John 17:9 and the "World" in John

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jesus My Wisdom

Active Member
Mar 28, 2004
395
6
✟569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Christ did not pray for the World

Did you ever notice that Calvinists make a big deal that Christ did not pray for the "world" in John 17? this is rather unusual since they define, or essentially define, the word "world" at John 1:29 and 3:16 as "the elect." So in those passages they claim the word "world" refers to the elect but in this passage the word "world" definitely refers to "not the elect." The have the same word being an antonym of itself, that is, the same word with opposite meanings and written by the very same person - John! This itself illustrates their own folly with the word "world" in John.

Now let us look at John 17:9 passage further.

"I pray for them, I do not pray for the world but for those you gave me for they are yours"
(John 17:9)

Calvinists claim here an allusion to Limited Atonement. They will say, "Look here, Jesus does not pray for the "world," he only prays for those the Father gave to him and these must be the elect God chose before the foundation of the world. Jesus only died for the sins of the elect.

Interestingly, Calvinists also forget these passages written by the very same person:

"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 3:16)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever should believe in him might not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16)."

"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 3:16)

"We know that this is indeed the Savior of the world." (John 4:42).

"I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. " (John 12:47).

"He is the propitation for our sins and not only for ours only but for the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

Now at this point, many Calvinists will tell you that "world" here means something different than it does at John 17:9. In fact, they might even tell you that the word here refers to "the elect." So in John 17:9, the word means "definitely not the elect," but here they want it to mean "the elect," and give the very same word exactly opposite meanings. It is interesting that when Calvinists see the word "world" at John 17:9 they understand it like most of us do. But when they are confronted with John 1:29 and John 3:16, they suddenly decide to give it a different definition. Why do they decide to do this? The answer is obvious. They want to redefine the word "world" at John 1:29 and 3:16 because it does not fit their doctrine of Limited Atonement nor does it fit their interpretation of John 17:9 which they have just presented to you.

So, the first thing they will do is point to all the ways the word "world" is used by the apostle John thinking this somehow grants them a license to define the word "world" at John 1:29 and 3:16 however they like. The Greek word in question in all three passages is the word kosmos. It is the noun form of the verb kosmeo which means "to garnish or adorn." Note, the relationship between the noun form and verb form in 1 Peter:

"Let not yours be the outward adornment [kosmos] with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn [kosmeo] themselves and were submissive to their husbands"
(1 Peter 3:3-5).

So what is the connection here? Well, the ancients perceived the world and all the stars and planets to be the adornment of the universe. For this reason, ancient middle eastern women often adorned themselves with jewellry which resembled stars and moons and such things of the creation. The word kosmos most basically means "the created order."

So, the Calvinist will try to claim that that word "world" means different things so they he can define it how he likes at John 1:29 and 3:16. But this is not how we define words honestly. In order to define a word honestly we do not try to find a way to justify defining it how we like to fit our denominational creed, but to discover how the user of that word intends it. Now lest we be perceived to be missing something, take a look at every single occurrence of the world "world (kosmos) in John's gospel and letters. See how you think John uses the word "world."



Not all Calvinists however will first bother to claim "world" means "the elect" at John 1:29 and 3:16. Others will get you to focus upon John 3:16 and then try to claim that it does indeed mean what it means everywhere else but now he tries to tell you that only the elect of the world will actually believe. These elect are in fact the "whosoever" who will believe he claims. See what he does here? He shifts the argument from a discussion on Limited Atonement to a discussion on Total Depravity and the ability to believe. In other words, he is saying nothing other than, "My theology says so" without regard for what John really intended. Now he will give you rounds of ammunition on the subject of Total Depravity and the discussion concering Limited Atonment and John 3:16 comes to an end. It is simply a distraction tactic. But we are not going to let him do this.

First, let us see what Jesus intended. He says, "whoseover believes." He does not say, "so when the elect believe." The Calvinist has now granted himself a license to define "whosoever" here as "the elect." Where did he get this license? Secondly, let us go back to John 1:29. Here John the Baptist says Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world! Now the Calvinist is trapped. Having agreed "world" does indeed mean "all the world" or "all the people of the world" he is now trapped. John tells us that Jesus takes away all the sins of the world. So that Calvinist tactic is foiled by John 1:29.

Now instead of accepting this passage, he will seek to nullify it for the sake of his tradition. He will argue, "Well, if that verse really means Jesus takes away the sins of all the world then everyone will be saved!" Now, he has just gotten himself even into deeper trouble. The Bible teaches that Jesus is in the process of taking away the sins of the world. He is putting all this under his feet. This process of taking away the sins of the world is why he forgives you after you commit a sin and repent of it. Matthew 13 also illuminates this passage:

"The field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the consummation of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers." (Matthew 13:42).

Yep, that's right. When Jesus returns the "world" will finally be totally purged of sin by the fire of his truth. Jesus is already doing this. That is why Peter says judgment begins with the people of God. Christians are already in the process of being purged, cleansed, of their sins by the fire and our fiery trials.

