The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[TibiasDad]

Libertarian Free Will Definition: (the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias. It determines its own volition's; so as not to be dependent, in its determinations, on any cause without itself, nor determined by anything prior to its own acts)

And what is the source of this quotation?

I don't think free will is a state of neutrality, I think that it is the capacity to say I choose to go right, when every ounce of evidence and inclination would say go left. There can be no true volition without the capacity of reason. Reason can weigh evidence and volition can choose what evidence is most compelling, and that need not be that to which we are most naturally inclined, or have tended to choose in the past. An obese person that lives on junk food will tend to gravitate to a third piece of cake or pieces twice the typical portion size, but they can reach a cognitive point that something has to change and stop doing the things they are most inclined to do and desire. To stop eating cake is a free will choice that counters what has always been your greatest desire, eat another or bigger piece of cake!


Doug

 

[Hospes]

I like this proposition, idealistic, singular, definitive.
Except life is neither idealistic, singular or definitive.

God, the creator of everything debates with Moses His anger and the justifiable approach to destroy Israel. Does that not strike you as odd? God is debating with a man his heart. He wants involvement, the putting of sides, the weighing up of motivations, opportunities and the resulting way forward. If there is no Moses to step forward and bring the hope of the promise and its fulfilment, the project is lost.

Do you see Gods will is intertwined with us, because we are His body, linked to his perception of everything, bound in love and grace, not separate but shared, not independent, but involved. Just as we can say we are free to leave or approach, we know also neither is true, but by Gods grace. When I write these words, how are they formed and to which truth do I answer or am inspired? How can that which captures my heart and soul be something I choose, but rather am captivated by?

I fell in love with my wife to be, but not because I chose to, it happened. In a sense God has fallen in love with us, and His own nature, love, which seeks and desires the best in every situation. The closer we come to Him the more clearly the perspective becomes, but only to those who likewise walk. The same words, the same summaries, speak differently, deeper and echo again a new message. Scripture appears like a book, limited telling a story at one level. Years pass and 10 other levels pop out. As time goes by, it appears there are no limits to how the stories play, rather it is the Holy Spirit singing to God through us, that brings glory to His name.

But in this all, there is a terribleness, that is blindingly burning and absolute, warned and real. Listen and life comes, miss it, and dust, a hollow shell is all there ever is. We are built to be in communion with Him, to sing from our hearts as worshippers at His Holy throne. So I can be cry "Holy Holy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive honour and glory forever more, Amen."

God bless you

I read your response twice and have no idea as to what most of what you have written means. Sounds quite mistical, but mostly incomprehensible.

 

[GodsGrace]

i know what reformed is..but it appears on the surface to be the supperiour Doctrine

Hi Jerry,
The reformed do indeed believe their theology is better than that of every other Christian doctrine.

What is interesting is that theology is the study of God.
And what does Calvinism teach? They teach attributes that God does not have...which would be:

A God that is :
not loving
not merciful
not just

However, they feel far superior to the rest of Christians because they are able to accept a God
that others just cannot accept - mainly because God IS:
loving
merciful
just



A God that is loving, loves all His creatures, not just a select few which HE determines will be saved, but desires all to be saved.
Unconditional Election
1 John 4:8

A God that is merciful offers salvation to all of His creatures, not just a select few that HE determines will be saved.
Unconditional Election/Limited Atonement
John 3:15-18

A God that is just does not "pass over" any of His creatures, but will be just in that those that have chosen, of their own
free will, NOT to be saved, will not be with God after death.
Instead those that freely choose God's offer of salvation through Jesus will be with Him forever.
Unconditional Election
1 Timothy 2:4
Hebrews 6:10

 

[GodsGrace]

You're going to have to help me out. Where do any of the early church fathers - let's say within the first through third centuries - write that John was addressing Gnosticism in his epistles. From you confidence, I gather you know of some primary source.

Here's my reply Hospes:


1. If I write something on these threads it's not something I personally made up. It will always be based on fact.

2. Did you not read the sources I gave you? Were they not sufficient for you? One even mentioned the ECF'S.

3. Interesting that you mean the Early Church Father's by a primary source. Why?
Because the ECF's did NOT believe in predestination and they DID believe in free will - libertarian free will.

