authority in judging all translations as they are all translations of the Greek text. If the Greek verb is PASSIVE and the mode is INDICATIVE than all translations that ignore that and translate it ACTIVE and IMPERATIVE are wrong - just that simple. Nearly every single translation above agrees with the passive voice and indicative mode.

Your position ("YOU CAN DO IT") would require the following kind of translations:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must birth yourselves again. (John 3:7) [KJV]

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must birth yourselves anew. (John 3:7) [ASV]

Do not wonder that I said to thee, It is needful that *ye* should birth yourselves anew. (John 3:7) [Darby]

Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must birth yourselves anew.' (John 3:7) [WEB]

`Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to birth yourselves from below: (John 3:7) [Young’s]

(Joh 3:7) Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must birth yourselves again.' [ESV]

(ISV) Don't be astonished that I said to you, 'All of you must birth yourselves below.'

(NET) Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must all birth yourselves below.'

All of these translation can be regarded in keeping with the indicative mode rather than the imperative mode.

No matter how many translations you find it is not the translation that is final in authority but the Greek text being used by the translator. The fact is that the Greek text will not support your position. Your position requires either the ACTIVE or MIDDLE voice and the IMPERATIVE mode but the Greek text which is God's choice of words use the PASSIVE voice and INDICATIVE mode - both contradict your interpretation of the text and your interpretation of these translations of the text.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I suggest you go look at any recognized standard lexicon and you will see that no standard lexicogopher shares your limited definition of kosmos. Take a look at Thayer, or Colin Brown or any standard recognized word study.

However, I would guess that you will refuse all standard reference works on this word and demand that your own narrow view is the Biblical view - period!

You are wrong. I've used Strongs Concordance, Vines, and others. In fact in each case it turns out I haven't limited the word kosmos but you have. I've shown the differing uses of the word with greater context than you and you still limit the term in John 3:17 as hyperboli to support the limited view of the word to mean limitedly only a few of each. However we see from a standard lexicon when in comparison to other passages

probably here the universe: it had this meaning among the Greeks, owing to the order observable in it...1 John 3:17 (perhaps also Rom. 4:13); (c) by metonymy, the "human race, mankind,"

So it isn't just my biblical view.

You got to be kidding me? You believe that "kosmos" used in John 17:9,14,16 and 1 John 2:15-16 means "all creation"?????????????

Ah now you pit scripture against scripture. Entirely different context. Were as in the context of John 3:17 Jesus came into the world to provide salvation for the world. And clearly John 17 Jesus clearly indicates in his language he's not talking about the whole world. Totally differnt context in which the word is found totally different. John 3:17

17For God sent not his Son into the world (Universe - Circle of the Earth) to condemn the world (all of humanity); but that the world (Humanity, mankind) through him might be saved.

parenthesis mine. Now John 17

9I pray for them: I pray not for the world (humanity - mankind or all of them), but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

I have given them thy word; and the world(in alienation from and opposition to God) hath hated them, because they are not of the world(in alienation from and opposition to God), even as I am not of the world.

They are not of the world(in alienation from and opposition to God), even as I am not of the world(in alienation from and opposition to God)

Again paranthesis again mine. Here from the outset we can see Jesus is being specifically selective because he spells out selectivity from the begining of his discourse in prayer. You don't have that with John 3:17. I never said the word Kosmos couldn't be used in differen't manners. Just I believe you are wrong about how the context is read in John 3:17. Its not used in the same way as in John 17. Just like the english world Love can mean extreme commitment and care for another or it can simply mean like depeneding on the context of the passage.

So, Jesus can love and die for "all creation" (Jn. 3;16) but he will not pray for "all creation"???????

First of all Jesus will redeem all creation. Period. Second of all - all men who will be reconciled will be saved. Those who refuse to be reconciled to God aren't extended the grace of salvation though it is offered to them. According to you they aren't even offered it. That is the difference between you and I. And next Jesus was praying specifically for his disciples. I can pray for the world and pray for my kids. I pray specifically for my kids and I make it clear it is for them and not for every kid in the world. In this same sense Jesus prays for his disciples and those who will be reconcilled. Clearly Jesus has prayed for the world previously or he wouldn't have specified this prayer. Context, Context, Context.