Now, we are not here done yet. There is still 1 John 2:2 (not to mention the others). Here John tells us that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the "whole world." Now what more do we need? The Calvinist claims Jesus is the atoning sacrifice only for some people but not all people. John tells us otherwise. One wonders how much more plain it can be.

However, the Calvinist, seeking to preserve his beliefs will try something else. Here he will say that "our sins" refers to the Jews and "the whole world" refers to the rest of the nations of the world. Now, he claims that this verse does not mean that Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for all people but all nations of the world in which the elect might be living. See what he did there?

Now one wonders where he got this idea. Where is this idea in the context? It is nowhere to be found. There is not even a hint of it in the whole letter. It is rather obvious to thinking people that John means "not only we Christians but all the people of the world." But the Calvinist grants himelf a license to practice eisegesis, that is, reading his theology into the text. However, he rants and raves if anyone but himself tries to do anything like that.

Now if we are reasonable people, we can see what is going on here. It is blatently obvious to any thinking person the Calvinist is trying to avoid the truth of the matter. He does not want to find out what John 1:29 and 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 really mean. He only wants to concoct an interpretation which he feels allows him to continue following TULIP. These passages obvoiusly mean all people of the world. The Calvinist will deny it. If so, let him. You cannot force anyone to accept the truth. That's God's job and everyone will have to accept the truth sooner or later.

Now, we have taken a big detour from our original passage in question - John 17:9. Let us notice something very, very obvious. First, Jesus prays for his disciples whom he took out of the world. But notice verse 20 where Jesus says he is not only praying for his disciples but for all people who will come to believe in him. So, we can see clearly that first he is saying that he is praying for his disciples but now he is praying for everyone else that will come to believes in him. These are people of the "world." Jesus as the disciples were taken out of the world when they believed in Jesus, so now there will be others who will be taken out of the world when they believe in Jesus. Essentially, all Jesus is doing is praying for the unity of his church, his bride.

We must understand what the Calvinist is thinking when he reads these passages. First he wants to believe John 17:9 means Jesus is praying for ALL the elect. Then when you show him verse 20, he wants to believe that Jesus is only praying for some people God chose before the foundation of the world - the elect disciples. Then at 17:20 he wants to believe that Jesus is praying for the yet unsaved elect that will come to believe in him later. Therefore, Jesus is not praying for just anyone but is praying for all the elect in John 17. But wait minute. This does not make any sense.

If Jesus is not praying for all those God chose before the foundation of the world at verse 9, because he is praying for the rest of the elect at verse 20, then he can only be praying for his present disciples. Therefore, he is only praying for some of the elect and not all of the elect and the Calvinist can no longer claim this passage is a prayer for all the elect, saved and yet unsaved. Therefore, we can conclude that John 17:9 is not a prayer for all the elect in general, but for his disciples, men who were already following him.

And we are not finished yet. There is more. If Jesus is praying for the yet unsaved elect at verse 20, the same is true. The Calvinist cannot claim that verse 9 is a prayer for all the elect if he is praying for the yet unsaved elect at verse 20. Therefore, Jesus is not praying for "the elect" at verse 9; he is praying for his disciples, not for anyone else.

And there is even more. The Calvinist was once "in the world" says Jesus in this very gospel. Was Jesus not praying for him at verse 9 then? Now the Calvinist has a real big problem on his hands. He is claiming that Jesus did not pray for the world but for the elect. But now he has to claim that verse 20 concerns the yet unsaved elect who are yet "in the world." Oh, oh, then that means Jesus was praying for the elect who are yet in the world and he is therefore NOT praying for these guys at verse 9. Therefore, Jesus was praying for those of the world who have yet not been taken out of the world at verse 20. The only way out now is to claim the elect were never part of the world which of course is getting quite preposterous since the disciples themselves were taken out of the world.

So we can see here the Calvinist has cornered himself on all sides. It is plainly obvious the Calvinist is trying to dream up ways to read his doctrines into John's words. It is also plainly obvious what these passages really mean. At John 17:9 Jesus is praying for his disciples and at John 17:20 he is praying for anyone who will later come to be his disciples. He is praying for the unity of his church. Thus, there is no hint of Limited Atonement here. And not only so, John tells us in several other passages that Jesus was the Lamb of God who is the atoning sacrifice for the "whole world." Thus, the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonment is again shown to be a false doctrine.
 

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
/me is pretty sure he's going to regret this...

Jesus My Wisdom said:
Did you ever notice that Calvinists make a big deal that Christ did not pray for the "world" in John 17?

Does that mean that you believe Christ did pray for all mankind even though He specifically states that He does not pray for the world? Clearly Jesus is distinguishing between two groups of people, right?

this is rather unusual since they define, or essentially define, the word "world" at John 1:29 and 3:16 as "the elect." So in those passages they claim the word "world" refers to the elect but in this passage the word "world" definitely refers to "not the elect." The have the same word being an antonym of itself, that is, the same word with opposite meanings and written by the very same person - John! This itself illustrates their own folly with the word "world" in John.