4. So you pick and choose what you like of the Early Fathers and discard what you do not like of their writings?


If you had bothered to read the sources I gave you, you would have found that two VERY PROMINENT Early Fathers were concerned about
gnoticism.


POLYCARP 70-155 AD
Polycarp certainly knew what he was writing because he was a disciple of JOHN the Apostle.

"In his well-known thesis, Polycarp combats Gnostic heresies that were beginning to spread throughout the Christian church. [1]"

source: https://www.theopedia.com/polycarp

****************************************************************************************************

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH died approx 110 AD
There's also much written about Ignatius of Antioch a contemporary of Polycarp and student of John and knew Paul.

"It's apparent from his letters that he was battling gnosticism in the church. It was really eating at him.

No wonder. Gnostics may have been as numerous as orthodox Christians in early Christianity. The gnostics may have gotten to some Roman cities before orthodox Christians.

But it wasn't gnosticism as competing churches that ate at him. It was gnosticism in the church.

Gnostic Bishops​

There had to have been gnostic bishops. Even as late as A.D. 170, when the gnostics were driven completely out of the church, Montanus (a false prophet, but not a gnostic) had won over Eleuthurus, the bishop of Rome ("Introductory Note to Irenaeus Against Heresies." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. I.). Only the intervention of Irenaeus, who had listened to Polycarp in his early years, brought Eleuthurus back to orthodoxy.
Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr and author of the first harmony of the Gospels (the Diatessaron), was won over to gnosticism around the same time. Irenaeus, too, after helping Eleuthurus, had to win back an unnamed friend from the errors of gnosticism (ibid.).
Some even think that Ignatius doesn't mention a bishop in his letter to Rome because the Roman bishop was already gnostic. I think my explanation is much more reasonable."

source: https://www.christian-history.org/ignatius.html


Again, you really should study up on the above.
You might want to check out their views on free will and predestination too.

 

[Hospes]

1. If I write something on these threads it's not something I personally made up. It will always be based on fact.

2. Did you not read the sources I gave you? Were they not sufficient for you? One even mentioned the ECF'S.

I did and no, they are very insufficient. One is a short paragraph from Britannica (I assume the digital version Encyclopedia Britannica.) on the Epistle of 1 John. The other is from a website that I could find nothing on the site providing any real information on who developed, inspired, or maintains it. Neither site does much in the way of providing a bibliography for what is claimed on the site. Frankly, I'd want more from both before I used them as a base for my scriptural understanding.

3. Interesting that you mean the Early Church Father's by a primary source. Why?

It kinda comes with being a "primary source." Here's a solid definition from Seton Hall University:

A primary source is a first-hand or contemporary account of an event or topic. They are the most direct evidence of a time or event because they were created by people or things that were there at the time or event. These sources have not been modified by interpretation and offer original thought or new information. Primary sources are original materials, regardless of format.​

Of course, I do not require "original materials" from Jerome, Ignatius, Tertullian, or Polycarp, but I would like to have a bit more than a couple of contemporary websites that offer virtually nothing in the way of source attribution.

So you pick and choose what you like of the Early Fathers and discard what you do not like of their writings?

If you had bothered to read the sources I gave you, you would have found that two VERY PROMINENT Early Fathers were concerned about

gnoticism.

That early church fathers were concerned about Gnosticism was never in dispute. I agree that various heresies, which we now lump under Gnosticism, was a serious problem for the early church and early church fathers wrote against them.

I would restate my challenge to you to find a text of an early church father in which it is unambiguously stated the epistles of 1 John was addressing Gnostic ideas, but I grow weary of trying to get you to see there are none.

Mind you, if you find one, I will be glad to revise this assertion and even thank you for showing me something I did not know. Please understand, though, until then I will remain unconvinced and any number of anonymously sourced 21st-century websites will not move me.

