Some truth about Reconciliation

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Iconoclast, Feb 1, 2016.

  1. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/natureatone.html

    I was reading some John Murray and found this;
    This must be actual not potential.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    This alone shows there is no universal reconciliation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    186
    I like the change from the "reconciled us to himself" and "reconciling the world to himself"

    Often, folks take hold of the first part, and neglect that second.

    For the "us" it is reconciled, and to the world there is the ongoing work of reconciliation. That is those who have yet to hear the gospel and be reconciled.

    Therefore, I disagree with this statement:
    To the BELIEVER it is a finished work. To those who are yet to come to belief, reconciliation of that man to God has yet to take place. This is born out in the passage by bold:
    18 But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

    20 We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech [you] on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God.

    21 Him who knew no sin he made [to be] sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.​

    There must always be BOTH those that have been reconciled, and those who will be reconciled when viewing this passage.

    For, what need is there of ambassadors who carry the message of reconcilation, who are to "entreat(ing)... on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" if reconciliation is considered a done deal. There is then no need of the message or messenger.

    Then there is this statement:
    There is (imo) always a problem when one uses the word "vicarious" in relation to sin bearing. Christ did not imagine, or surogate-ly substitute, for the sin of the world on the cross. He took the sin, personally, without regard to who sinned, and took it entirely. Christ "became sin..."

    This is certainly "born out in verse 19:"
    As a result, the operation of reconciliation is not based upon the "subjective operation" is accurate, however, one must also conclude that "non-imputation" is inaccurate. Christ "became sin for us" is the direct act of imputation.

    I thought it good to address the next two sections as a single unit:


    The message of reconciliation to the world is the offer of the Gospel. That humankind who do not currently stand reconciled, may indeed become reconciled by belief. The work of the Cross is certainly finished. The work of the evangelist is not.

    When one is presenting reconciliation, it SHOULD NOT be presented to those who have yet to believe "in terms" of something already accomplished, rather, as a believer one is reconciled. All unbelievers are not reconciled. In my opinion, one would not be telling the truth to tell the unbeliever that they are already reconciled to God.

    The work of the Cross is a finished work. There is no more blood to be shed. God has never needed to be reconciled to man, but man has, from the time of Eden, needed to be reconciled to God. Therefore, though the finished work of the Cross places believers as reconciled (past, done, accomplished) there is yet those who have not believed that need reconciliation.

    The believer is reconciled to God and therefore has access to the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace...) that the unbeliever does not have. However, those believers that do not walk (living) according to the work of the Holy Spirit cannot bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, although are reconciled, do not have the peace that "passes understanding."

    So, I do disagree a bit with the quoted author.

    :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    agedman
    No one disputes that more sheep will become reconciled as they are quickened by the Spirit



    That changes nothing....

    .
    The work is accomplished and for some yet to be applied.

    The object of Jesus sin bearing is clear....He died for;
    THE SHEEP
    THE CHURCH
    THE CHILDREN GIVEN TO HIM BY THE FATHER.
    This is certainly "born out in verse 19:"

    Your idea fails to deal with the 900 pound gorilla in the text......
    19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
    The unsaved world will most certainly have their trespasses imputed to them at the white throne judgment.

    agreed....the last believer has not been saved and reconciled in actual time yet.

    Thank you for your response.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    186
    I agree with everything you posted, and would broaden the perspective in a few.

    However, that is not the complete presentation of verse 19.
    19 to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

    Now, do not be mistaken. I understand (and at one time agreed with) the particular redemption thinking, that the death of Christ was not but for His own.

    However, I just couldn't hold that thinking with the investigation of the shedding of blood as presented in Scriptures in either the old or new testament.

    So, I take "world" in verse 19, not to be limited to "the sheep, the church, the children given to Him by the Father." Rather, I take the "world" to be the "world" and that God sends believers into the world with the message of reconciliation.

    So when you say:

    then I totally agree with Paul.

    God does not "impute" trespasses, for the blood was shed, and therefore reconciliation is offered.