Did you want to debate this issue with Calvinists or were you simply interested in spewing your anti-Calvinist venom? Here's a quirky little question for you. Being that the word kosmos is used in ELEVEN distinct ways in the Gospel, how is it that you apply the proper definition given that the same word is used?

Interestingly, Calvinists also forget these passages written by the very same person:

"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 3:16)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever should believe in him might not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16)."

"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 3:16)

"We know that this is indeed the Savior of the world." (John 4:42).

"I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. " (John 12:47).

"He is the propitation for our sins and not only for ours only but for the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

Woops! You forgot one:

John 12:19
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!"

Now, according to your jilted claims that must mean that since John was the one who said it and, according to you, he always used the word in the same way, i.e., all of humanity, that even those who said, "Look, the world has gone after Him" went after Him, right? The same word is used, right? According to you that's what it must mean, right?

How about this statement by the same Apostle:

John 7:7
The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

Sure. Using your definition makes sense. Let's transpose it with your only accepted meaning:

John 7:7
All of humanity cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

So here, according to you, Jesus is telling His disciples that all of humanity, which would include themselves, cannot hate...themselves. Yeah. That makes sense. Sure.

Now at this point, many Calvinists will tell you that "world" here means something different than it does at John 17:9. In fact, they might even tell you that the word here refers to "the elect." So in John 17:9, the word means "definitely not the elect," but here they want it to mean "the elect," and give the very same word exactly opposite meanings. It is interesting that when Calvinists see the word "world" at John 17:9 they understand it like most of us do. But when they are confronted with John 1:29 and John 3:16, they suddenly decide to give it a different definition. Why do they decide to do this? The answer is obvious. They want to redefine the word "world" at John 1:29 and 3:16 because it does not fit their doctrine of Limited Atonement nor does it fit their interpretation of John 17:9 which they have just presented to you.

Well Jesus My Wisdom, please enlighten us, since you are clearly the Bible scholar. When you apply the "all of humanity" definition to the usage of kosmos and then read verses like John 7:7 and John 12:19, which you conveniently left out of your little anti-Calvinist exegesis, how do you "redefine" their meanings to fit your doctrines? Hopefully you aren't so unlearned as to try to force the universal application theory on these verses. What, pray tell, do you do?

So, the first thing they will do is point to all the ways the word "world" is used by the apostle John thinking this somehow grants them a license to define the word "world" at John 1:29 and 3:16 however they like.

Aside from being completely hypocritical, let's use the universal theory on John 1:29 and John 3:16 and see if they make any sense:

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

So, according to you, all the sins of the world have been taken away. Hallelujah!!! We're all universalists now! Woo Hoo!! Yeah!!! Everyone's sins are atoned for so no one has anything to atone for!!! Yeah!!! Hmmm...that doesn't make any sense. So we have your clearly unscholared opinon. Let's see if there's someone more reliable than you. Hey!! I've got it!! How about Dr. Strong? Let's see what His concordance has to say:

kosmos {kos'-mos}
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Uh oh...doesn't bode well for your credibility, does it? Let me guess, your Greek skills surpass that of Dr. Strong, right?

The Greek word in question in all three passages is the word kosmos. It is the noun form of the verb kosmeo which means "to garnish or adorn."

What??!! The "noun form?" What is the non-noun form? Here's a few more "noun forms":

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

They're ALL noun forms Jesus My Wisdom. Are you contending that the proper understanding of kosmos in John 1:29, John 3:16, and John 17:9 is "to garnish or adorn?"

Not all Calvinists however will first bother to claim "world" means "the elect" at John 1:29 and 3:16. Others will get you to focus upon John 3:16 and then try to claim that it does indeed mean what it means everywhere else but now he tries to tell you that only the elect of the world will actually believe. These elect are in fact the "whosoever" who will believe he claims. See what he does here? He shifts the argument from a discussion on Limited Atonement to a discussion on Total Depravity and the ability to believe. In other words, he is saying nothing other than, "My theology says so" without regard for what John really intended.

LOL! If your position didn't go off in 100 different directions I might have a clue how you believe the word is used. How do you feel the word is used in those verses? Do you apply "to garnish or adorn" in place of "world?"

First, let us see what Jesus intended. He says, "whoseover believes." He does not say, "so when the elect believe." The Calvinist has now granted himself a license to define "whosoever" here as "the elect." Where did he get this license?

As biased as I'm sure you'll consider me I would love to see how you interpret John 3:16. If you take the track of most mainstream Christians this is what you get:

John 3:16
For God so loved all of humanity that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Huh? God loved everyone so much that He sent His Son to grant those that believe eternal life? That makes sense to you?

Let's apply you previous application:

John 3:16
For God so loved to garnish or adorn that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Again, huh? What was God, an interior decorator?

Secondly, let us go back to John 1:29. Here John the Baptist says Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world! Now the Calvinist is trapped. Having agreed "world" does indeed mean "all the world" or "all the people of the world" he is now trapped.

