Brief on John 17: World v World

Venice: Google+

John 17 and two concepts of 'world' from the sermon today:

John 17

Excerpts from English Standard Version

5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world.

9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.[a] 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them[b] in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself,[c] that they also may be sanctified[d] in truth. 20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

Bible Hub

'Strong's Concordance

kosmos: order, the world

Original

Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)

Short Definition: the world, universe

Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

Strong's page 56, states see probably from the base of 2865:

Strong's Concordance

komizó: to bear, carry
Original Word: κομίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: komizó
Phonetic Spelling: (kom-id'-zo)

Short Definition: I bring, receive, recover Definition: (a) act: I convey, bring, carry, (b) mid: I receive back, receive what has belonged to myself but has been lost, or else promised but kept back, or: I get what has come to be my own by earning, recover.'
---

My interpretation is that Jesus Christ desired his disciples to not live as the inhabitants of the world (Strong) live. These disciples are given by the Father to the Son, out of the world (6). As was pointed out in the sermon today, Jesus Christ is praying for these disciples and not for those in the world (society) (9).

Disciples of Jesus Christ are not to embrace and society in the world. They are not to embrace the world system. Disciples are to embrace the gospel via the triune God and Jesus Christ's atoning and resurrection work for those of humanity in Jesus Christ. Disciples are to embrace the Kingdom of God and the culminated Kingdom of God. The world (system my add) is renounced. Browning (398). At the same time, Jesus Christ in John 17, did not want his disciples to withdraw from the world, in the sense of withdrawing from society. Browning (398).

Browning reasons that there is no single or unitary concept for the world in the Bible. (399). This is in agreement with Bauer that has several definition headings based on the New Testament Greek, for κόσμος (445-446). There are also sub-headings based on these headings within the Bauer text, but there is no need to document these here.

1. Adornment. Adornment of women. 1 Peter 3:3. Perhaps Bauer means here that women are not to be of the world with adornment.  (This does not seem as relevant to this article.)

2. In philosophy, the world as the sum total of everything here and now.

3. The world as the sum total of all beings above the animals.

4. The world as the earth and the planet.

5. The world as mankind.

6. The world as the scene of earthly joys and possessions and sufferings.

7. The world and everything in it as hostile to God.

Within (7) based on what Bauer presents from John 15-17, the idea is that Jesus Christ has chosen his disciples out of the world, but for the present they must live in the world (2-6). (447).

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Mahavishnu Orchestra

Uncle Chuckles visited last night and shared an interesting 'bedtime story'. I do not embrace the conspiracy, as in there is a lack of evidence, but as a friend I provide the You Tube videos Uncle Chuckles provided, in comments. As I stated in the audio, based on sinful human nature, I can grant that this type of conspiracy in within the range of human sin. But, after our discussion and viewing the other videos, I still do not see the evidence to prove this particular conspiracy.

All truth is God's truth: II

Germany: Colourized

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

The Langer philosophy text review, continues. Some key symbols from the textbook:

≡df = Equivalence by definition : = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0= Null class
---

Null class entails the class of cats and the class of not-cats. The null class 0 is included in each complementary pair (147). Every class has a complement and therefore every class includes null class 0. (147).

Langer continues:

As every class in the universe of discourse has a complement, the sub-classes of any class, also has a complement. (147). If two classes overlap we have like, the following example from the author:

Class A: Soldiers

Class B: Brave men (Note this was written in 1953 and revised in 1967)

Class C: Brave soldiers (148).

Class C: Brave soldiers is a sub-class of Class A and Class B. (148).

C = A x B (148). (Note it is A x B, not A + B; these groups overlap, they are not combined. Not all soldiers are brave, and some brave men are not soldiers and may be police officers, for example.)

The negative complement to Class C, is Class -C. This class is also known as -(A x B). (148). Langer states this everything that is not both a soldier and brave. (148).

This is Class A which is not Class B.
This is Class B which is not Class A.
This is everything that is neither Class A or Class B. (148).

Langer reasons that the sum (now +) of Class A and Class B is Class D.

This is all soldiers, brave or not, and all brave men, soldiers or not. (148).

D= A+B (148). (Not x/times. Here they are combined).

The complement of D is -D, which is -(A + B).

This is the class that is neither soldiers or brave men. (149).

Is this technical and somewhat tricky presentation from Langer, I can again philosophically appreciate how the idea of Class (Which Pirie also mentions in his philosophy text) allows one to reason and avoid contradiction and the illogical.

I also appreciate that in philosophy there is both positive and negative class and premises. Christian theology both emphasizes the positive and the negative counterpart.

Once again, this demonstrates within a theistic model, that all truth is God's truth.

C x T = Y

Christians x theologians equals Christian theologians.

C + T = Z

Christians + theologians equals Christians and all theologians, Christian or not.

Christian theologians is not the same as Christians and theologians in reasoning.

Y ˜ ⊃ Z

All truth is God's truth: I

All truth is God's truth: I

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

The Langer philosophy text review, continues.

