Hi Don - I think davo was only wanting to contrast the kind of reconciliation between one man and another with the reconciliation God initiated. I’m sure he will weigh in.
But - how do you interpret 2 Cor 5.18,19? I’ve always thought of the reconciliation as more or less an ‘offer’ - Jesus is at the door and knocking, that sort of thing - but it looks like Paul thinks it has already been accomplished. Can’t quite get my head around it. Any insights?
Remember this old Wendy’s commercial?
Well, if I were in the commercial…and we were talking about Preterism, Pantelism, or other such derivatives…I would be asking:
Where’s the zombies?
Groan… 
Let me rephrase that so as to appease your pedantic-ness…
Remember… this is the reconciliation of man TO God, NOT man to man
Dave… there is no other spin to place on Paul’s words, i.e., he meant exactly what he said — reconciliation is a done deal.
dav0 - not trying to spin, really - but admittedly ‘reconciliation’ can be construed a couple of ways. To, that is, wit:
-the restoration of friendly relations.
reuniting reunion bringing together (again) conciliation reconcilement rapprochement fence-mending pacification appeasement placating mollification resolution settlement settling resolving mending remedying agreement compromise understanding peace concord harmonizing harmonization squaring balancing.
It implies something that happens between parties, sometimes with the use of a Mediator. How can reconciliation happen when only one side declares it? I could understand it if God was the one having to be reconciled to man. But Paul is not saying, if I understand it, that God changed at all; rather, the relationship did, but mankind was not a ‘party’ to it.
A recipient of it? - I don’t know. Unless God changed, He still loves righteousness and hates unrighteousness, and has always been a sowing-and-reaping type of Deity.
I find it confusing.
We need a very SHORT video, to emphasize this sentiment. 
See Not that there’s anything wrong with that
The Greek word at 2 Cor.5:19 can mean a one way conciliation. That’s how the CLV translates it:
19 how that God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation.
The word “conciliating” indicates an ongoing process, not a past completed action.
The following thread has many thoughts on the verse:
And this is a repost from a thread here somewhere:
The first problem with that interpretation is harmonizing passages of the Scriptures that appear to oppose it, for a few examples these:
Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Col.1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
1 Jn.1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Eph.1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
1 Jn.1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.
Secondly to make more sense of 2 Cor.5:19 in harmony with the above passages, there are reasonable alternate interpretations of 2 Cor.5:19, such as:
Another thought is that reconciliation in 2 Cor.5:19-20 is considered by Paul as an “ongoing process” (p.256 of TDNT, Vol.1). The “phrase ήν καταλλασσων in 2 C. 5:19 does not denote a concluded work: “He was present to reconcile the world to Himself”; when and where this work will be concluded is not brought under consideration in 2 C. 5:19-20. For this reason we should not draw from the fact that Paul thinks of the world as the object of reconciliation the deduction that reconciliation for him consists exclusively in the removal of the relationship of guilt between man and God, since the world as a whole is not a new creation etc. This would amount to saying that what Paul explicitly calls the ministry of reconciliation and the self-reconciliation of man forms no part of reconciliation. Paul does not say that the world is reconciled (καταλλαγεις). The reconciliation of the world is as little finished as the απoβoγή of the Jews. Both have begun in the cross of Christ, and both are in the course of fulfillment (–> 258). We can call the world reconciled in the Pauline sense only as we anticipate the execution of that which is present in the purpose of God and in the foundation” (p.257, Friedrich Buchsel, ed. Gerhard Kittel).
“The compound of “was” and the participle “reconciling,” instead of the imperfect (Greek), may also imply the continuous purpose of God, from before the foundation of the world, to reconcile man to Himself, whose fall was foreseen.” [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary]
A third obstacle to the Pantelist view is that if God is not holding the world’s sins against them, this may not mean they are forgiven, but merely being allowed a probationary period of time in which to repent before His wrath that is on them (Jn.3:36) becomes their experience as per Rom.2:3-16:
Jn.3:36 he who is believing in the Son, hath life eonian; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.’
So it may be that God is not imputing men’s sins - now - but is giving them time to repent (Rev.2:21) & commands them to do so/repent (Acts 17:30), but when that time expires then judgement & wrath will come (Rom.2):
Rev.2:21 Even though I have given her time to repent of her immorality, she is unwilling.
Romans 2:4 Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?
Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Rev.18:5 For her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Give back to her as she has done to others; pay her back double for what she has done; mix her a double portion in her own cup.