Not trapped if he doesn't say "world" in John 1:29 means "all of humanity." As far as being trapped, I'd say that fits you to a tee. You must either claim that Christ has atoned for and expiated the sins of "all of humanity" and, thus, "all of humanity" is found just in the eyes of God and given eternal life, i.e., universalism, or, you must acknowledge that Christ's sacrifice, while intended to save all mankind and aquire for them eternal life is such an utter failure in the lives of so, so many that He is destined to never be pleased with His atonement. Wait, there is one more option. Strangely enough it's the one that tickles the ears of people like yourself. You would probably claim that Christ did, in fact, atone for the sins of "all of humanity" but that atonement, and subsequent expiation, is only applied if one finds it in their heart to believe. So, in essence, if someone freely wills to reject the atonement of Christ then He suffered for those sins to no avail. Awwww. Poor King of kings. Poor, wuttle, impotent God of all things created. Him couldn't overcome the power of His creation's obstinate will and died for people who still end up going to hell. Get real. Who's sovereign, you or God. Wait, don't answer that. I think I already know what you truly think.

Wow. I read the rest of your post and was amazed at the amount of unbiblical and anti-Calvinist tripe you've come up with. What did you do, go to some anti-Calvinist website?

Tell you what, if all you want to do is post disparaging remarks about reformed doctrine then at least have the courtesy to mention that at the beginning of your posts. Until then you're wasting your time, unless of course all you're looking for is advocates of your belief, i.e., fellow anti-Calvinists. I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding those. You see, the majority of Christians love to hear about self glorifying "I chose Christ and remained firm in my faith so Christ elected me unto salvation" type of doctrine. No one wants to see the truth of their sinful nature, not even us heathen Calvinists. Unlike you, however, though we don't want to face the truth of our fallenness, we do. Only by recognizing our inability to submit to God in our unregenerate state and our total desire to rebel from Him will we ever truly appreciate the magnitude of His grace. The worst I'm guilty of is esteeming myself too low and God too high, if that's possible. You, on the other hand, are guilty of a plethora of self serving, self centered, anthropocentric beliefs that exchange the truth for a lie and submit to the same temptations that the serpent gave Eve in the Garden.

I'd rather be wrong about my beliefs than wrong about yours.

You go right on believing you've got it all figured out. What's God going to say to me on judgment day? "Don, you were too humble and self effacing. You know how I feel about humility. Begone from here." Sure. That's what He'll say. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

/me should have listened to his fellow Calvinists warnings about the unbiblical diatribes of this particular poster...Oh well. You live and you learn.
 
Upvote 0

Jesus My Wisdom

Active Member
Mar 28, 2004
395
6
✟569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Reformationist said:
* Reformationist is pretty sure he's going to regret this...

Likely.

Does that mean that you believe Christ did pray for all mankind even though He specifically states that He does not pray for the world? Clearly Jesus is distinguishing between two groups of people, right?

Absolutely. In verse 9 he is praying for his present followers.

Did you want to debate this issue with Calvinists or were you simply interested in spewing your anti-Calvinist venom? Here's a quirky little question for you. Being that the word kosmos is used in ELEVEN distinct ways in the Gospel, how is it that you apply the proper definition given that the same word is used?

Eleven different ways eh LOL?

I tell you what you can do. Look for a license to define "world" however you like so you can conform Scripture to TULIP's desires. After all that is common fare for Calvinists isn't it?

Calvinism:
1. "World" - not the elect (Jn 17:9)
2. "World" - the elect (Jn 1:29)

LOL. Same author, same book, same word. How can you guys live with yourselves?


Woops! You forgot one:

John 12:19
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!"

And hey it means the same thing as everywhere else!

Ever heard of hyperbole friend? Jesus and the NT writers use it all the time. We use similar terminology in modern English all the time. Whoops!

Now, according to your jilted claims that must mean that since John was the one who said it and, according to you, he always used the word in the same way, i.e., all of humanity, that even those who said, "Look, the world has gone after Him" went after Him, right? The same word is used, right? According to you that's what it must mean, right?

No, that is wrong. But your assumptions are what obviously leads you into trouble.

How about this statement by the same Apostle:

John 7:7
The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

Sure. Using your definition makes sense. Let's transpose it with your only accepted meaning:

John 7:7
All of humanity cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

So here, according to you, Jesus is telling His disciples that all of humanity, which would include themselves, cannot hate...themselves. Yeah. That makes sense. Sure.

Let's see. Gwarsh who would have ever thought of looking at those verses.

If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you (Jn 15:19).

"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."

Ever hear of that crazy idea of dying to the old humanity? LOL.

Here is something you can do. Completely ignore this and get real excited that Jesus used the word "chose" in 15:19 and focus on that instead.

Well Jesus My Wisdom, please enlighten us, since you are clearly the Bible scholar.

Oh I would be glad to. Anyone is a scholar relative to Calvinism.