Some key symbols from the textbook:

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0= Null class
---

To combine various classes, that are not the same, through the use disjunction or conjunction, positive statements are required to connect membership. (145-146). Langer's example:

C = Cats D = Dogs

(x) : x ε C ⊃ (x ε -D) (146).

Variable equals variable is Cats, is the same as variable is not Dogs.

Philosopher Langer then once again discusses null class (147). Null class is the class which has incompatible properties (147). She suggests for example, a class of cats and not-cats.

x ε A . x ε -A  (147).

Variable is cats and variable is not cats. Based on Langer's writing, this is an incompatible premise.

0 represents null class.

(x ε 0) ⊃ (x ε A) . (x ε -A)

Null class is the same as the class of cats and the class of not-cats.

0 ⊨ A . -A

or

0 ⊨ C . -C

Null class entails the class of cats and the class of not-cats.

The null class 0 is included in each complementary pair (147). Every class has a complement and therefore every class includes null class 0. (147).

0 &lt; A

Null class is included in each class. (147).

Practical theology? This is technical philosophical material and even somewhat mathematical. It will help one to read academic materials within philosophy that use symbolic logic. But thinking in theological terms, I appreciate how each class has its complement, its opposite. Therefore, for example, a Christian has a non-Christian as opposite. Academically in both philosophy and theology logic and reason demands that opposites are complementary and cannot be intellectually spun to be otherwise based on worldviews that oppose biblical Christianity.

All truth is God's truth and here philosophy lends support.

Are you consecrated?/Luke 14

Sicily: Google+

God-willing, the Courson text, often in parallel with his online preaching will be my biblical and theological book review, now that I am finished with the Pirie, philosophical text.

I am thinking that some readers (and listeners) will be pleased that I will focus more on bible after approximately two years of the Pirie, fallacy, text. I need to focus on my marketable academic skills (regardless of work status) which will at times be under the umbrella of philosophy. My worldview does remain the same...

The Courson commentary is three volumes and will not be page by page as the Pirie and Langer reviews.

I will continue with the review of Langer, and symbolic logic.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

In his recent online sermon on Luke 14-15-35, Pastor Courson emphatically stated (paraphrased) that there is a difference between being a saved, born-again Christian and an actual Christian disciple.

From his commentary:

'...there is a difference between being a Christian and being a disciple. 'Disciple means 'disciplined one'-one who is committed to the cause of the kingdom.' (371).

Luke 14: 27 is referenced:

Luke 14:27 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Luke 14:27 English Standard Version (ESV)

27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:27 King James Version (KJV) 27

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Pastor Courson, opines that to carry one's cross is not the typical modern, western sufferings such as a 'noisy neighbor' or 'arthritis'. (371). The way of the cross is to die to self, and to live in Christ, for others. (371). To put aside 'rights and privileges' (371) in order to see others do well. There is cost in discipleship. (371).

I can agree that a biblical, Christian, disciple, may find self at odds with society, certain family, friends, and co-workers. Certainly, many that claim the name of Jesus Christ for salvation today are not disciples.

Frankly, there is plenty of room for theological debate on whether or not a Christian that is not a disciple is actually regenerated (Titus 3) and born again (John 3). This has been a subject for research and analysis on my websites for years.

But Pastor Courson stated (paraphrased) in the recent sermon that salvation and justification was totally up to God, but being consecrated was up to us, as in those under the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ via the triune, biblical, God.

Browning explains that consecration is the act of separating persons from the profane and instead dedicating self to God. (76). It is to render things to God. (76).

The concept of consecration is associated with sanctification. The 'Pocket Dictionary' opines that sanctification is two-fold: One, it is an aspect of salvation via Jesus Christ. Two, those in Christ are to strive for holiness through the Holy Spirit. (105).

As sanctification is an aspect of New Testament salvation, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is applied to believers by grace through faith, not by works, but for good works (Ephesians 1-2). Within Reformed theology, by grace alone, through faith alone.

Titus 3:5-7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs [a]according to the hope of eternal life. 

This means salvific sanctification, biblically, is up to God alone, and not by human means. But, having listened to Pastor Courson since 1987, I reason he knows this theology as fact and accepts it.

The difference in view will be with the second proposed aspect of sanctification, which would include Pastor Courson's theology on consecration.

Today's typical evangelical, libertarian free will theology will assume this must be left entirely up to the persons in Christ, without simultaneous influence from God or any external force.

Within a Reformed theology and in my case, also via theistic philosophy within philosophy of religion, I reason that as God is infinite, eternal and omnipotent, God wills and causes all things as the primary cause, whether within his perfect will or his permissible will.

Within my Reformed view, God within either perfect or permissible will, would decide, noting Courson's theological idea, for my premise, which Christians would be disciples as opposed to saved believers only, and to what degree. But again, it is theologically debatable whether or not a true regenerated Christian could avoid being a disciple, at least of some sort.

Rest assured, limited free will does exist, within my Reformed theology:

Human beings embrace, as secondary cause (s) what God has caused and willed, or else this would be forced and/or coerced and would not include significant, human moral responsibility.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.