Donations for the month of June


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,838
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,523
Posts53,959
Members969
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,219
Tom 4,217
chestnutmare 3,210
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,838
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 12
Tom 9
jta 8
Meta4 3
John_C 3
Recent Posts
Roe is Dead. Praise God!!!!
by Tom - Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:43 PM
Travel Story
by Tom - Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:23 PM
The Spiritual Profit of Fuller Delight in God's Perfections
by Pilgrim - Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:07 AM
how often we fall, even when our intention is good
by chestnutmare - Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:04 PM
The Spiritual Profit of Firmer Trust in God's Sufficiency
by Pilgrim - Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:39 AM
Dominion Theology
by Pilgrim - Sat Jun 18, 2022 9:10 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,838
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,838
Are we just referring to man and animals?. What about plants and the insect category? For instance, when Adam and Eve walked around they never stepped on an ant, caterpillar, or some living organism. Doesn't human cells die? Just how do we understand there being no death prior to the Fall?


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
What biblical passage are you basing your question on? Have you looked carefully at the near and larger context?

Originally Posted by John_C
when Adam and Eve walked around they never stepped on an ant, caterpillar, or some living organism. Doesn't human cells die? Just how do we understand there being no death prior to the Fall?
You have evidently found no information about this question in Scripture, correct? Ans. Deut 29:29.

What is written is that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23).

Rom 5:12 "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--" Thus, death is the RESULT of sin and not inherent in man from creation. Again, nothing is mentioned in regard to animals, plants, etc. What we are told is that Adam's sin brought a corruption of the entire creation which will be eradicated and made perfect on the New Heaven and New Earth.

Quote
Romans 8:20-22 (ASV) 20 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
I have had the same question come to my mind often too, the only way I can rationalize it is to say I think 'the whole of creation groans' and 'by sin death entered the world (kosmos)' are two different things-the latter a subset of the former. I think the meaning of 'kosmos' may be pivotal- 'God so loved the world ('kosmos'). I do not think God so loved plants and insects that he gave his Son but I think he so loved the 'sea of unsaved souls' is what kosmos is referring to A spiritual realm reference.. Likewise by sin death entered this 'sea of unsaved souls'. Do plants and insects and our individual cells die? i define death as the spirit leaving the body, so, then it can only experienced by 'nephesh chayyah' creatures which plants, insects and our cellular components are not?.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Quote
Rom 5:12 (ASV )"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--"

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (ASV) 21 "For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
Death passed upon all men only and not animals any other part of the created world. When God told Adam that the very day should he eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would surely die . The result of Adam's sin is the corruption of the entire world/planet. This corruption is the RESULT not a subset of Adam's transgression; aka: cause and effect.

Quote
Romans 8:20-22 (ASV) 20 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
1. The word [kosmos] has 7 different meanings in Scripture. In John 3:16 "world" [kosmos] it's meaning cannot mean anything but all whom God had set His determination (election) to save throughout the entire world; Jews and Gentiles, i.e. the elect. I'll repeat here which I have provided myriad times here and elsewhere. A literal translation of John 3:16 according to the Greek is: For in this manner God loved His own whom He set His affection from all eternity in the sending of His Son so that the believing ones (the elect) would not perish but have eternal life. For a thorough examination and exegesis of John 3:16 see the following:
The 'World' of John 3:16 Does Not Mean 'All Men Without Exception'
An Exposition of John 3:16

2. The penalty of "death" promised by God Adam as a consequence of disobedience was 3-fold; spiritual, physical, and eternal. The 'spiritual' occurred immediately, the 'physical' death occurred over a period of time and the 'eternal' was future and the finality of the punishment due to those outside of Christ. That being true, it is also true that the entire created order suffered residually at the Fall of man where ALL of the living creation experienced physical death in common with man. This cataclysmic event is this evident to all mankind as a reminder that something horrible had occurred in which they are also affected and guilty before God.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
1 member likes this: Johan
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
That could well be right about not being a subset, but in Gap Theory, of which i am a passionate advocate, the first Earth also groaned with death and carnivory but no man was around, see my first post for 'undeniable proof of gap theory'- I look forward very much to your comments on that, btw. Also there is plenty of evidence of death and carnivory throughout The Paleozoic Era and the Mesozoic Era with absolutely no evidence of man.