A fourth problem for the Pantelist theory is the above passage (Rev.18:5-6), which is post Calvary/the cross/c. 30 A.D. reveals God repaying for sins, in opposition to “not imputing their sins against them” (2 or.5:19).
A fifth problem with your interpretation is elsewhere Paul makes the non imputation of sin conditioned on faith:
2 Cor.5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing[3049] their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Rom.4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute[3049] sin.
Rom.4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted[3049] unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned[3049] of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted[3049] for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,
unto whom God imputeth[3049] righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute[3049] sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned[3049] to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned[3049]? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed[3049] unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
The sixth difficulty with the above stated Pantelist perspective is the passage says to “Be reconciled to God” v.20, which would have already taken place if Paul were saying the world is already reconciled to God as the Pantelist interprets v.19. IOW the Pantelist view makes the passage contradict itself.
Seventh, If the intended thought was God had already accomplished reconciliation, why not instead say “God was in Christ [and RECONCILED] the world to himself on the cross” rather than say “reconcilING”. If the world has already been fully reconciled to God, shouldn’t the message of the gospel be “you are reconciled to God” instead of Paul’s urgent appeal begging others to “be reconciled to God” (v.20)?
And why such an earnest appeal? Because the context warns that this is “a day of salvation” (2 Cor.6:1-2), wherein men are being given “time to repent” (Rev.2:21) which God commands all men to do (Acts 17:30) because there is coming a day of judgement and wrath (Acts 17:31, Romans 2).
Eightth, we also see in Romans 1:18-32 that “Paul speaks quite plainly of the wrath of God as a present and manifest reality” (TDNT, Vol.1, p.257), which doesn’t sound like He has already forgiven everyone’s sins - past, present & future - no matter how much light they are rebelling against, including blaspheming the Holy Spirit - without even as much as confessing, let alone repenting of them.
If that were the case, then why couldn’t men could just wallow in their sins, enjoying the many various pleasures of such for their entire mortal lives & then go to immediately to heavenly bliss at the moment of their death? After all, God has forgiven them & is not holding their sins against them, right? What is the worst case scenario, a slap on the hand as per your view that “who in all their prideful arrogance or blind ignorance would not respond in worshipful contrition postmortem, in-kind, before the presence of God”? Certainly nothing that sounds like torment into the eons of the eons (Rev.20:10; 14:9-11) or departing into eonian chastening & fire (Mt.25:41,46), etc.
There is no mention in Romans 5:10 of God “unilaterally forgiving humanity’s sins”. In fact there is no mention of forgiveness of sins, period, whether through confession, repentance, & faith or not.
By the word “we” Paul is referring to the saints (those of faith) his letter is addressed to.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/5-10.htm
In the context of Romans 5, evidently salvation is about avoiding wrath (Rom.5:9) :
Rom.5:9 Therefore, since WE(of faith) have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall WE(of faith) be saved from wrath through Him!
Rom 5:10 For if when WE were enemies we were reconciled to God THROUGH the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, WE(of faith) shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but WE also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom WE have now received the reconciliation.
Wrath & salvation from it is a repeated theme in Romans:
Rom.1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom. 2:4 Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?
Rom. 2:5 But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Rom.2:8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
Rom. 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)
Rom.9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction?
Reconciliation isn’t unilateral forgiveness of sins.
Those who believe recieve forgiveness of sins.
Those believers who continue in the faith & walk in the light continue to have forgiveness of sins & salvation from wrath.
O - thanks, I’ll go over that in more depth when I have time to digest it.
Does not 5:18 state reconciliation as a done deal, though?
That’s how most versions translate it as regards the “us” it is referring to, not the “world” of verse 19.
I need to go back to the OP and read the entire thread again. I think davo and MM have already answered most of these things - not to everyone’s satisfaction to be sure, but I don’t want to re-ask the questions over and over.
You’ll get there 
A word of caution Dave… don’t just swallow Origen’s ill-informed proclamations when says things like “pantelism says…” etc. The guy has NO real grasp on pantelism and INEVITABLY puts his own deficient interpretation out there… as has been demonstrated time and again.
Yes I know Dave… the “spin” was relative to others’ who can’t countenance God unilaterally doing something on man’s behalf WITHOUT man somehow being involved to merit or whatever other word they might prefer to use in giving man a contributing stake in the game.
