Well just a dang minute, davo. (the smiley face emoji does not seem to show)
5.18 God has reconciled US to Himself - that is, the apostles
5.19 he gave US, the apostles, the ministry of reconciliation - to minister the truth of reconciliation to those that need it- is to share that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself.
5.20 He is still describing his ministry - we implore on Christâs behalf, be reconciled to God. The word âyouâ is not, as far as I can tell, in the originals.Is that correct? We implore, that is what we do, whomever we can, whomever needs to be reconciled
With me so far? It makes sense to me thinking of it like that.
Really? Our sinful nature is dead - what, does it come back alive now and then? If you are not struggling against the flesh (human nature), then a whole bunch of scripture says you are on the wrong track.If âcrucifiedâ sinful nature means DEAD sinful nature, we have a NT full of errors.
Thanks Chad, once again very interesting.
It has become pretty clear to me the past week, as I try to get a better grasp of FP and beyond, that equating, in some contexts at least, the âworldâ with the OC system, is to make certain FP conclusions inexorable.
Doing that equating feels very forced to me. When I see some verses that look straightforwardly like they are talking about the World - the shared world, the entire human community - when I see these verses quoted and in parentheses the explanation that it is OT and OC that is being discussed - I get uneasy. It all fits IFF we first give creedance to that equating. Without that, I donât see how FP and beyond! - can work.
No doubt I need much more study.
Let me go further. I think that on this day in April 2018, all people are in two places at once: here within linear time (be it on earth, or down in hell, or up in some aspect of heaven), and also âseated with Christâ somewhere outside linear time, that is, in eternity.
As an evangelical universalist, I believe everyone will eventually receive Christ, and we will all graduate together from this classroom of time, into eternity. And yet we are all already there.
I understand you HAVE TO read it that way to avert the apparent problem of âsome standing hereâ⊠BUT your interpretation above is the most unnatural reading of the text. You STILL have NOT shown how in the transfiguration said apostles received their rewards â the evidence shows the most obvious, natural and logical reading verses 27-28 to be together and thus pertinent to the parousia.
Further⊠the transfiguration was NOT Jesus aka âthe Son of Man *coming in his kingdom.â Jesus did NOT come in his kingdom in the transfiguration, cf.Lk 22:28-30.
Hermano⊠please demonstrate from the text/s where âeach was rewardedâ at the transfiguration, as Jesusâ âAssuredlyâ links not only the two verses as a single unit but thereby indelibly the subject matter at hand. The subsequent⊠âNow after six daysâŠâ is a different scenario completely.
Sure⊠you could claim the text is simply wrong, or that whoever recorded Jesus misheard him and duly misrepresented his words etc. These lame and unconvincing diversions have been tried before, admittedly not from you, but either way you slice it, IF you didnât have an internal conflict between what the text actually and CLEARLY says AND certain doctrinal propositions brought to the text THEN you wouldnât go down this unconvincing jumbled path.
BUT Dave⊠THATâS NOT what you were saying up the page where you held the âweâ of Rom 5:9-10 equates to the âusâ of 2Cor 5:18 (no problem so far) BUT THEN advocate that âthe worldâ of 2Cor 5:19 must also needs be, be speaking of believers⊠HOW LONG have you believed that? Not only that but youâve completely walked away from the obvious that you then have believers appealing to believers IF, I repeat IF⊠the world of vs. 19 speaks of believers.
Because, davo, this is complicated as hell. Iâm looking for solutions and consistency on a day to day basis. In my gut, I think youâre wrong about the second coming thing. But figuring out what Paul is saying is almost never easy. He lays a tortuous path for us in Romans, which Iâve been studying; heâs got that whole inscrutable Rabbi thing going on.
Iâll be taking more stabs at it, but keep the snark to yourself, dagnabbit!
Since the transfiguration is a - preview - of the kingdom, it does not include everything that will transpire at the parousia anymore than verse 27 does. So there is no need to âshowâ any such thing. Itâs irrelevant.
But arguably it was a seeing (and/or vision) of such, as per v.28. And just denying that does nothing to support your position. See also what Peterâs epistle said about it, as has already been elaborated upon earlier today in this thread.
They are linked. The real event & the preview.
Moreover the context of Mt.16:27-28 says nothing about 70 A.D.
And you ignore the vision of Johnâs book of Revelation & him seeing Jesus coming in His kingdom. That also didnât occur in 70 A.D⊠And who can say who else who heard the words of Mt.16:28 didnât also have such visions, e.g. Stephen when martyred in Acts. A 70 A.D. fulfillment of v.28 isnât required.
Sorry Dave didnât mean to wrangle you. But canât you possibly see some contradictions in what you seems to be saying? Am I reading you wrong somehow?
Of course there are contradictions, mate!
You once wrote, if I remember, that the day you realized âworldâ meant, not the World, but the OC covenantal system, everything fell into place. And I grant that IF that IS what âworldâ meant in that context, you have a justifiable system of interpretation.
However Iâm not convinced of that move yet. So Iâm flopping around hither and yon trying to find some consistency. Throwing ideas against the wall to see if anything sticks. That sort of thing. Iâm far from âtaking a standâ.
You may be right. Iâm on the lookout for it in my own thinking.
You will agree that âworldâ in the NT has a number of different connotations? Itâs contextually sensitive?
