Meaning of "Kosmos"

There are few that I know of who state 'world or Kosmos' means all humanity and nothing else. However, that said, a few of Pink's meanings for 'kosmos' are off the plain teaching of scripture but two are only a theological opinion. I will go through them but instead of 'Kosmos" I will just use the term world for others sake.

1. World is used of earth. - I agree
2. World is used the world system - It is arguable in the way he put it (Geographical area relating to a system is better- ie. Roman World) but I have no prob with it.
3. World is used of the whole human race - I disagree. It refers to all sinful wicken men.
4. World refers to humanity minus believers - I agree but this is merely #3 reworded.
5. World is used of Gentiles in contrast with the Jews. - I agree but again this is #3 restated.
6. Not once does scripture ever use world to mean believers. We get the defintions we use from the way it is consistantly used in the scriptures. Since the NT is based off of the OT, all words in the NT should be the same and have the same meanings as the OT. God will not change the meaning of a word from one testament to the other. The larger portion of scripture is given to the OT and defined meaning of world will have been utilized numerous times there that its meaning will be established as the NT writters set down under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit to write those things with consistancy in the NT already established in the OT.

World not once is ever used in the OT to refer to Gods people or believers therefore to use it as such would be inconsistant with scripture regarding its prediscribed definition. It IS used to descirbe the (1) World (as in earth itself), (2) Geographical specific (world system), and (3) all sinful wicked men.

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

The reason some scripture in Pinks view can not mean ALL sinful and wicked men isn't becaust this is contextual nor consistant, but the definition is changed to support a theological view. We (as believers) are called OUT OF the World, we are told not to be OF THE World, for the World will be Judged. It is inconsistant with the predefined OT definition already given, ESPECIALLY since much of the time when the world is used it is regarding prophesy from the OT or quote from the OT.

What I asked you to look into was not the term 'world' but 'WHOLE WORLD' as used by John. Reason - to understand John position on what world meant and most specifically WHOLE World. I asked this of you to see what he ment contextually by Christ being the propitation for our sins but not ours only but the sins of the Whole World. I'll give you the verses here and you decide.
Here is an OT passage (the only one there is) regarding the term "whole world" and the definition IT gives first.

This is the only reference in the OT relating specifically to 'whole world' and as you can see it is speaking to God judgment against and on sinful wicked men.

These two are in the same letter and the definition is clearly defined by John himself as to the intent and meaning of 'whole world'.

.
As you can see John was consistant with his use of whole world and how he understood it's definition. And in light of his usage of it at other places we must follow scritpure and not one theology to determine what 1 John 2:2 is truly saying. That being Christ died for our sins (believers) but not ours only but the sins of the Whole World (every sinful and wicked man). As abhorent as that might sound to your theological opinion it is in fact contextuall and consistantly scriptural.


The only other defintion given of 'whole world' is that of entirty of the planet - such as ...if a man gain the whole world and lose his soul...

 

Before I spit at it as you so eloguently put it. Why not read the scripture I posted. I believe everyone who reads Jn 3:16 understands the meaning of it. "World" and it's meaning in Jn 3:16 is understood by it adjective. The "whosoevers" are who is being spoken of.
Who are the whosoevers? they are those who come to believe through the work of the Holy Spirit.
MB

 

The 'abhorent' peice is what I hear it called all the time (even by Spurgeon ) and not necessarily FROM you. I appologize for that.

I believe (as do most Non-Cals) the bible teaches Specific Redemption but that it also teaches Universal Atonement.

I don't believe that Christ has redeemed all men but that He died for the sins of all. And scripture does state:

It is by faith the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)


He is the propitation THROUGH Faith, not the propitiation that brings us TO faith.

 

As RB and others have said, unity must be in the TRUTH. While "accompanying observations" may be distractors, they do communicate the utter incredibility of the poster's assertions.

Further evidence, if such were necessary, comes in the fact that the respondent reacts to the "distractor" and not to the issue. My usual "modus operandi" is to QUOTE the poster deleting their "special messages" to me (forgive them, they know not what they do) and go ahead and illustrate or reposit my point in hopefully more understandable terms.

I doubt if you know how many times RB has denigrated me, Andy. And it does appear that RB has given up on finding unity with any free willer unless it is by converting them to Calvinism. Whereas I have introduced some plausible ideas regarding belief vs. faith, soul vs. spirit, sovereignty of God over outcomes vs "total sovereignty," filling vs. indwelling Spirit, dispensational vs covenant theology, ... we just seem to go nowhere on account of Calvinism is literally "captive" to TULIP, it's bogus terminology, and its whole errant, outdated paradigm of man and God.