15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

This is a specific prayer for protection from evil just for his believers as it says in his model prayer.

This is the kind of nonsense you get when you simply ignore standard works dealing with the meaning and usage of Biblical words and demand "kosmos" means only "all creation." I could go on and show many other rediculous and contradictions with the position that it only means "all creation."

Your error is you take a consept out of context of the passage it was written in and apply a different non relevant part of scripture with it. Thats a bad practice. You certainly don't get truth that way.

Thank you. You just vindicated my position as your own words aptly describe my exact position which you confirm is true for the word kosmos "So, in the Context of the passage its for ALL NATIONS and ALL PEOPLES which was abhorant to the Pharisees." That is exactly my position. It is not for "all creation" or "all humans who have lived, do live and shall live" BUT IT IS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF RACE, CLASS OR GENDER.

No its not your possition your possition is that jesus didn't die for all who will be reconciled but only those who have already been established in group "A" which is made up of a predetermined selection from each grouping rather than all those who will be reconciled. And you may even go so far as to say there may be people groups who aren't represented. Though admittedly that last is speculative on my part. My point is that Jesus offers salvation to all peoples all over the earth in all nations. You point is that Jesus offers salvation to a tasting only.

It is not the grammar of John 3:17 I spelled out in detail but the grammatical facts of Romans 9:14-18 and you have not dealt with it at all.

I have dealt with the grammar of John 3:17 and the contextual analysis of that passage you haven't listened to it. And again you throw in a non relevant passage to pit against John 3:17. Kosmos in the passage of John 3:17 is using its most general term.


I

have never ever suggested such a thing nor have I ever said such a thing. At no time have I ever taken a position that any non-elect does not make choices or is not held accountable for his choices. That idea was your idea which you presented as my idea! At no time have I ever said that any human being is programmed - that is your conclusion that you impute to me and put in my mouth as though it were my conclusion.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I said you didn't say it however your perception logically leads to that conclusion. God Elects those who would be saved and God elects those who would not be saved not based on anything about the person. Those he elects he predisposes towards salvation by the work of the Holy Spirit. Those he does not elect he does nothing to engender a movement towards God and assures their ignorance by not having the Holy Spirit interact with them. Thus Jesus did not come to offer salvation for everyone who would be reconsiled with him but only those who have no other option than follow their preappointed path (Ie Holy Spirit interaction changed their programming rather than maintain their allready programed sinful nature). There is no Choice in this process because those who the Holy Spirit regenerates will automatically believe despite whether they want to believe or not and they will follow this new programmed directive until the end of their days (perserverance). And those non elect will follow their faulty programming to destruction. Jesus only offers salvation to those he started programming prior to their birth as they are in group "A". This is the logical flow of your soteriology taken to its end.

Again you misrepresent what I said. I never said Paul anticipated YOU! I said Paul anticipated YOUR OBJECTION

And the difference is?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You make a good politician but not a good theologion. My position from the beginning has been depending on the context kosmos may mean different things and thus have different uses. If you used Strongs concordance than you know that the term "kosmos" is not limited to one meaning and it is not limited to the meaning of "all creation"! Below you do your political shift and finally admit:

"I've shown the differing uses of the word"
" Entirely different context"
" I never said the word Kosmos couldn't be used in differen't manners."

You never commented on the fact that John said, "LOVE NOT the world" but Jesus said "God SO LOVED THE WORLD"? If your meaning "all creation" is the meaning in both texts then we have a complete contradiction. The same writer is John. The "world" John commands us NOT TO LOVE is the "world order under Satan" whereas the "world" God so loved is "all mankind without distinction of race, gender and class." The context is different and that is precisely why the meaning is different which has been my position from the beginning.