Yep thatâs a tuff one⊠itâs a bit like asking a fish to describe water â hard given itâs known nothing else and with no comparative knowledge. But also, to be fair, Iâve been somewhat post-evangelical for quite some time and it WASNâT an instant arrival for me but rather, a journey, AND I still find myself assuming certain things accordingly⊠which is why I find it important to read those I respect even though I may not exactly agree with them on particular points â I can change.
Hermano, I donât believe in the once saved always saved theory. Sin is sin. Whether you are a believer or an unbeliever when you sin you are not in harmony with God, and you will be chastised for it. If you say you believe and still practice evil, then your belief is basically lip service. Yes, you can backslide. As in the parable of the sower and the seed, âThose by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root and in time of temptation fall awayâŠâ and so on. As for what, Steve Mcvey says in the article you presented, I donât believe a word of it. You canât pull the wool over my eyes by twisting the words of the bible. This is why the pages are filled with warnings about false prophets. The Jewish law may have been taken out of the way with the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but as we read in Revelation, the churches were already going astray. The rise of the Roman Catholic Church made the Pharisees and Sadducees look like pussycats.
I am charismatic, and believe that dreams, visions, and revelations, as well as signs, wonders, and miracles, are still for today. Yet there are also very serious warnings against false signs and wonders (Mt. 24:24, Mk. 13:22, Rev. 19:20). So, yes, there are deceiving spirits, and hence, false prophets. But there is also a gift of âdiscernings of spiritsâ (1 Cor. 12:10 YLT) still available today.
As a futurist, I personally believe that the spirit of antichrist is powerfully at work to bring religious and materialistic people together in an ecumenical unity not based on truth. And that a literal Babylon will eventually be reestablished in Iraq as a commercial and religious center (compare, for example, Zech. 5:5-11 and Rev. 18).
But I think Steve McVey is pretty right on, even thought he is neither a charismatic nor a universalist. And I no longer believe a genuine Christian can lose his salvation. Here is a verse that greatly helped me to rest in the permanency of my salvation, in spite of my ups and downs:
âFor you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.â Colossians 3:3.
PS
Zechariah 5:5-11 (NIV) The Woman in a Basket
5 Then the angel who was speaking to me came forward and said to me, âLook up and see what is appearing.â
6 I asked, âWhat is it?â
He replied, âIt is a basket.â And he added, âThis is the iniquity of the people throughout the land.â
7 Then the cover of lead was raised, and there in the basket sat a woman! 8 He said, âThis is wickedness,â and he pushed her back into the basket and pushed its lead cover down on it.
9 Then I looked upâand there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth.
10 âWhere are they taking the basket?â I asked the angel who was speaking to me.
11 He replied, âTo the country of Babylonia [Hebrew Shinar] to build a house for it. When the house is ready, the basket will be set there in its place.â
Revelation 17:4 (NIV) Babylon, the Prostitute on the Beast
4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.
Hermano, Again, Mcvey speaks in circles. I think too much philosophy addles oneâs brain and knocks the common sense right out of it.
First, he says all are reconciled whether we believe it or not, then goes on to say that one needs only to believe to be aligned with God. What is this?
The last time I checked, people still sin, and man is still trying to rule the world according to his own ways.
Yes, there is . We are told to put it away, and follow God.
I agree, faith alone doesnât manufacture anything, thatâs why James says faith without works is dead.
However, his second statement is odd. I can have all the faith I want to; that Iâm going to build Disneyland. But, if I donât get busy and build it, it doesnât exist in the reality of this world.
Yet the Bible also says we are already complete in Jesus (Col. 2:10); so good works are not necessary to be complete.
Oddly, the Bible says we are to labor to enter the Sabbath Rest (Heb. 4:11)âa rest in which we are to rest from our works, as God did from His (4:10). It also says that the entrance into that rest is by believing (4:3)! I would suggest that the âlaborâ being referred to is: to say ânoâ to doing to enter, and to say âyesâ to believing in order to successfully enter, and remain in, that rest.
Along the same lines, the Bible says that we are to âbring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christâ (2 Cor. 10:5). Again, Jesus has already done it all. We are simply to freely receive, and then to freely give (Mt. 10:8).
We have to resist trying to add to Christâs finished work, and just rest in it. This will lead to good works as a result of grace (1 Cor. 15:10).
As McVey said, âLetâs not say we believe that everything is centered in the cross and then turn around and contend that the cross means nothing until we believe it. Let the credit rest where it belongsâon Jesus.â
He means we are to renew our minds (Romans 12:2) with the truth of the finished work of Christ, in order to âbe alignedâ to successfully receive and enjoy all the benefits of âIt is finishedâ (Jn 19:30).
As the Father (God) said to his older son in the story of the Prodigal:
I think that sin and Satan have gotten between us and God. But,
âIt was the Fatherâs good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him [Christ], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.â Colossians 1:19-20.
Dave, as I have shared previously, I lean toward the Christus Victor/Ransom Theory of the Atonement. And on another thread, I said, in part:
I guess my stumbling block is: Through this reconciling, God did not change his attitude toward humans, right? And as far as I can tell, humans in general have not changed their attitude toward God.
So if neither has changed their attitude, nothing has changed, except for those who by grace have been saved by faith, a gift from God. THOSE are reconciled. THAT is what Paul was appointed to be a minister of.
I donât see any way past that reasoning. Do you?
As for our old nature being crucified - the word in Ro. 6.6 is âour old MAN (not âselfâ - see the Greek) was crucifiedâ - I think that is a Paulinism for Adam.
(the smiley face emoji does not seem to show)
Actually I think itâs the evangelical mind-set itself that creates more contradictions than are really there.