When you apply the "all of humanity" definition to the usage of kosmos and then read verses like John 7:7 and John 12:19, which you conveniently left out of your little anti-Calvinist exegesis,

Actually I didn't leave it out. I suggestd the reader check EVERY occurrence of "world" in John's gospel. Do you know why I did that smarty pants? Because one post would not allow me to quote all those verses - too many characters.

Now, where did you get the naive notion that I define kosmos as "all humanity?"

how do you "redefine" their meanings to fit your doctrines? Hopefully you aren't so unlearned as to try to force the universal application theory on these verses. What, pray tell, do you do?

My definition always works bud. If you want to be a peacock i suggest you do that down at the Calvinist club. It is going to make you look like a fool here.

Aside from being completely hypocritical, let's use the universal theory on John 1:29 and John 3:16 and see if they make any sense:

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

So, according to you, all the sins of the world have been taken away.

Wrong again. Can't you read? John 1:29 does not say the sins of the world "have been taken away." Let's move on to see the further extent of your folly.

Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb (Rev 6:16)

The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all cause of sin, and evildoers. (Mt 13:41).

"The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

Hallelujah!!! We're all universalists now! Woo Hoo!! Yeah!!! Everyone's sins are atoned for so no one has anything to atone for!!! Yeah!!!

How foolish. Atonement provided is not atonement effected. WHEN were your sins washed away? Think it over now.

Hmmm...that doesn't make any sense. So we have your clearly unscholared opinon. Let's see if there's someone more reliable than you. Hey!! I've got it!! How about Dr. Strong?

Yeah let's pick Strong and forget about all the other scholars who disagree with Strong. Put your hands over your eyes there.... yeah just like that... thats what you do when you see what scholars say that you don't want to see. There ya go.

Let's see what His concordance has to say:

kosmos {kos'-mos}
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Uh oh...doesn't bode well for your credibility, does it? Let me guess, your Greek skills surpass that of Dr. Strong, right?

Well let's see wise guy. Provide evidential proof that "world" means "believers only" in these passages without eisegetically reading your theological system into the word. Have a lot of fun trying.

[quote}
What??!! The "noun form?" What is the non-noun form? Here's a few more "noun forms":

1) an apt and harmonious arrangemencommit lawlessnesst or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

They're ALL noun forms Jesus My Wisdom. Are you contending that the proper understanding of kosmos in John 1:29, John 3:16, and John 17:9 is "to garnish or adorn?"
[/quote]

Unfortunately, these are not different definitions but different uses my friend. That is one mistake Strong often made... looking to see how the KJV used a word and then concluding that is what that word therefore meant... very naive and unfortunate.

I would just bet that Strong is really smart when a definition of his appeals to you and he is a complete idiot when a definition of his does not appeal to you. Wanna see some?

LOL! If your position didn't go off in 100 different directions I might have a clue how you believe the word is used. How do you feel the word is used in those verses? Do you apply "to garnish or adorn" in place of "world?"

Why would I? Kosmeo is a verb not a noun. That should give you your first clue that the English "world" is not equivalent. What is the verb form of world? :)

As biased as I'm sure you'll consider me I would love to see how you interpret John 3:16. If you take the track of most mainstream Christians this is what you get:

John 3:16
For God so loved all of humanity that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Huh? God loved everyone so much that He sent His Son to grant those that believe eternal life? That makes sense to you?

Of course it makes sense. I don't define world in that manner but that definition makes 100% complete sense.

Let's apply you previous application:

John 3:16
For God so loved to garnish or adorn that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Again, huh? What was God, an interior decorator?

You are being quite foolish. The word here is kosmos, not kosmeo. Kosmeo is the verb form. Kosmos means "that pertaining to the created order." The created order is God's adornment or garishment. He garnished the heavens with the glory of his creation. Get it now bud?

Not trapped if he doesn't say "world" in John 1:29 means "all of humanity." As far as being trapped, I'd say that fits you to a tee. You must either claim that Christ has atoned for and expiated the sins of "all of humanity" and, thus, "all of humanity" is found just in the eyes of God and given eternal life, i.e., universalism, or, you must acknowledge that Christ's sacrifice, while intended to save all mankind and aquire for them eternal life is such an utter failure in the lives of so, so many that He is destined to never be pleased with His atonement.

YOu make so many misguided assumptions it is a wonder you can do theology at all.

First, I did not say kosmos means all humanity.
Second, if it did mean all humanity your conclusions are foolishly wrong.
Third, John did not say the lamb of God who took away the sins of the world
Fourth, yours sins were not washed away until you were converted. The Bbile says so explicitly
Fifth, I see you are a poor expiater Calvinist. You should be a propitiater Calvinist if you want to be a good one
Sixth, Christ's sacrifice made is not a sacrifice applied. That happens when a person dies with Christ. Bible 101.
Seventh, Christ's sacrifice would not have been a failure if NO ONE accepted the gospel. His atonement is not a "power" to save but a sacrifice for sins which sins are washed away only WHEN a person dies with Christ and is converted into Christ.
Eighth, when the Lamb returns allthe sins of gthe world will be purged from this creation and then he will regenerate all things. It says so there in your Bible.