 

[GodsGrace]

I did and no, they are very insufficient. One is a short paragraph from Britannica (I assume the digital version Encyclopedia Britannica.) on the Epistle of 1 John. The other is from a website that I could find nothing on the site providing any real information on who developed, inspired, or maintains it. Neither site does much in the way of providing a bibliography for what is claimed on the site. Frankly, I'd want more from both before I used them as a base for my scriptural understanding.

It kinda comes with being a "primary source." Here's a solid definition from Seton Hall University:

A primary source is a first-hand or contemporary account of an event or topic. They are the most direct evidence of a time or event because they were created by people or things that were there at the time or event. These sources have not been modified by interpretation and offer original thought or new information. Primary sources are original materials, regardless of format.​

Of course, I do not require "original materials" from Jerome, Ignatius, Tertullian, or Polycarp, but I would like to have a bit more than a couple of contemporary websites that offer virtually nothing in the way of source attribution.

I simply asked where any of the early church fathers supported your claim that 1 John was specifically addressing Gnosticism. I have yet to "choose what like of the Early Fathers and discard what do not"

That early church fathers were concerned about Gnosticism was never in dispute. I agree that various heresies, which we now lump under Gnosticism, was a serious problem for the early church and early church fathers wrote against them.

I would restate my challenge to you to find a text of an early church father in which it is unambiguously stated the epistles of 1 John was addressing Gnostic ideas, but I grow weary of trying to get you to see there are none.

Mind you, if you find one, I will be glad to revise this assertion and even thank you for showing me something I did not know. Please understand, though, until then I will remain unconvinced and any number of anonymously sourced 21st-century websites will not move me.

Well Hospes,,,,
There are no words left to say.
I've responded to you and offered support for what I stated.

If Polycarp, a student of John the Apostle
and Ignatius of Antioch do not satisfy you...
then I don't know what will.

You can disagree about what John is speaking of in 1 John
but you cannot claim that I did not offer supporting evidence of my statement.


Again, you should read the study in the link to bibleone.

In order to properly interpret this epistle, which is sometimes referred to as the “tests of 1 John” or the “tests of life,” three issues must be settled: (1) to whom was the epistle written, Christians or professing Christians, (2) the nature of the Gnostic heresy being confronted, and (3) the intended purpose of the book. The first two concerns may be considered as “context.”

Context​

Context refers to the events that surround the book, e.g., why the book was written, the issues that are considered in the book, and the person or persons to whom the book was written. It is fairly universally accepted that the book of 1 John was written primarily to contest the philosophies of Gnosticism as existed in that day.



Gnosticism—the Heresy



From the various references within certain books of the Apostle John (i.e., 1 John and the Revelation) and the writings of the early church historians (e.g., Polycarp; Ignatius), it becomes clear that a proper interpretation of this epistle is possible only when one understands the Gnostic heresy that existed and opposed the early church. It is impossible to classify the varieties of Gnosticism that existed at that time, but at its core it was an attempt to combine Christianity with various pagan and Jewish philosophies. It appears to have come from two basic sources: Alexandrian philosophy (a distinct separation between God and the material world) and the eastern philosophy of Zoroastrianism (the world was viewed as a battleground between the good and evil spirits).



Gnosticism took the Greek opposition between spirit and matter and the Persian dualism as the basis for its system. It is difficult to impossible to fully fathom all the specific doctrinal arguments of the particular brand of Gnosticism that influenced the writings of John at that time, but one may be assured that several of the following dogmas were part and parcel to it:



· Gnostics are more enlightened, possessing a special knowledge, than ordinary Christians.



· Spirit and matter, which is evil, is strictly separated.



· Christ was not incarnate—His humanity was only apparent and His sufferings were unreal.



· Denial of personality of God.



· Denial of the free will of man.

source: http://bibleone.net/print_tbs113.html

********************************************************************************************

also:

"THE GNOSTICISM ADDRESSED IN THE NT WAS AN EARLY FORM OF THE HERESY OF GNOSTICISM.
IN ADDITION TO THAT SEEN IN COLOSSIANS AND IN JOHN'S LETTERS, ACQUAINTANCE WITH EARLY
GNOSTICISM IS REFLECTED IN 1, 2 TIMOTHY, TITUS AND 2 PETER."

source: Introduction book of 1 John
NIV Study Bible
Zondervan


I'm responding basically for those reading along that may be interested.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have written the truth.