"And clearly John 17 Jesus clearly indicates in his language he's not talking about the whole world." - Thinkingstuff

However, "all creation" means "ALL creation" and thus it means the "WHOLE creation." However, as you admit, the "context" denies that the term "world" in John 17 means the "WHOLE" or "ALL" creation. Case closed.

Therefore, it is legitimate to conclude that the term "kosmos" is used differently in the scripture depending upon the context. Your chosen interpretation of soteriological contexts is simply that "YOUR CHOSEN" interpretation not necessarily the correct interpretation.

You are wrong. I've used Strongs Concordance, Vines, and others. In fact in each case it turns out I haven't limited the word kosmos but you have. I've shown the differing uses of the word with greater context than you and you still limit the term in John 3:17 as hyperboli to support the limited view of the word to mean limitedly only a few of each. However we see from a standard lexicon when in comparison to other passages So it isn't just my biblical view.



Ah now you pit scripture against scripture. Entirely different context. Were as in the context of John 3:17 Jesus came into the world to provide salvation for the world. And clearly John 17 Jesus clearly indicates in his language he's not talking about the whole world. Totally differnt context in which the word is found totally different. John 3:17 parenthesis mine. Now John 17 Again paranthesis again mine. Here from the outset we can see Jesus is being specifically selective because he spells out selectivity from the begining of his discourse in prayer. You don't have that with John 3:17. I never said the word Kosmos couldn't be used in differen't manners. Just I believe you are wrong about how the context is read in John 3:17. Its not used in the same way as in John 17. Just like the english world Love can mean extreme commitment and care for another or it can simply mean like depeneding on the context of the passage.


First of all Jesus will redeem all creation. Period. Second of all - all men who will be reconciled will be saved. Those who refuse to be reconciled to God aren't extended the grace of salvation though it is offered to them. According to you they aren't even offered it. That is the difference between you and I. And next Jesus was praying specifically for his disciples. I can pray for the world and pray for my kids. I pray specifically for my kids and I make it clear it is for them and not for every kid in the world. In this same sense Jesus prays for his disciples and those who will be reconcilled. Clearly Jesus has prayed for the world previously or he wouldn't have specified this prayer. Context, Context, Context. This is a specific prayer for protection from evil just for his believers as it says in his model prayer.

Your error is you take a consept out of context of the passage it was written in and apply a different non relevant part of scripture with it. Thats a bad practice. You certainly don't get truth that way.


No its not your possition your possition is that jesus didn't die for all who will be reconciled but only those who have already been established in group "A" which is made up of a predetermined selection from each grouping rather than all those who will be reconciled. And you may even go so far as to say there may be people groups who aren't represented. Though admittedly that last is speculative on my part. My point is that Jesus offers salvation to all peoples all over the earth in all nations. You point is that Jesus offers salvation to a tasting only.


I have dealt with the grammar of John 3:17 and the contextual analysis of that passage you haven't listened to it. And again you throw in a non relevant passage to pit against John 3:17. Kosmos in the passage of John 3:17 is using its most general term.


I
You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I said you didn't say it however your perception logically leads to that conclusion. God Elects those who would be saved and God elects those who would not be saved not based on anything about the person. Those he elects he predisposes towards salvation by the work of the Holy Spirit. Those he does not elect he does nothing to engender a movement towards God and assures their ignorance by not having the Holy Spirit interact with them. Thus Jesus did not come to offer salvation for everyone who would be reconsiled with him but only those who have no other option than follow their preappointed path (Ie Holy Spirit interaction changed their programming rather than maintain their allready programed sinful nature). There is no Choice in this process because those who the Holy Spirit regenerates will automatically believe despite whether they want to believe or not and they will follow this new programmed directive until the end of their days (perserverance). And those non elect will follow their faulty programming to destruction. Jesus only offers salvation to those he started programming prior to their birth as they are in group "A". This is the logical flow of your soteriology taken to its end.