    One does not bring the message of reconciliation saying it is only offered for a select few. That only a select few acquire the reconciliation is not based upon the lack of blood, but because of the lack of empowerment.

    The position that Paul is stating is that because trespasses are not imputed, then witnesses can tell of reconciliation to every person.

    That some do not believe is not a lack of blood but a lack of desire and understanding followed by a shunning of anything of God, and repulsion and mockery of what is righteous.

    Also, the "unto them their trespasses" part does not refer to the "us" (that is the saved) but to the world (those yet to hear and believe).

    Too often, we who are Calvinistic thinkers would often use all mention of "world" in the Scriptures as to a subset of the whole, and I have found that somewhat inconsistent and a bit manipulative of the use in the Scriptures. Rather, if "world" is taken in the sense of inclusive, it makes the redemption and reconciliation far more precious as expressing the power and authority of God who enables all aspects of belief, and condemning of all who would not repent.
     
  6. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Pay no attention to this mistaken thread. It is an effort to reconcile certain bogus beliefs to God's word.

    God is reconciling the world (fallen mankind) to Himself one sinner at a time. When God transfers someone from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son, he or she is reconciled.

    This "their reconciliation is being applied" ploy simply is an effort to nullify what scripture says and insert their bogus doctrine which scripture does not say.

    Thus when those who have been placed in Christ speak, they have been reconciled. The "us" have been placed in Christ and reconciled, whereas those not in Christ have not been reconciled.So simple.

    Just read it folks:
    18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

    20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be H reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be a sin offering on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.​
     
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    L
    That the word of finished work of Christ goes worldwide rather than to Israel alone goes without saying.
    That is not the issue. What is the issue here is two things.
    The direct substitution of what He did for His people who are scattered worldwide.
    We can preach an actual reconciliation and forgiveness of all sins.....IN CHRIST. To present it as anything less is not being faithful to the text,and there is no Biblical reason to do so.
    When you speak of a select few you depart from biblical language....the stars of heaven, and the sand of the sea is NOT a select few but a multitude.
    The message was only given consistent with all the other portions of scripture.
     
  8. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    186
    I wish you would have devoted more effort to working with the verses presented in the OP.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    186
    Agreed :)

    I agree, that the "direct substitution" was for His people, HOWEVER, John states it this way:
    "and He Himself is the propitiation (blood sacrifice) for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."​

    Now, I know that the typical "old school" reformed view is that the world doesn't mean world and all that. HOWEVER, there is no Scripture reason for it not to be, and in fact, it fits far better the sum of all Scriptures when it is taken as encompassing all God created. The ONLY exception is John's recording of the priest's words. John is quoting the statement, and it is not to be taken as John agreeing with world being used in exaggeration. Rather, just the opposite. One of the remarkable characteristics of John's accounts is the extreme care He takes in choosing the words.

    For example, the use of the word in the letters of John is slightly different than that of Paul in Romans. This makes John pointedly discussing the blood itself, not just the work of the blood. Where Paul would say, "as a propitiation" John states, "is the propitiation." This may seem like a rather small matter, and it is. But I am showing how very precise John is when choosing words and not presenting some disagreement between John and Paul. :)


    Back to the question at hand, certainly, He is the "substitute" for His people. We agree.

    I carry the meaning of the Scriptures a bit farther, that the blood was in deed for all people of the world. If it were not so, then at the final judgment, someone would be able to blame others and even God for their own condemnation. God looks for belief. The blood is already shed, and folks are not condemned for a lack of blood, but for unbelief.

    I agree. :)

    Broad is the way that leads to distruction - many travel that path.

    Narrow is the way that leads to life - and FEW find it.

    So, you may speak of the multitudes and the sand of the sea, and it is an accurate statement. However, I also can speak of the limited few and it also be accurate with Scripture.

    We are in agreement, but using two different Scripture approaches. :)

    However, that which I was referring, is the typical schooling long popular among the reformed that limit the blood to ONLY those chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Because it is tradition, it brings a certain push back when one challenges that thinking.