Because you do not accept it is of no concern to me.

1. The point is to read THE TRUTH that is presented in the bible.
NOT to make one up,,,which is what Calvin, Knox and others did in the 1500's.
Odd that the theologians that came before them were not smart enough to see what they did.

2. I have shown to disregard for anyone on this forum but treat everyone respectfully.
Because I do not agree with your flawed theology does not mean that I treat you disrespectfully.

3. God is yours? This is what I stated in my last post...indeed, calvinists worship a different God than the one revealed in the bible.

4. I am not offended by what you believe...
GOD IS OFFENDED by what you believe.
Calvin changed God's very nature and character.

5. Yes, you will certainly have to give an account to our Lord for misrepresenting Him to every person you meet and to whom you wish to
be honest about calvinism.


Perhaps you could point me to a post where I was devouring?

It seems to me that you take this very personally and are most upset with those that do not agree with you.
And why are you upset?
Because I believe in a LOVING, MERCIFUL AND JUST God?

Odd indeed.

 

[jasonc]

I have written the truth.

Because you do not accept it is of no concern to me.

1. The point is to read THE TRUTH that is presented in the bible.
NOT to make one up,,,which is what Calvin, Knox and others did in the 1500's.
Odd that the theologians that came before them were not smart enough to see what they did.

2. I have shown to disregard for anyone on this forum but treat everyone respectfully.
Because I do not agree with your flawed theology does not mean that I treat you disrespectfully.

3. God is yours? This is what I stated in my last post...indeed, calvinists worship a different God than the one revealed in the bible.

4. I am not offended by what you believe...
GOD IS OFFENDED by what you believe.
Calvin changed God's very nature and character.

5. Yes, you will certainly have to give an account to our Lord for misrepresenting Him to every person you meet and to whom you wish to
be honest about calvinism.


Perhaps you could point me to a post where I was devouring?

It seems to me that you take this very personally and are most upset with those that do not agree with you.
And why are you upset?
Because I believe in a LOVING, MERCIFUL AND JUST God?

Odd indeed.

every church has odd belief's.

pre tribeers will say that the tTorah returns in this ,the age of grace ends

Arminism has a tendency of a works based system ,fear of losing your faith ,all this because I personally heard it and felt it

 

[Fastfredy0]

I think that it is the capacity to say I choose to go right, when every ounce of evidence and inclination would say go left.

Well, give me an example of when you have not done "what you desired to do most at the time" which would be an example of your definition to "go right, when every ounce of evidence and inclination would say go left." If you can do so then you can both:

1. Substantiate your claim
2. Find an exception to Augustine's definition of "free will"

Oh, I kept reading and you gave an example. My bad.

To stop eating cake is a free will choice that counters what has always been your greatest desire, eat another or bigger piece of cake!

Well, part of 'my definition' is missing. My definition is that "you always do what you desire most at the time". So the fat guy became satiated, causing his desire to eat to change ... so 'fatty' desired to stop eating at the time. I am saying he had a cause for his desire being 'full of food' and the effect was that 'fatty' stopped eating because his desire change.

I tried my own challenge.. my best solution was I could decide as determine by a coin flip. But, I had just changed the cause the controlled my desire. So using your example, I now desired to follow the advise of a coin rather than the pains in my stomach telling my brain I was full and causing me to desire to stop eating at the time.

... and so it goes with the decision to believe salvifically (IMO). Our sin nature is the cause behind "no one seeks God". We never come to Him on our own unless something external changes our mind and the only one that can do that is God via regeneration. (reformed viewpoint)

Aside: You articulate your ideas very well.

 

[GodsGrace]

every church has odd belief's.

pre tribeers will say that the tTorah returns in this ,the age of grace ends

Arminism has a tendency of a works based system ,fear of losing your faith ,all this because I personally heard it and felt it

I'd say that calvinism is more than an odd belief.
No denomination agrees on everything....but calvinism takes everything Christian and turns it upside down.