And the difference is?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You make a good politician but not a good theologion. My position from the beginning has been depending on the context kosmos may mean different things and thus have different uses. If you used Strongs concordance than you know that the term "kosmos" is not limited to one meaning and it is not limited to the meaning of "all creation"! Below you do your political shift and finally admit:

"I've shown the differing uses of the word"
" Entirely different context"
" I never said the word Kosmos couldn't be used in differen't manners."

You never commented on the fact that John said, "LOVE NOT the world" but Jesus said "God SO LOVED THE WORLD"? If your meaning "all creation" is the meaning in both texts then we have a complete contradiction. The same writer is John. The "world" John commands us NOT TO LOVE is the "world order under Satan" whereas the "world" God so loved is "all mankind without distinction of race, gender and class." The context is different and that is precisely why the meaning is different which has been my position from the beginning.

"And clearly John 17 Jesus clearly indicates in his language he's not talking about the whole world." - Thinkingstuff

However, "all creation" means "ALL creation" and thus it means the "WHOLE creation." However, as you admit, the "context" denies that the term "world" in John 17 means the "WHOLE" or "ALL" creation. Case closed.

you clearly missed my paranthetical captions when in each case the world is Kosmos. I show in the context each time which deffinition should be applied because the word is used in many formats but on context we see the appropriateness of how the word should be used. John 17 is a different context than John 3 as again its a different context in Romans etc... You miss the context and support your position by other passages that John 3 isn't related to.

 

[Dr. Walter]

you clearly missed my paranthetical captions when in each case the world is Kosmos. I show in the context each time which deffinition should be applied because the word is used in many formats but on context we see the appropriateness of how the word should be used. John 17 is a different context than John 3 as again its a different context in Romans etc... You miss the context and support your position by other passages that John 3 isn't related to.

If we are both honest, we simply differ in regard to the proper meaning of Kosmos in soteriological contexts.

I base my definition of the soteriological kosmos upon both the historical and Biblical context just as you claim you do. In each debated instance it is being used by a Jew in a Jewish setting or written to Jews who did not believe salvation extended beyond the boundaries of Judaism and even did not believe salvation extended to all Jews as the Pharisees believed some kind of Jews would go to hell. The term "world" was a term of reproach in the mouth of a Jew because to them it meant the same thing as Gentile - outsiders - outside of Judaism.

Paul uses the soterilogical expression that in Christ there is neither "Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female" which is equivilent to all mankind without distinction of race, class or gender.

John uses the soteriological expression of all the saved:"hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

It can be argued that John in a soteriological context used "all" to mean "all kinds" or "all classes" in John 12 as it is "gentiles" who were seeking Christ and were the cause of the response Christ to Jews who were listening to him.

In Romans 11 it can be argued successfully that "world" is used synonymously in a soteriological context for "gentile".

Obviously, due to your chosen soteriological definition of "world" you will not agree with me but contend that it means "all creation" but that is a definition you cannot prove but only assert.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If we are both honest, we simply differ in regard to the proper meaning of Kosmos in soteriological contexts.

I base my definition of the soteriological kosmos upon both the historical and Biblical context just as you claim you do. In each debated instance it is being used by a Jew in a Jewish setting or written to Jews who did not believe salvation extended beyond the boundaries of Judaism and even did not believe salvation extended to all Jews as the Pharisees believed some kind of Jews would go to hell. The term "world" was a term of reproach in the mouth of a Jew because to them it meant the same thing as Gentile - outsiders - outside of Judaism.

Paul uses the soterilogical expression that in Christ there is neither "Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female" which is equivilent to all mankind without distinction of race, class or gender.

John uses the soteriological expression of all the saved:"hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

It can be argued that John in a soteriological context used "all" to mean "all kinds" or "all classes" in John 12 as it is "gentiles" who were seeking Christ and were the cause of the response Christ to Jews who were listening to him.

In Romans 11 it can be argued successfully that "world" is used synonymously in a soteriological context for "gentile".

Obviously, due to your chosen soteriological definition of "world" you will not agree with me but contend that it means "all creation" but that is a definition you cannot prove but only assert.