I have read your link through article and found it very provocative and I enjoyed it and your style of delivery immensely.. It sounds like you are saying that God only loved the elect. Did nt He love the others? In the English, at any rate, it sounds like the 'his own' and the 'believing ones' are essentially synonyms in your translation whereas it sounds, in the KJV 'the world' is all inclusive and the 'believers' a subset of it. It would seem repetitive then to add the 'whosoever believeth in him'. because that is his 'elect' anyway. Why the qualification then?

The foundation of the world?(FOTW) Which, I suggest, is the time of The Abrahamic Covenant. How do you square that with your definition? Well before Christ's time , so there was a kosmos then? were they the elect? The FOTW also sounds like a 'kosmos' was broken down (katabole') first to form a new 'kosmos'?

To answer your article?
1. John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Did Christ by His death take away the sin of all men without exception? If He did, all men without exception shall be saved
Answer: A finite amount of suffering to takeaway every sin that could have ever been committed past and present and future.The text does not seem to say they all have to accept it. But He has done enough for them all to do so would seem to be an acceptable interpretation to me.

2.- John 6:33: "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Does Jesus give life (not, ineffectually offer life, but, efficaciously give life) to all men without exception? If He does, all men without exception have eternal life.
Answer: I think this verse is consistent with your position. But also, if 'kosmos' is the 'whole of the unsaved' then it still logically makes sense. He gives life to the 'sea' of unsaved, logically there seems to be no need to give it to everyone in that 'sea'?

3.- John 17:9: "I (Jesus) pray not for the world." Does Jesus refuse to pray for all men without exception?
Answer: this would seem to directly contradict your position? The preceding words state in the KJV

'I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thin'e'

That Jesus prays for the 'elect-them' and not for the 'world-kosmos' meaning the elect and the kosmos are different? this seems more consistent with kosmos meaning the 'sea of unsaved souls' or maybe both saved and unsaved. You site a different meaning of kosmos to refute this. Why? I would like to use the same meanings for both. Here is our difference, I suggest that the more I study scripture then I am reminded about a Robin Bullock quote, 'we are dealing with God here and He may mean many or all different translations at the same time'.So we both maybe part right?
The 'father of lights' loved those lights-his offspring before they came to Earth, i think he still loved them after they sinned and also after they were saved.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
You have 'dumped' far too much to give adequate answers to each and every statement/question you have made... sorry! However, I can direct you to the entire section on The Highway website that I'm confident addresses your statements and questions.

Go here: The Atonement.

1. Nowhere in Scripture is the teaching that God "loves everybody". To show this is patently an incorrect statement all one need to provide is a statement that God doesn't love but actually hates one individual. Fortunately, there are many such statements that clearly state that God hates an individual and even the majority of mankind, e.g.,. Ps 5:5; 11:5; Prov 6:16-19; Mal 1:1-3; Matt 7:21-23 ("I never knew you=I never loved you), et al. God is benevolent to all but His love=grace=salvation is decidedly restricted to only those whom from all eternity He ordained/chose/predestined to be redeemed by the LORD Christ.

2. see here: Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
You have 'dumped' far too much to give adequate answers to each and every statement/question you have made.
Answer:I will dump on you less now :;)

1. Nowhere in Scripture is the teaching that God "loves everybody"
answer: Jesus and the Father are one (John 10 30) Jesus says on numerous occasions to love 'one another' as He has, Himself therefor, God loves as does Jesus and loves everyone, including those that hate him.

To show this is patently an incorrect statement all one need to provide is a statement that God doesn't love but actually hates one individual
Answer, I do not follow this logic, especially when applied to God. It seems possible to do both? I would not limit God. The passages you quote: Ps 5:5; 11:5; Prov 6:16-19; Mal 1:1-3; all of these actions (except Esau) could be performed by the saved, Does God hate those too? and not still love them?