    Yet, that thinking just isn't consistent with the presentation in Scriptures.
    For example using the OT as an illustration:

    As you know, every year the high priest would collect blood and take it behind the veil. Who was the blood for?

    Well immediately folks assume that it was for all Israel. And it most certainly was.

    Do not the typical reformed consider that there were in Israel those who were the redeemed and those that were not?

    Yet the blood was not limited to only the redeemed, but was for all Israeli's who dwelt in the land, and perhaps even the strangers, the slaves, the visitors ... The emphasis of course is upon the people of Israel, but the application just a few verses away included everyone in the land, so it seems logical that the annual blood was for all in the land. But that doesn't matter, what matters is that it included all Israelis.


    Here is were there becomes a bit of a problem among the traditions of the reformed.
    It is the obvious inconsistency when one looks upon the blood of the OT sacrifice that was not just for the devout Israeli, but also for the Israeli that scorned and mocked the very things of God (such as Hophni and Phinehas). The application was for all Israel, not just the redeemed of Israel.

    So, then it follows that when John states that the blood shed by Christ was for "us" then immediately states and "for the sins of the whole world," John is not limiting the blood to a subset of the whole. Rather, the WHOLE world.

    Hope this aids in your understanding of why I moved away from limited atonement being attached to the blood, and placing the limit of redemption upon God granting to those of His choosing who will be redeemed.

    The question of how God goes about that choice is laid out (in part) in John 1.

    So, Icon, we agree that there is a limit to redemption.

    You would hold (I assume) to the traditional approach, and I hold to a modified approach.

    :)
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  10. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    agedman
    Hello Agedman,
    Glad to see we agree on many things. We have offered our thoughts on this and that.
    I do not feel compelled to go overboard to hammer away to convince you to see things as I do.

    This I see as ....not for ours only.....[those who have already been saved}and already members of the early church in Israel..
    but also......for those of the whole world...[those who would become saved and be the future recipients of the wrath of God being turned away ie, propitiated.

    Well hold on...world does mean world.....[every nation , kindred, tribe, etc}
    just not every single person who ever lived in these places.

    We both agree that not every person in the world is going to be saved.
    That means that not every person is going to have God's wrath turned away from them, they will not experience propitiation that the NT speaks about.
    Romans 1 says God's wrath is continually abiding upon the unsaved. That does not indicate that the world is propitiated.

    Paul indicates exactly who propitiation speaks of in Chap.3
    24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

    25 Whom God hath set forth to be

    a propitiation through faith in his blood,
    to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
    through the forbearance of God;
    The unsaved world does not have saving faith IN HIS BLOOD
    The unsaved world does not experience....the remission of sins that are past
    So I can not agree with you here....

    .
    50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

    51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

    52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

    Do not discount this .....


    okay...

    .
    okay...

    As I have stated many times....I never give unsaved persons any comfort or hope if they are, or remain outside of Christ. I will never defend that position....myself.

    Here I do not agree.....all sin will be punished....In the substitute or in the sinner.
    Unbelief is our natural condition.....

    God will save all He intends to save.

    I would not see it that way...but again....that is just me.
    . :)
    we have partial agreement and that is good.
    Those who see the truth of particular redemption see it as a covenant transaction...it is not in dispute.
    .

    Again I will not agree here..
    I do not think it correct to go backwards and push that which was in type as if it was the reality......ie, David is considered a type of Christ, and yet...he was a sinner so the type is limited.....there are many such examples....not all Israel being of Israel, etc.

    Sorry...no...1 sam 3 covers that one and shows emphatically their would be no atonement for them...a clear case of limited atonement.

    !sam2
    12 Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the Lord.

    34 And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them.
    1sam3;
    12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.

    13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.

    14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.

    I do not agree as previously posted....he does not say...."for the sins of" that is in italics.

    yes...you have explained your biblical case....I am glad we have partial agreement.