Now that we are being honest. I want to show that was my original point when I asked "isn't that what you do when you look at John 3:17?" Ie from your biased perspective? And you suggested you could not look at it any other way based on grammer. Which is just not true. To hold your view you have to come at it from your soterilogical perspective or bias.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now that we are being honest. I want to show that was my original point when I asked "isn't that what you do when you look at John 3:17?" Ie from your biased perspective? And you suggested you could not look at it any other way based on grammer. Which is just not true. To hold your view you have to come at it from your soterilogical perspective or bias.

My perspective of John 17 is no more biased than your perspective. What we have to determine is the source of each bias. Both of us declare that our bias is due to, or determined by the historical and Biblical immediate and overall context. I believe that the basis for my particular bias "all mankind without distinction of race, class or gender" is better based in the historical and Biblical soteriological overall context. Of course you will deny that.

 

[Dr. Walter]

However, returning to the subject of this thread which is John 3:3-7 and whether the new birth is something "WE CAN DO it" or whether it is something only God can do:

There are four grammatical facts found in John 3:3-7 that absolutely forbid, prohibit and deny the "YOU CAN DO IT" theory of the new birth:

1. The Indicative mood instead of the imperative mood

2. The Passive voice instead of the active or middle voice

3. "born from ABOVE" not from below

4. The new birth is "OF God" not "of man"

 

[Dr. Walter]

you clearly missed my paranthetical captions when in each case the world is Kosmos. I show in the context each time which deffinition should be applied because the word is used in many formats but on context we see the appropriateness of how the word should be used. John 17 is a different context than John 3 as again its a different context in Romans etc... You miss the context and support your position by other passages that John 3 isn't related to.

You are mistaken. I interpret the term "kosmos" according to its immediate context and related contexts. I only went to non-related contexts to demonstrate that the term "kosmos" does not universally and only mean "all creation" and it certainly does not mean "all creation" within soteriological related contexts as there are some within creation that will not be saved (Satan, demons, unbelievers).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My perspective of John 17 is no more biased than your perspective. What we have to determine is the source of each bias. Both of us declare that our bias is due to, or determined by the historical and Biblical immediate and overall context. I believe that the basis for my particular bias "all mankind without distinction of race, class or gender" is better based in the historical and Biblical soteriological overall context. Of course you will deny that.

I didn't say my perspective wasn't biased. At least I don't think so. I know I was just pointing it out to you because of what you had said to DHK. Specifically,

The bottom line is they simply reject what God has to say here and then go about perverting it by their own eisgetical bias.

And of course I prefer my bias to yours and would disagree as to the overall historical and biblical outlook because you hold stictly to reformed theology and I do not. However, it doesn't mean that the other does not have valid points. It just seemed to me in your argument with DHK you unfairly dismissed what he said. Which is why I brought it up.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It just seemed to me in your argument with DHK you unfairly dismissed what he said. Which is why I brought it up.

My statement stands and neither you or DHK has attempted to deal with the pronouns and original arguments I set forth in that post. I quote it again for your edification and opportunity to respond:



Rom. 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Take note of the personal singular pronouns "whom" and "him" proving this is being applied to INDIVIDUALS per se and not NATIONS per se.

Second, take note that mercy is by sovereign choice not by necessity or demand.

Third, take note that even though man is capable of willing/choosing and running or pursuing, that such are not causations for receiving mercy but rather God's own sovereign will is the causation for receving mercy.

Fourth, take note that it is an individual person that is a non-Jew that is the immediate illustration for this PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL application of "whom" and "him" in the person of Pharoah in verse 17 and that this personal and individual illustration is then made applicable to all individuals and persons in verse 18 which concludes the point first introduced in verses 15-16

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.


All Arminians must EXPLAIN AWAY the explicit and clear INDIVIDUALIZED language of this text. They must demand it is NATIONAL not INDIVIDUAL even though there is no mention of NATIONS but only of INDIVIDUAL persons and personal pronouns.

The bottom line is they simply reject what God has to say here and then go about perverting it by their own eisgetical bias.