The plain text meaning of John 316 is the 'whosoever believeth in him is a subset of the 'world'. Your interpretation could be written as 'for God so loved the elect,,..., that the elect would not die but have eternal life. Why would God use synonymous terms?.
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' the them is the elect. So that could be written 'I pray for the kosmos,, i pray not for the kosmos', Why change the meaning? John 17 19 could be read as a direct contradiction of your position. Is it not equally legitimate to translate 'kosmos' as the whole of the unsaved
("I never knew (ginosko) you=I never loved you), Why? Agape is 'love' in John 3 16 and 'ginosko' (knew) I interpret as the indwelling knowledge.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Originally Posted by alan parsonage
Originally Posted by Pilgrim1. Nowhere in Scripture is the teaching that God "loves everybody"
answer: Jesus and the Father are one (John 10 30) Jesus says on numerous occasions to love 'one another' as He has, Himself therefor, God loves as does Jesus and loves everyone, including those that hate him.[/quote
Can you provide even one passage in Scripture that plainly states that God loves every single individual who ever was, is and will be?

Originally Posted by alan parsonag
[quote=Pilgrim]To show this is patently an incorrect statement all one need to provide is a statement that God doesn't love but actually hates one individual
Answer, I do not follow this logic, especially when applied to God. It seems possible to do both? I would not limit God. The passages you quote: Ps 5:5; 11:5; Prov 6:16-19; Mal 1:1-3; all of these actions (except Esau) could be performed by the saved, Does God hate those too? and not still love them?
Are you suggesting that God is not subject to logic and thus He is illogical? scratchchin The passages I provided are perspicuous on their face, i.e., in every instance it is written that God HATES individuals. None have nothing to do with humans hating other humans. Lets take the first reference as an example: Psalms 5:5 (ASV) "5 The arrogant shall not stand in thy sight: Thou hatest all workers of iniquity." The "Thou" is God who hates "all workers of iniquity", which FYI, is the text which Jesus uses toward those who boast that they have been His disciples. Thus when Jesus tells them to depart and "I never knew you, ye that work iniquity" He professes He never "loved them". It cannot mean that He never had any knowledge about them, for He being
God knew them from all eternity and ordained every facet of their lives. Each of the referenced texts equally and truly state that God hates the respect objects of His wrath. I'm going to have to assume that you didn't read any of the articles I provided links for, correct? Dr. John Gerstners article, "Does God Love the Sinner and Hate ONLY His Sin?" should have sufficed by itself.

Originally Posted by alan parsonage
The plain text meaning of John 316 is the 'whosoever believeth in him is a subset of the 'world'. Your interpretation could be written as 'for God so loved the elect,,..., that the elect would not die but have eternal life. Why would God use synonymous terms?.
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' the them is the elect. So that could be written 'I pray for the kosmos,, i pray not for the kosmos', Why change the meaning? John 17 19 could be read as a direct contradiction of your position. Is it not equally legitimate to translate 'kosmos' as the whole of the unsaved
("I never knew (ginosko) you=I never loved you), Why? Agape is 'love' in John 3 16 and 'ginosko' (knew) I interpret as the indwelling knowledge.
Sorry, but I can't follow your point. To obtain the proper understanding of words it is essential that they be taken IN CONTEXT. For a text out of context is nothing less than pretext. As I stated to you in my previous reply, the word "world" (kosmos) has 7 different meanings in Scripture. The context of John 3:16 needs to be ascertained in order to properly discover the correct definition of "world" used. This and quite a number of various reasons why "world" in that passage does not and cannot mean, every individual who ever was, is and ever shall be without discrimination, are provided in the article also referenced THE ‘WORLD’ OF JOHN 3:16 DOES NOT MEAN ‘ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION’

The Puritan, John Owen in his treatise "The Death of Death of Christ" takes great pains in addressing this passage and the infinite discriminatingly love of God which has never been refuted by anyone in over 350 years. In that work he makes the following statement which should at least pique your interest:

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?

To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 2. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21.

If the Second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room Suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?

You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?

If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.

If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?

If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
You did not answer the apparent conflict that Jesus and the father are one and God is in Jesus yet Jesus seems to love everyone including the unsaved eg Mark 10: 21, and instructs us to do the same. And as we are one body His is still doing the same too. Yet your position seems to be God wont really love him/them as he/they i/are not/will not be saved.

"Are you suggesting that God is not subject to logic and thus He is illogical?"
Answer: I did not say God was illogical that is an unjustified extrapolation, I said your idea that if it says 'God hated someone then he must not love them' does not make sense to me. In my opinion God could previously have loved/still be loving/ will in the future love someone he currently hates.