    Okay...thanks for clarifying your position.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    My what long posts presenting nonsense. First, Christ died for all mankind, not just the supposed previously chosen elect (another bogus doctrine). Thus anyone transferred into Christ is reconciled. Thus reconciliation is available to everyone who believes into Him. It is really simple folks.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Your shorter posts contain a lot of foolishness Van. You had better pay attention to Icon's post here. It could deliver you from a number of theological errors you have fallen prey to.
    Absolutely not so.
    You are being as redundant as those who speak of "born-again Christians." ;-)
    Now wait just a minute. Do you acknowledge that the doctrine of election is taught in Holy Writ?
    The words elect, election, the chosen, His beloved, his prized possession and other designations are rife within Scripture. For you to say it's "bogus doctrine" is baloney.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    186
    I don't wish to derail the thread, only put in a side rail about propitiation as presented by John and Paul. I use the bold highlight to mark out what specifically is being addressed.

    First John:

    In John's presentation, Christ is the propitiation (1 John 2).
    1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for [those of] the whole world.​

    The "and He Himself" is a single word. A single word is also used for "is the propitiation."

    John's direct statement is: "Christ, the just (approved by God), Himself, the blood offering, for sin, not merely yours and mine, but also the entire world inhabitants."

    John's presentation of Christ the propitiation (1 John 4)
    10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

    John's direct statement is: "(His, or a, or the) Son, the blood offering, for sin."

    John is most concerned with the actual blood of the atonement, that which was acquired by the high priest and sprinkled behind the veil. Such sprinkling by Christ had the force of ripping in two the mighty veil between God and man, in imagery destroying that covering so that humankind can be reconciled to God on a personal one on one basis, and not by human surrogate. No papist priest stands between man and God.


    Paul's presentation of propitiation in Romans 3:
    "...which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. [This was] to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;..."
    Paul's direct statement is: God (displayed publicly) the sin offering (of) blood.

    Paul is pointing more toward the annual public execution that the people would witness at first the tabernacle and then the temple. The blood letting which was captured into the bowl and carried behind the veil was witnessed by the people. So to, Christ was publicly displayed as that sacrifice. God did nothing that was not openly viewed for all to see. That the blood was shed in public view before all of the world travelers of that day, further demonstrates the offering was not made only for the select, but for all in attendance, and that too would be validated by the writing placed upon the cross.

    Hebrews 2 uses propitiation in the manner of satisfaction. That is, the blood sacrifice was made by the Christ as a High Priest. Christ the sacrifice was also the High Priest who carried the sacrifice behind the veil.

    The only reason I am including this post is to highlight the most specific way both authors deal with the word "propitiation." They both are using the sacrifice, but two different aspects of the sacrifice. John's is of the specific blood, and Paul's is of the public display of the shedding of the blood.

    A bit of opinion sharing:
    It is (imo) unfortunate that our English usage would cause confusion and allow for some miscommunication of John's and Paul's statement in the rendering of the Scriptures. (Imo) the translations also at times hold to traditions of doctrine which can bias or color the translation so that the readers assume what is perhaps not a complete picture. For example: the KJV use of "baptizo" created a word that has conformed every translation. I am not saying that is necessarily wrong in that specific word, but just to show the impact of translators.

    Note: I know that my Greek work is not without being open to question, and, as always, I most gladly ask that those. whose scholarship is worthy, kindly make corrections anytime I stray from the actual presentation in that language.
     
  14. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,888
    Likes Received:
    37
    And as it is appointed unto men once, to die, but after this the judgment: Heb 9:27

    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:7,8,9,16,17

    Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Romans 7:12,13,14 ------ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: the commandment


    For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Cor 15:21,22

    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2 Cor 5:10 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 14,15

    Reconciliation? Why is reconciliation necessary?

    Am I off base here? Do those scriptures refer to reconciliation?

    Monergism Is all of God? IMHO, Yes.
     
  15. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Since the Fall, mankind has been spiritually separated from God. The act of being united with God is called reconciliation. When God monogisticly places someone spiritually "in Christ" they are reconciled, made alive, born anew, justified and so forth.
     

Share This Page

Loading...