That doesn't mean that I quit -- RB is doing the quitting here. All in a huff about his "feathers" being "ruffled" -- no interest at this point in any issue other than his pride.

skypair

 

It might well be stated that Christ died for all so that ALL may be resurrected from death and hell. Some will be resurrected bodily to heaven (believers) and some bodily to the GWT (the lost). What allows them into the presence of God the 2nd time is that their sins are paid for -- it is their belief or unbelief that is judged.

skypair

 

Yes, any individual who believes in Jesus Christ not just can have, but has eternal life. I agree. In fact I have not yet seen anyone on the BB disagree. The disagreement comes when we get to the reason why some people believe and are saved, and others don't and are condemned, but that is another subject to the one of this thread, perhaps.

 

Had the Scripture said "they that believe on Him" rather than "whosoever" in John 3:16 then the OP premise that the "world" of John 3:16 means the "world" of believers might have credence. However it says "whosoever"

John 3

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

As in John 7:

John 7

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)​

Also in 1 John ​

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.​

1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.​

HankD​

 

True, context is very important but so is the style of the human author and in the context of the Book of both 1st John and the Revelation and the way John uses the phrase "the whole world". In addition John was not shy about identifying and using specific words in distinguishing between Jew and Gentile which he does not do here. It is my opinion therefore that John (inspired by the Spirit) meant "the whole world" as those who are of "the wicked one" (which is the usage of 1 John 5:19).

So Yes, in my understanding that therefore means that Christ propitiation was sufficient and even potentially effective for the satisfaction of the wrath of God for sin for "the whole world" that is, all of those who are of the wicked one and not just the elect.

As John the Baptist said:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.​

This would explain:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
​

So, even the wicked are His by right not only of creation but by right of purchase (as the Lord that bought them) to do with as He pleases, being His property.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Some are vessels of destruction headed for the lake of fire, others for eternity in His presence. But all are His and subject to His Sovereignty.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


Please don't feel that this is a personal thing RB or even a slam on Pink but a difference of opinion (or conviction). After all, this is a debate board.

You may be right brother, I may be wrong, though I agree that Pink's view seems an odd understanding of John 3:16.

HankD​

 

For the most part RB we agree, that is why I used the phrase "potentially effective" concerning the redemption (but not the propitiating).

In my view, God's wrath for the sin of the entire cosmos is completely satisfied (propitiated) by the shed blood of Christ.

But because the atonement benefit of eternal life is only dispensed by grace through faith in that shed blood to the human race does not in my mind violate the economy of heaven.

Some perhaps see a "general" atonement as being illogical and retort that if Christ died for all men then all men will be saved (which perhaps in the council of heaven was an option) which seems to make good sense.

However, He makes the rules whether logical to us or not and whether we put our stamp of approval on them or not (which of course includes my own way of thinking).

Isaiah 55

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.​

So, we each find the best way of knowing the unknowable (at least on this side of heaven) without purposely "twisting" the Scripture.​

Peace and blessing to you RB.​

HankD​

 

This cannot better represent the mentality and mechanics of Reformed Theology and its proponents.

Neverminding its spiritual misdirection and the dreadful consequences of its wrong understanding and application of the Scriptures, Reformed Theology along with its very present companion, "Calvinism" is intellectually malignant. They force one to be dishonest with the most plain and obvious simplicities of Scripture and of course result in convoluted theological constructs that are guarded with verbal games of rerouting and reinventing.

Ultimately they are reduced to parroting perceived theological superiors (quoting in mass their works), providing borderline parodies (often quite ridiculous) of honest theological discussions on issues such as 1 John 2:2, and too often succumbing to the silly but inevitable attraction to "self-righteousism"(that being the end of those who always believe they are the "most" enlightened).

 

I never said mindless, you did. But if your conscience isn't bothered with misrepresentations, well you are far past my help.

Let's see how this nasty attack on me compares to your next post.

I see, the part above must be the "let us be humble" you are talking about. :laugh:

Get back to the topic. If you are unable to respond to people's opinions unless they are pleasant to you or echo your own then if not you can only have a tirade, then please respond only to those that make you happy and don't bring out ugly. I wasn't even responding to you but to someone else. But in the end, stay on topic and save the tridade. Thank you.

 

They doesn't mean all (and I know you are familiar with that line of debate) so if the shoe doesn't fit you personally, quit sweating it and let's talk about the issue. The posturing isn't necessary and only serves as a distraction.