The ONLY THING on our side of the ledger ever contributed in terms of ‘redemption/reconciliation’ was the sin that made it necessary — that’s it!
Something DID happen “between parties” — a mighty Mediator working in partnership with his Father accomplished what no one else ever could, i.e., “man” was NOT a ‘party’ to it, BUT benefitted fully from it — as was intended.
You keep using human examples to try and understand a divine reality… I get that, but such will always come up short. Let me do the same though it too will probably be inadequate. You can be unilaterally reconciled to a given situation to where you accept and become at peace with a given scenario… and this in spite of or despite anyone else’s influence, intent, behaviour or approval. It’s that simple.
Of course God… “loves righteousness and hates unrighteousness” which is why He gives enabling grace to those called to serve Him so they can duly walk accordingly, BUT none of that dismisses or discounts the reconciliation established through Christ ON BEHALF OF all… “to the Jew first and then the Greek” etc.
Well, that may be partly right. God knew that a free will being (man) would never be able to concede, so in love, He took matters into His own hands, and said that now because of what I have done it is finished.
However you look at reconciliation, is how you look at GOD. Think about that.
But now, there is predestination, prayer, miracles, and the holy spirit that you have to contend with. 
We need to get down to bedrock here 
Did reconciliation change the way God acts or relates to human beings? Did God change?
Did reconciliation change any one person in the world? I don’t mean legal status, or relationship, I mean - did God’s unilateral activity of reconciliation cause any person to change the direction of their life, to become more loving, to be sorry for their sins, etc?
It seems to me that today, I could with confidence say to someone that they need to be reconciled to God; that God has in essence opened wide His arms - they always have been opened, but the demonstration of that through Christ announces it loudly - and they are invited to drop their arrogance, pride, anger etc, and join in the embrace.
For that matter, I tell that to myself ALL the time, as I need constant reminding.
How would you alter that last paragraph, as a pantelist?
Inquiring minds want to know.
My emojis are not showing here! No smiley face etc - I wonder why?
The bedrock is… God’s intent has always been towards the blessedness of His creation — removing ‘the sin’ barrier was THE key plank in this. IF in toto… “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” isn’t true, as in, these words do NOT mean what they directly say, THEN you may as well join the crowd who don’t give a seconds thought to cutting and expunging texts from Scripture via the lamest of excuses because said texts challenge and undermine their doctrines brought TO the text — it works for some.
THAT wasn’t the gist of reconciliation… bringing humanity back, to use a metaphor, “under His wing” was. Those things you mention are the benefits and outworking of what a realised reconciliation can lead via faith/repentance etc.
So now instead of reading the scriptures to learn ‘how do I get saved?’ (and the possible ramifications if I don’t get it right 
) we can ask ‘now that I realize what God has done through Christ and the love He exhibited, What can I do… What’s my job description?’
Just speaking for me, once I got my head around the notion that reconciliation has happened, it was a game changer.
Yes, I think you are correct that it COULD answer the questions. As you know qaz, that atonement model raises questions of its own; age-old questions that apparently cannot be solved to everyone’s satisfaction.
I’m still obsessed with this scenario:
Origen, I agree with this.
Davo, If you are living in sin, you are still in “sin condition”. There are a lot of people who will accept you as such, for example; gang members, sexually deviant groups, drug users, etc. However, this is not acceptable before God, and there is no blessedness of life in such a state.
A Pantelist - extreme hyper grace - interpretation (reading into the text) of 2 Cor.5:19 that has been expressed on these forums is that the world’s sins - past, present & future - have been forgiven already. This is like the hyper grace doctrine of the likes of Joseph Prince, except Prince limits the forgiveness of all sins (past, present & future) to believers, i.e. Christians. Hence the label “extreme hyper grace” for this Pantelist opinion of 2 Cor.5:19.
There is a principle of bible interpretation that says to interpret difficult, unclear or obscure passages in light of the clear statements of Scripture. IMO if we interpret the difficult passage of 2 Cor.5:18-6:1 in light of the rest of the New Testament, there are clear passages that indicate that forgiveness of sins is conditional. So 2 Cor.5:19 should not be understood as supporting the extreme hyper grace position.
Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Col.1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
1 Jn.1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Eph.1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
1 Jn.1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.
Yes Chad… and have you ever noticed how when plain, clear and obvious texts cross, question or undermine cherished presuppositional dogmas’ brought to said texts that such texts magically then become “difficult, unclear and obscure”… LMAO!! 