To sum up. you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wait, there is one more option. Strangely enough it's the one that tickles the ears of people like yourself. You would probably claim that Christ did, in fact, atone for the sins of "all of humanity" but that atonement, and subsequent expiation, is only applied if one finds it in their heart to believe. So, in essence, if someone freely wills to reject the atonement of Christ then He suffered for those sins to no avail. Awwww. Poor King of kings.

Such a foolish person. Christ did not die for specific sins of any individual. Christ's sacrifice was good not for a specific amount of sins, or for any specific sins. His sacrifice was good for any amount of sins that may be committed by anyone. that is why you are not forgiven yet ofthe sins you will commit tomorrow until you first repent.

Your try to make it sound like Christ died for X number of sins. But only a portion of those sins were actually washed away so his sacrifice was a failure. That is utter folly. Christ did not die for X number of sins. His death was a sacrifice for any number of sins.

Paul's sins were washed away WHEN? (Acts 22:16).

Poor, wuttle, impotent God of all things created. Him couldn't overcome the power of His creation's obstinate will and died for people who still end up going to hell. Get real. Who's sovereign, you or God. Wait, don't answer that. I think I already know what you truly think.

The foolish Calvinist... continually confusing what God CAN do with what God actually DOES do. You should also conclude that God must be too weak to turn people into pumpkins because he has not done so.

My you are a lippy one aren't ya? I'll just bet if anyone talks to you like this you run to the moderators like a cry baby but it is quite okay for you to dish it out right? I think you better shape up with your attitude.

The stuff they taught you down at Calvinist central isn't working so good now is it?

Now, let's get back to John 17:9 and 20 now that you have had your little diversion fun.

You failed to address the points made in the article demonstrating the utter folly of the Calvinist interpretation of John 17:9.

JMW
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,850
1,708
58
New England
✟484,381.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good Day, Don




Thank you for doing the heavy lifting in issues like this. I am interesting in the 11 uses of "world" in John. I have found 4 or 5 not sure, do you have some exergises work you could recommend?

Bill thinks the other poster here may be David Hunt;) .


Thanks Again!!

For His Glory Alone!:clap:

BBAS
 
Upvote 0

Bulldog

Don't Tread on Me
Jan 19, 2004
7,122
176
22 Acacia Avenue
✟8,212.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jesus My Wisdom said:
Eleven different ways eh LOL?

I tell you what you can do. Look for a license to define "world" however you like so you can conform Scripture to TULIP's desires. After all that is common fare for Calvinists isn't it?

Calvinism:
1. "World" - not the elect (Jn 17:9)
2. "World" - the elect (Jn 1:29)

LOL. Same author, same book, same word. How can you guys live with yourselves?

You see the English word "world" and assume it must mean all of humanity. But we must look at the Greek word Kosmos and we find out it has eleven different meanings. Does it seem unreasonable that one of the eleven meanings would be used differently than another? We just need to find the meaning that best fits the context.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus My Wisdom said:

Not likely. Absolutely.

Absolutely. In verse 9 he is praying for his present followers.

So you agree with Calvinists that the use of kosmos in verse 17:9 is limited, however you limit it to Jesus' prayers for His present followers rather than, as Calvinists do, limiting it to all of Jesus' disciples from all times?

Eleven different ways eh LOL?

I know. I've seen your repudiation of Dr. Strong's credentials. While you may be spot on in your analysis of his understanding, though I think you are completely off, are you contending that we should view your opinion as more authoritative? Please share with us your vast knowledge of the subject and tell us how many ways the word kosmos is used in the Bible.

I tell you what you can do. Look for a license to define "world" however you like so you can conform Scripture to TULIP's desires. After all that is common fare for Calvinists isn't it?

Calvinism:
1. "World" - not the elect (Jn 17:9)
2. "World" - the elect (Jn 1:29)

LOL. Same author, same book, same word. How can you guys live with yourselves?

LOL! That's pretty pathetic. You act as if you, too, don't apply different uses of the word in that same book.

Jesus My Wisdomism:

1: "World" - all of humanity (Jn 3:16)
2. "World" - his present followers (Jn 17:9)

Why do you think that the biblical discernment of reformed Christians is skewed to support their beliefs but deny that you do the exact same thing? Both of those uses are by the same author, in the same book, using the same word but you, conveniently interpret them differently. How can you live with yourself?

And hey it means the same thing as everywhere else!

Ever heard of hyperbole friend? Jesus and the NT writers use it all the time. We use similar terminology in modern English all the time. Whoops!

Oooooh. I get it. When I apply a particular understanding to a implicit word it's my attempt to "conform Scripture to TULIP's desires" and when you do it it's because of, what, literary license? Get real. Your interpretation makes God out to be some frustrated, impotent, indicisive, uncaring Creator. If I believed what you believed I'd doubt God could bring any part of His plan to fruition, much less every part of it.