I often tithe to many local and worldwide Christian causes. So , I can say I give to the body of Christ. It does not mean I tithe to everyone in it. When i give to an individual within a collective, i can say I give to the collective. With this in mind, you say::

"- John 6:33: "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Does Jesus give life (not, ineffectually offer life, but, efficaciously give life) to all men without exception? If He does, all men without exception have eternal life"

Why does it apply to the whole of the 'kosmos', If it does apply to the whole of the individuals within the kosmos why does it mean they have all accepted this gift?

"I'm going to have to assume that you didn't read any of the articles I provided links for, correct?"
Answer: This is a strange assumption as i quote and reference the links so I must have read them! Im going to assume you did not read my answers then, correct? wink

I believe the bible describes God loving all mankind in John 3:16. You contradict this stance by narrowing down 'world/kosmos' to mean just the saved. 'Kosmos' is used 186 time in the Bible and I am struggling to find even concrete case that it applies to just the saved. There are, however, many examples of it clearly applying to just the unsaved and I want to discuss these with you further if you are up for it? Your decision to give 'kosmos' the meaning the elect seems, thus, unjustified. What are your reasons? Is it just John 1 29 and John 6 33 or are there others? See below.

I would like to answer some of your assertions with more reference to scripture . Can I have your permission to copy your THE ‘WORLD’ OF JOHN 3:16 DOES NOT MEAN ‘ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION’ and answer all your assertions-every single one-on a separate web page. I will be able to do this more elegantly with mouse over biblical references, to save it from becoming too bulky, which i cannot do here. It will be linked to from this thread and so not available to the public.

One further point is I believe that 10 x used expression. (so very important then ?), 'the Foundation of The World (kosmos)' refers to the the Abrahamic Covenant, so is consistent with your view that Kosmos can mean, at least in part, the elect (kosmos) '- they being able to come into existence by this covenant. Hence the Foundation of the World. Do you agree?

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Originally Posted by alan parsonage
You did not answer the apparent conflict that Jesus and the father are one and God is in Jesus yet Jesus seems to love everyone including the unsaved eg Mark 10: 21, and instructs us to do the same. And as we are one body His is still doing the same too. Yet your position seems to be God wont really love him/them as he/they i/are not/will not be saved.
I did provide an answer by repeating the absolute truth, nowhere is it written that God loves every individual that was/is/will be. Nor is there one single text that Jesus loves "all men" without exception. Thus the Father and the Son are one which eliminates any possibility that there is any contradiction within the Godhead. Now, let's briefly take your unfounded premise that Jesus loved all men and put it to the LOGICAL and Scripture test which you admittedly are incapable of grasping, i.e. IF God and/or Jesus hate even one person, then the "all" cannot mean "all" without exception. So, we have the inspired passage in Mark 4:10-12 in which Jesus answers His disciples' question as to why He taught in parables:

Quote
Mark 4:10-12 (KJV) 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.(cf. Matt 13:11-16; Jh 12:40)
How do you reconcile the fact that the Lord Christ preached in parables so that [Grk hina; in order that, purpose] they should not be saved... except to those whom it is given to see, hear and comprehend the Gospel.? In Matthew we have the same truth expressed in another way:

Quote
Matthew 11:25-27 (KJV) 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him].
Yes, the Father and the Son are one and there is no contradiction between them. Do these passages support that God loves all men without exception? The Father deliberately withholds the means of grace from the overwhelming majority of mankind and Jesus the Son teaches in parables in order that what the Father has ordained comes to pass. Before Jacob and Esau where born, in eternity it is written that God loved Jacob and hated [Grk: miseo Esau. The reason given why God loved the one and hated the other is so His election (unto salvation) would come to pass. So... are you going to maintain that God loved Esau who God says He hated and predestined that he, Esau, would be cast into hell and eternal punishment? In Eph 1:4-6 it is written that God from all eternity set His love upon the elect (predestination) in Christ unto the adoption of sons. God's love is incomprehensible for the very reason that it is discriminatory. Likewise, grace given is salvation infallibly applied to those whom God loved from all eternity. And, Jesus was sent to redeem all those whom the Father gave Him... NOT "for the world" = every man, woman and child who has ever lived, is living or will live in the future. They question you are in need of asking is not "How could God hate anyone?", but rather, "How could God love anyone?" And once the Spirit of God Who is one with the Father and the Son has revealed to you how odious you are in the nostrils of Almighty God, you will then undoubtfully ask, "How could God ever set His love upon me?"