And talk about works-based systems.....
Persons believing in calvinism often worry about their salvation.
They must continue in good works all their life since this is the proof that they have been chosen.
This does not exist in arminiunism...which I know very little about. But I take it you mean the opposite of calvinism.

A girl once called John Piper in a question and answer video..she was practically crying and he told her that if she had
doubts about her salvation...then maybe she should !! It would have been very easy for me to answer her question.

I can know that I'm saved because I choose to serve God and not satan.
No doubt about it.

John 3:16 is a very simple and easy to understand verse which gives assurance and invites all into God's arms.
But even that verse is misused.

 

[JLB]

Its not wise to tell people God loves them, or that Christ died for them since they may be one of the vessels of wrath Rom 9 22 God doesn't Love nor did Christ die for.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:16-17


Certainly we can all agree the world represents unbelievers, that is to say, those who are unsaved.

God loves the unsaved.


Do you agree?


Or do you believe “the world“ refers to the children of God?




JLB

 

[jasonc]

I'd say that calvinism is more than an odd belief.
No denomination agrees on everything....but calvinism takes everything Christian and turns it upside down.

And talk about works-based systems.....
Persons believing in calvinism often worry about their salvation.
They must continue in good works all their life since this is the proof that they have been chosen.
This does not exist in arminiunism...which I know very little about. But I take it you mean the opposite of calvinism.

A girl once called John Piper in a question and answer video..she was practically crying and he told her that if she had
doubts about her salvation...then maybe she should !! It would have been very easy for me to answer her question.

I can know that I'm saved because I choose to serve God and not satan.
No doubt about it.

John 3:16 is a very simple and easy to understand verse which gives assurance and invites all into God's arms.
But even that verse is misused.

you really haven't been outside to many armnism churches ,plenty of persons also doubt in,that system .

also they too .mostly,believe in eternal security .

 

[Fastfredy0]

The reformed do indeed believe their theology is better than that of every other Christian doctrine.

Agreed. It is a contradiction for one to believe one's belief is inferior to anothers' belief.
Example: You believe your beliefs, anywhere they differ from mine, are superior to my belief.

And what does Calvinism teach? They teach attributes that God does not have...which would be:

A God that is :
not loving
not merciful
not just

This is a falsehood. Perhaps you didn't articulate your thought precisely. Perhaps you meant to say that reform doctrines' idea of God's love, mercy and justice differ from yours.

A God that is loving, loves all His creatures, not just a select few which HE determines will be saved, but desires all to be saved.
Unconditional Election
1 John 4:8

Your interpretation of God's love from a reformed viewpoint has a majority of those He loves ending up in hell. Your definition of God's love is unholy as you would have God love the son's of Satan (John 8:44) (my opinion, I know you think very, very highly of God)
Reform interpretation God's love has having 100.0000% of those He loves with the love of complacency being with Him (In Christ) forever. (John 6:39)

A God that is merciful offers salvation to all of His creatures, not just a select few that HE determines will be saved.
Unconditional Election/Limited Atonement
John 3:15-18

This is empirically untrue. God does not offer salvation to those that have not heard the gospel (faith cometh by hearing). I know you disagree, but that is a minority arminian opinion. (not that that necessarily proves you wrong). You also believe in unconditional election for those that do not reach the age of accountability.

A God that is just does not "pass over" any of His creatures,

Again, God passes over those that did not hear the gospel. He also passes over all those that may have become believers but were not afforded that chance due to a premature death (i.e. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hilter)
Reform doctrine believes God is ALWAYS just. There is not one person in hell that does not deserve it. God was not obligated to save one person. The fact that He saves any shows His mercy.

RE:

1 Timothy 2:4

Long story ... suffice it to say that in a previous post you yourself said one should never depend on the words ALL and EVERYONE. I agree.

Aside: I know you love God greatly and therefore despise anyone doctrine that contradicts your perception of truth in connection with God. I admire you zealousness for God.

R.C. Sproul (reformed theologian) .... I know I have mistakes in my theology, I just don't know what they are (not an exact quote). I'm with Sproul. Only thing I know for sure is a lot of people got it terribly wrong, many have it wrong, some may be close, none have it all correct (where the quantitative assessment of "wrong" has a subjective definition).

