Of course you will not accept that, because you are desperate. So, out of the kindness of my heart, I will allow you to use your theological liberal as a source simply because it would take less time to allow you to use your definition than to prove to you how ridiculous your source is.
OK, now that you have found a definition that agrees with your theological bias, there must be another reason other than that it agrees with your theology for you to infuse it into the text. The question then becomes, if "all of humanity" and "believers only" are valid definitions of kosmos, then which one should we apply to John 3:16?
Surely, just because a word CAN mean something does not signify that it does. As you have already illustrated, there are 7 plus uses of the word. So what other reason do you have for preferring "believers only" over "all of humanity" in John 3:16.
DJC49 wrote: "I'm laughing, Yamil, at your soft-shoe shuffle as you spin around and hair-split the difference between what a dictionary and a lexicon is."
Ok so, not only do you not know what the difference, but you do not care following a theological liberal to advance your theology.
That's fine. If that is what you choose. But you still have to deal with his circular reasoning.
You can't assume that Kosmos means "believers" because John 3:16 uses it, and state that John 3:16 means "believers" because is uses the word "kosmos"
You are also faced with the problem of "kosmos" meaning both "believers" and "unbelievers" without any linguistic restriction. The only restriction would be one's theological bias.
I already done the research for you. Thayer's Lexicon has been noted and rejected a long time ago. If you want to place your faith on one theological liberal who is a heretic by no uncertain terms then go right ahead. It is quite obvious from Thayer's lexicon that he is making a theological statement NOT a linguistic one.
DJC49 wrote: "Fabricating definitions" Hahahahaha! Good one, Yamil! Trouble is, I made no "definition" per say, but rather took time to provide a brief yet cogent explanation of what the meaning and scope of the word "WORLD" was as found in John 3:16. Admit it. You just didn't agree with it. And THAT'S the bottom line. It's my guess that providing explanation is sorta taboo as far as you're concerned, huh. If that's the case, you probably have a REAL BIG PROBLEM with any Bible commentary since said commentaries, of necessity, "fabricate definitions" concerning the Scriptures.
Providing a new meaning that does not exist anywhere to a word its hardly commentary at all let alone an honest one.
Besides you contradict yourself all in one sentence. You state that you make no explanation but you want to provide the meaning.
Newsflash: Providing a meaning to a word IS a definition.
That still does not resolve your contradiction. You cannot apply one hermeneutic, and then change at will. There must be an equal standard. Otherwise you fall into twisting the scriptures to fit your theology rather than allowing the scriptures to mold your theology.
You can't state that if God wills someone to be saved that he must make them saved
then make a 360 and state
That God wills to sanctify his elect but has not done it yet.
You can't state that those without the Holy Spirit cannot resist the calling of God, while those who are sealed with the spirit do.
To keep insisting on it will make some to believe that Calvinism is nothing more than a knotted-up ball of self-contradiction.
DJC49 wrote: According to my hermeneutic, Yamil, God not only DESIRES the elect's sanctification, but sees it through, by His grace through faith, to the end! Check out: 1 Thess 5:23; Heb 2:11; Acts 26:18 and 1 Cor 6:11. Looks as if God's gettin' the job done! Ya know, you have a rather peculiar notion even of sanctification (as if it were some sort of sinless state). Now what were you saying about "strawmen?"
You still sin, so you are not sanctified. What you are referring to is called glorification, not sanctification. Big difference.
The dehhvastating truth is that you cannot point to one elect who has been sanctified.
But it serves to see the hypocrisy of your hermeneutic and the ridiculousness of your strawman.
Somehow in your twisted mind:
Its ok for God to will you not to sin without making you not sin
Its not ok for God to will the lost to be saved without making them to be saved.
Sounds like a theological agenda to me. And all that mass confusion simply because you want to fabricate a definition for "world" that does not exist.
You disqualify one valid (and the most common) meaning for one that does not exist.
quote wrote: Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. The world is Abraham's inheritance by promise. God is not a promise breaker. Those who are not children of promise predestined to be born again of the incorruptible seed of Abraham and Sarah are not part of the world of John 3:16. Deal with it instead of giving us your usual soft shoe routine.
According to your careless hermeneutic, God is a promise breaker since Abraham has not inherited the world yet.
DJC49 refers to an article that employs the whole worn out circular reasoning: Kosmos does not mean "all of humanity" because John 3:16 does not refer to all of humanity; john 3:16 does not refer to all of humanity because kosmos does not refer to all of humanity.
It's simple English folks. It just goes to show you how the sovereignty of God is nothing more than table talk to the Calvinist. There is not really one practical area in their life that I can see it exemplified.