No, that is wrong. But your assumptions are what obviously leads you into trouble.

Well, I sure am glad we unlearned beginners have you here to set us straight.

Let's see. Gwarsh who would have ever thought of looking at those verses.

If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you (Jn 15:19).

"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."

Ever hear of that crazy idea of dying to the old humanity? LOL.

Here is something you can do. Completely ignore this and get real excited that Jesus used the word "chose" in 15:19 and focus on that instead.

All you do is prove my point. John uses the same word to denote all of humanity, believers, and non-believers. I understand though. What did St. John know about the Gospel or Greek. Gwarsh, I sure am glad we have Sir Erasmus here to set us straight.

Oh I would be glad to. Anyone is a scholar relative to Calvinism.

LOL! I'm sure that you're a king in your own mind bud. It's cool though. I understand that intellectual inferiority breeds contempt.

Actually I didn't leave it out. I suggestd the reader check EVERY occurrence of "world" in John's gospel. Do you know why I did that smarty pants? Because one post would not allow me to quote all those verses - too many characters.

"Smarty pants?" Well, at least you've divined my real name. I see, you were limited on the one's you could quote so instead of conceding that the same author uses the same word in the same book in various ways you chose to only use those that you felt supported your opinion. That's logical. Right.

Now, where did you get the naive notion that I define kosmos as "all humanity?"

Is that not what you believe? My apologies.

My definition always works bud. If you want to be a peacock i suggest you do that down at the Calvinist club. It is going to make you look like a fool here.

LOL! Better than you have tried and failed. Good luck though. By the way, what is "your definition?" The created order?

Wrong again. Can't you read? John 1:29 does not say the sins of the world "have been taken away."

It doesn't?

NIV
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

NASB
John 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

AMP
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming to him and said, Look! There is the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world!

KJV
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.

NKJV
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

I guess you're right. I just can't read.

Let's move on to see the further extent of your folly.

Ooh let's...I wait with baited breath.

Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb (Rev 6:16)

The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all cause of sin, and evildoers. (Mt 13:41).

"The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

Maybe I just missed it. What part of that showed the "further extent of my folly?"

How foolish. Atonement provided is not atonement effected.

Ooooooh. It's so much clearer now. Payment provided is not payment effected. I get it now. Sure. That makes a whole lot of sense...um...at least I'm sure it makes sense to you. The part you're conveniently skipping over is the fact that the atonement wasn't a transaction between the Godhead and creation. It was a transaction between the members of the Godhead to actually accomplish the salvation of those whom God intimately foreknew and elected to be vessels of mercy. So tell me, Jesus actually died on the Cross, right? His death, as the spotless Lamb, actually appeased the wrath of God against the iniquity of mankind, right? He is the actual Savior, right? According to you, all of His obedience on behalf of the believer is in vain unless that atonement is effected. In fact, wouldn't you say His atonement actually isn't an atonment unless it's effected? So, what is it, in your wierd perspective, that causes the atonement to be effected?

WHEN were your sins washed away? Think it over now.

Thinking....thinking...thinking...Um...Still thinking...I'd say it was when the Lord quickened me from death unto life, gave me salvitic faith, and indwelt me with His Spirit. When were your sins washed away JMW?

Yeah let's pick Strong and forget about all the other scholars who disagree with Strong. Put your hands over your eyes there.... yeah just like that... thats what you do when you see what scholars say that you don't want to see. There ya go.

LOL! This is so typical. Isn't this your exact attitude about Strong? Do you think Strong is the only one who believed as he did? What, pray tell, do you do with the interpretations of people, though much more learned than yourself, whom you disagree with? Do you embrace their beliefs? If not, how are you different? If you believe there are scholars out there that have a more accurate lexicon please don't keep it to yourself. Share.

Well let's see wise guy.

Wow. "Wise guy" and "smarty pants." What am I, a nine year old mobster?

Provide evidential proof that "world" means "believers only" in these passages without eisegetically reading your theological system into the word. Have a lot of fun trying.

My beliefs are harmonious with the entirity of the Gospel and place the sovereign plan and power of God where it belongs, at the center. You see, your entire theology seeks to do the same thing that all other false doctrine seeks to accomplish, exalt man. I'll stick with the God centered perspective I enjoy.

Unfortunately, these are not different definitions but different uses my friend. That is one mistake Strong often made... looking to see how the KJV used a word and then concluding that is what that word therefore meant... very naive and unfortunate.

Ahhh...yes. Poor, poor naive and unfortunate Dr. Strong. Too bad for him you weren't there to set him straight, huh?

I would just bet that Strong is really smart when a definition of his appeals to you and he is a complete idiot when a definition of his does not appeal to you.

I don't enjoy the insight of Dr. Strong because he agreed with me on the usage of kosmos in John 3:16. I enjoy his insight because he was a very intelligent man. Unlike you I need not think someone is a "complete idiot" just because I disagree with them.

Wanna see some?