*ponders* I wonder if God looks down at poor me and says, "Freddie got it wrong again (as I predestined)"

 

[brightfame52]

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:16-17


Certainly we can all agree the world represents unbelievers, that is to say, those who are unsaved.

God loves the unsaved.


Do you agree?


Or do you believe “the world“ refers to the children of God?




JLB

I believe world in Jn 3:16-17 refers to Gods Elect, Sheep out of every nation. Now when a Sheep or Elect person is born into this world, they are sinful unbelievers like everyone else, but because God so Loved them, and Christ died for them the Gift of Faith, Believing is given to them to believe on Christ Phil 1:29

29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

[GodsGrace]

you really haven't been outside to many armnism churches ,plenty of persons also doubt in,that system .

also they too .mostly,believe in eternal security .

Agreed.
Everyone could doubt at one time or another.
The difference is that they could be comforted.
How many have we seen on this very forum?
However, they can receive no comfort in calvinism because,
no one can be sure but God, since the person did not choose God.
(as the reformed say that God chooses the person).

 

[jasonc]

Agreed.
Everyone could doubt at one time or another.
The difference is that they could be comforted.
How many have we seen on this very forum?
However, they can receive no comfort in calvinism because,
no one can be sure but God, since the person did not choose God.
(as the reformed say that God chooses the person).

you really need to attend. a reformed church

 

[jasonc]

you really need to attend. a reformed church

in my avatar is my church ,that very photo is on their web page . its small .the reason i attend it is a story but in short.its something I pass daily ,and I,used to read its meter .so having worked and missed a church because of work ,I decided to pay a visit ,I was asked about my,walk by,a pastor ,not once did he say I was lost ,just doing what I could and encouraged me to be better ,encouraged me when i declared bankruptcy,had spousal issues .

hospes posted the verse on Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith ,same words he said and others on eternal security .pastor also said that we need to preach to ourselves and remind us of the words in the bible ,to encourage us of God's faithfulness .

I certainly won't likely be a five pointer or even the opposite ,like his wife . both can be the case ,she hates the debate and focuses on the cross .mind you she is a pa and sees death often at work ,yet I can post videos with her joy in things .that I need . you err on how they are much !

 

[JLB]

I believe world in Jn 3:16-17 refers to Gods Elect, Sheep out of every nation.

Interesting.


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


Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:4


The scriptures teach us the world is the enemy of God.



JLB

 

[jasonc]

you really need to attend. a reformed church

posted on fb by,
in the niv Romans 3 ,23 to 24

for all have sinned and all are justified ..

my leadership uses the ee program by Kennedy ,its message isn't Calvin but the bible ,witness to them ,they repent ,pray for them ask ,invite them to the cross ,to repent ,to church ,they do repent then start the discipleship process .no,commentaries on Calvin is taught or mentioned ,sure a class is given and apologetics is in it .

mostly the bible itself but wondering makes it sound like the Calvinists dont teach

be he holy for I am holy
to be baptized and to baptize ,to make disciples all involve a choice and a command to obey ,if the reformed thought as you imply ,it would be a cult .its not ,i know ,i can post two recent services on the subject of being a serveant ,and James the introduction ,the latter will have the explanation of obedience briefly touched and the former on Jesus setting the example for us to obey and how a serveant was to be!

the views on this are more nuanced then what you imply and listening to one or a few pastors of theology while giving you an idea ,isn't all to it ,just as I can say,that to the reformed on,Arminism.my,pastor saved,attended a lutheran church,taught at a Calvary chapel church and became at some point reformed .he isn't the only one .

three or more elders are similiar.I have no inclination. to be either but I refuse to ignore this ignorance on,what I know of as I see persons who show up to help the needy,pray for the lost.mourn over the lost should Christ come today .things I saw at Arminist churches .

perfect In theology ,no to quote a man personally taught by sproul. when we are eternity with Jesus I'm sure we will be shocked at how off we were!

 

[brightfame52]

Interesting.


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


Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:4


The scriptures teach us the world is the enemy of God.



JLB

Not the same world. Maybe it will help you if you study the word world kosmos and see the different ways it is used.