You would have to seek permission to publish the article by Dr. David Engelsma; THE ‘WORLD’ OF JOHN 3:16 DOES NOT MEAN ‘ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION’.

My views are those held by the Reformers and Puritans and which are found in the great Confessions and Catechisms of the Protestant Reformation. They are not unique to me. I was 'taught' what you believe at present but rather quickly dismissed them after reading the Bible over and over again, comparing Scripture with Scripture; aka: The Analogy of Faith". And, I learned one of the most foundational axioms of biblical hermeneutics..... CONTEXT determines the meaning of words.

Originally Posted by alan parsonage
One further point is I believe that 10 x used expression. (so very important then ?), 'the Foundation of The World (kosmos)' refers to the the Abrahamic Covenant, so is consistent with your view that Kosmos can mean, at least in part, the elect (kosmos) '- they being able to come into existence by this covenant. Hence the Foundation of the World. Do you agree?
No nope The "foundation of the world" typically refers to the creation of the physical earth. Where do you get the idea that it refers to the Abrahamic Covenant??? scratch1


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
No The "foundation of the world" typically refers to the creation of the physical earth. Where do you get the idea that it refers to the Abrahamic Covenant???

Answer: the bible. I completely disagree with your position, You seem to think it means the same as the foundation of the earth,a completely different construct. And i also believe it always refers to the same time period. The Foundation of the world (FOTW) occurs 10 times, three times i refers to before this time and seven times after. Each before reference is to Jesus in heaven, the after references refer to man or Jesus as a man (any bells ringing?)
Hebrews 9 25-26, These two verses speculate how much more often Jesus would have had to have suffered if he (like a priest who had to enter the holy place yearly) also had to suffer yearly for us too but did in fact only do it just once and had victory over sin once and for all. this brings the Abrahamic Covenant/Mosaic Covenant clearly into focus. i.e once a covenant is in place to do so. Further study reveals it to be the Abrahamic. this adds weight to my stance that the term kosmos refers to the 'sea' of spiritual life on earth saved and unsaved, and contradicts your stance about it only referring to the elect. A quick search through the use of kosmos in the bible confirms pretty much every use of it can be considered 'what adorns the earth' physically and spiritually or both.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,219
Likes: 42
I have no doubt whatsoever that you disagree with my view seeing you are enamored by this "Gap Theory" that you have unfortunately embraced and thus interpret Scripture through its 'glasses'. Again, the word 'kosmos' world has seven different meanings in Scripture. And John 3:16 uses "world" to mean in a general sense, i.e., Jews AND Gentiles, there is no distinction between them in regard to the need of being saved by the work of the Lord Christ. And one other small point is the typical translation of "whosoever believeth" is horribly wrong. That phrase in the Greek is (pas ho pisteuwn) = all the believing ones. Pisteuon is a present participle and cannot be translated in any other way. There is nothing in the original text, whether you choose the TR or Westcott Hort, it's exactly the same. The Son came by the Father to take on human flesh to save believers in the world so that they would not perish. It's that simple. Arthur W. Pink put it this way:

Quote
Turning now to John 3:16, it should be evident from the passages just quoted that this verse will not bear the construction usually put upon it. "God so loved the world." Many suppose that this means, The entire human race. But "the entire human race" includes all mankind from Adam till the close of earth’s history: it reaches backward as well as forward! Consider, then, the history of mankind before Christ was born. Unnumbered millions lived and died before the Savior came to the earth, lived here "having no hope and without God in the world," and therefore passed out into eternity of woe. If God "loved" them, where is the slightest proof thereof? Scripture declares "Who (God) in times past (from the tower of Babel till after Pentecost) suffered all nations to walk in their own ways" (Acts 14:16). Scripture declares that "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" (Rom. 1:28). To Israel God said, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2). In view of these plain passages who will be so foolish as to insist that God in the past loved all mankind! The same applies with equal force to the future . . . But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and says, "World means world. "True, but we have shown that "the world" does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that "the world" is used in a general way.. . Now the first thing to note in connection with John 3:16 is that our Lord was there speaking to Nicodemus, a man who believed that God’s mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ there announced that God’s love in giving His Son had a larger object in view, that it flowed beyond the boundary of Palestine, reaching out to "regions beyond." In other words, this was Christ’s announcement that God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles as well as Jews. "God so loved the world," then, signifies, God’s love is international in its scope. But does this mean that God loves every individual among the Gentiles? Not necessarily, for as we have seen the term "world" is general rather than specific, relative rather than absolute. . . the "world" in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world of God’s people. Must we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God’s love is mentioned limits it to His own people — search and see! The objects of God’s love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ’s love in John 13:1: "Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end." We may admit that our interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them. (The Sovereignty of God)


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
A challenge to you interpretation of predestined:
Romans 8 :29- For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren 30 'Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified'
Your stance being that whoever he predestined to become saved will be and that if he does not predestine themtthey wont be. Everyone.
But wait a minute what about 'many are called few are chosen' Matt 22 14. Although i appreciate the two greek words are different..
This would seem to put a sifting process in the cascade. so not everyone called is saved? So not everyone predestined is saved. How can this be? Has God failed in his predestination?
Maybe you have misunderstood this Predestined?
From above 'Whom he did' for know (i suggest this is everybody) he also did preddestine (everyone to be saved?) but then comes called, not everybody called is saved. Your definition does not hold
I suggest God just predestined everybody to get to the stage of being called after that it is down to human choice, This fits in with my view of God and goes yours- the discriminatory lover of some men and not others This ties in with God wanting everyone saved. (1 Tim. 2:3–4), (2 Peter 3:9).

Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
He loves me, He loves me not
You say Yes, the Father and the Son are one and there is no contradiction between them. Do these passages support that God loves all men without exception? Answer yes they are consistent with it

You say How do you reconcile the fact that the Lord Christ preached in parables so that in order that, purpose] they should not be saved... except to those whom it is given to see, hear and comprehend the Gospel.? In Matthew we have the same truth expressed in another way
Answer: are you saying that because these were not on God's good list so they were spoken to in parables? So before that everyone in the crowd must have been on his 'elect' list. This is a judgment reaction , the default is always love. this parallels how God treats us now , Drawing us all in but removing that if we sin too much. How do you equate this with (1 Tim. 2:3–4), (2 Peter 3:9). Should the prodigal son have brackets around it saying 'not applicable if you are on God's death list

I think God loves everybody and I think the word agape encompasses all God s love from the benevolent a patient love for the sinner, the intimate love for the saved and the even more intimate love for some 'elite' of the saved. Daniel and John both loved by God and both given the most spectacular visions, John 3 16 refer to all of these loves and I believe that Jesus died for all of us, he would do it again, he would do it just for one us whether we accepted it or not
I think God loved me before my salvation, may have hated me when i was working iniquity, but still loved me and loves me more now. The discriminatory God you describe would have put me off; You may well be misrepresenting God
i am glad you brought up Gap theory. You have a habit of not answering my questions about 7 now unanswered. i do not thin I have proven my views to you here but i have , at least introduced the possibility you are wrong, but I have stated that I have proved the Gap Theory beyond any doubt, about 30 mins read here:
https://worldsapartbiblically.com/genesis_similitudes.html,
answer that one at least?

Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Wriggle room
You say The word [kosmos] has 7 different meanings in Scripture. In John 3:16 "world" [kosmos] it's meaning cannot mean anything but all whom God had set His determination (election) to save throughout the entire world; Jews and Gentiles, i.e. the elect

You then say . And John 3:16 uses "world" to mean in a general sense, i.e., Jews AND Gentiles, there is no distinction between them in regard to the need of being saved by the work of the Lord Christ

This is a total contradiction of yourself!!1 The second statement, I agree, I think we have made good progress.
It also means, of course, that it is and it does state clearly God and Jesus loves everyone?

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 9 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Cliniql, John E, ManassehAmerican, jta, DiscipleEddie
969 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
June
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,347,977 Gospel truth