JMW, your's is a sad, sad theology. If you feel that trying to discredit me or Dr. Strong proves your case then you're even more sadly mistaken. Feel free to post examples of Dr. Strong's understanding that I would disagree with but be aware that all it will do is show you to be the child you are.

Of course it makes sense. I don't define world in that manner but that definition makes 100% complete sense.

It makes sense to you that God loved everyone so much that the reason He sent His Son to die was to provide salvation to only those that believe?? What, is God now eternally disappointed because some chose not to avail themselves of the "offer of salvation?"

You are being quite foolish. The word here is kosmos, not kosmeo. Kosmeo is the verb form. Kosmos means "that pertaining to the created order." The created order is God's adornment or garishment. He garnished the heavens with the glory of his creation. Get it now bud?

I get that you clearly think yourself much smarter than anyone you could possibly encounter,...bud.

YOu make so many misguided assumptions it is a wonder you can do theology at all.

Well, you know us "doers" of theology. As for being misguided, well, I'm sure that you're right there. I am a fallen, though regenerate, creation who often seeks to please his own flesh rather than obey God. I'd call that misguided. I am not foolish enough to think that I am always right, or even right most of the time. My understanding of the Gospel may be misguided. However, the way I look at it I've got one, and ONLY ONE, chance at being given eternal life in Heaven, the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus. If my inclusion in the family of God is the product of my works then I've failed a thousand times over and will never get there. If, instead, it is as I believe the Bible purports, i.e., salvation is solely by the grace and mercy of God wrought by the efficacious obedience of Christ and the application of that righteousness to my account before God, well, I shall be with my Creator. Either way, I am at His mercy and nothing I can do will shift the balance in my direction even one degree. I shudder to think what you believe is the catalyst for our salvation.

To sum up. you have no idea what you are talking about.

To sum up, I have no idea why I'm talking to you.

Well, this "foolish Calvinist" has reached the point where he can see that you and your silly notions aren't an attempt to discuss the biblical validity, or lackthereof, of Calvinism but just another attempt, in a seemingly endless quest, to refute the doctrines that many other Christians hold as so dear.

Until such time as you can rationally discuss these issues without all the unnecessary snide remarks you can stand in the mirror and tell yourself how smart you are. I'm sure you'd make a good audience for your own praise.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Don

Good day to you as well.

I am interesting in the 11 uses of "world" in John. I have found 4 or 5 not sure, do you have some exergises work you could recommend?

I don't know that there are 11 uses/interpretations of "world" in John. I believe that is an accurate, or close to accurate, number of the different ways the word kosmos is used in the Gospel. I don't know how many of those variations are used in St. John's Gospel.

Bill thinks the other poster here may be David Hunt;) .

I'm sorry. I don't know who that is off the top of my head.


God bless
 
Upvote 0

Jesus My Wisdom

Active Member
Mar 28, 2004
395
6
✟569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Bulldog said:
You see the English word "world" and assume it must mean all of humanity. But we must look at the Greek word Kosmos and we find out it has eleven different meanings. Does it seem unreasonable that one of the eleven meanings would be used differently than another? We just need to find the meaning that best fits the context.

11 different definitions huh?

Do tell how ANYONE had ANY evidence ANYWHERE that kosmos is DEFINED as "believers only." It is ridiculous.

Do tell.

You make the DIRE mistake of assuming usage of a word is thereby the DEFINITION of a word.

And it is only an OPINION that kosmos is USED to refer to "believers" in the passages where you want that to be so. You will find NO evidence that is what the word thereby is to be defined.

NOW, will you Reformed readers here continue to misrepresent Strong (much less making him the infallible word) by claiming usages of a word are the definition of that word? Hmmmmmmm?

And reading John 17:9 as a prayer for "the elect God chose before the foudnation of the universe?" That is exegeis is it? how about I suggest that is the purest form of eisegesis - reading TULIP into Jesus' words. Yes we all know how it works. If anyone else should do such a thing the Calvinist will rant and rave for hours on end about eisegetical interpretations. But when HE does it... but of course it is acceptable.

JMW
 
Upvote 0

theseed

Contributor
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
6,026
132
Clarksville, TN
Visit site
✟30,488.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A systematic study of John will reveal that "world" includes everybody without exception, and that everybody, or all of humanity is dark and blind and can not see (John 1.18).

Also in John, seeing is believing and believing is seeing. So, to believe in Christ is too see Christ. But, in John 1.18, we read that no one has seen Christ, but God has explained him. Now, that would mean that we have no power on our own too look for Christ because we are blind, but need God to do so.

No man comes into the Light for fear that his evil deeds become exposed. That is why Adam and Eve hid and did not seek God. But those who come into the light find out that thier deeds were wrought by God. (John 3.18-21; Gen. 3).

Does this nullify the elects responsibility to believe? No, but it helps fullfill it. It is the new Spiritual nature that frees us from the slavery of our sinful nature and bonds us to God's rightous nature (Rom. 6-8).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.