Actually davo, I see the text also. My question over and over has been - what does it mean?
God did not need to be reconciled to the world. Is anything plainer than that?
The text is one thing, the context is another. As you know. The question I was asking was about the larger context. It is not a shallow question; if you would just listen.
The question gets to the heart of all atonement ‘theories’. Was Christ offered as expiation or propitiation? Did he die to satisfy an angry Father, who just HAD to punish somebody?? That would be propitiation.
Or was the death of Christ expiation - dealing with mankind’s sin?
Was His sacrifice dealing with wrath or with sin?
Perhaps you cannot see why this is important, because your very strong theology has already answered it. But not to my satisfaction.
Weak, quotha!
Maybe, just maybe, you are looking at this in a different way… Let’s say that history happened. Christ came and was born of a virgin and lived and was crucified, and like the prophets said he arose from the dead three days later. Israel was redeemed and mankind was delivered. So, is this not great news? We can be exasperated with different idea’s about what Christ has done.
Ideas about atonement theories are just that… theories.
Pick your flavor and have at it.
Hope all is well.
All is well, thanks.
But the fact is that the facts aren’t enough! I do believe in each of the historical things you mentioned - but why is it good news?
There is an entire context that tells us why it is - Scripture. And scripture speaks of atonement, and of reconciliation. Again, those facts are not enough! We have to understand them, and because they are not perfectly clear, explanations will differ.
Ah - you were editing while I was writing. Still, my post here stays the same.
I’m happy that you are happy with your theory!
That is hard to deal with. Gotta have facts 
No question of that; gotta have facts.
Dave… I wish I could answer as bluntly as you bluntly ask without you taking it all personally.
YES… it’s ABSOLUTELY plain — the text DOESN’T even raise your suggestion/question that “God did not need to be reconciled to the world” AT ALL… so why keep raising it?
Put simply Dave, YES or NO… do you believe “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”? What thereafter might be the consequences of your belief in how THAT shapes the rest of your theology.
Well, I’ve got a few smarts but I’m no mind-reader… I didn’t realise you had all that in mind when you raised your query over the 2Cor 5:19 issue. Perhaps you can explain how/why apparently believing that “God did not need to be reconciled to the world” is relevant to this text WHEN the text doesn’t lend itself to that, OR how your questions above relate to… “God did not need to be reconciled to the world”??
Yepper, and perhaps the problem is in the way we perceive what scripture is saying. If we look at it (scripture) as in speaking to us here and now, it will be a big difference to believing who scripture was written to talking to folks back then, and working out the ramifications that paradigm means.
That’s it in a nutshell. We choose our POV based on lots of factors.
Faith has many roots, but minimizing what to another person is critical to their understanding of ultimate things, threatens the whole tree of their life.The metaphor is getting away from me…
In any case, when we are dealing with human beings, we are dealing not with creatures of logic, but rather creatures of emotion. I reckon we just have to live with that.
Yes, but the question is, what does that mean. Even if one tells oneself & says a million times that it says the world (all mankind) was already reconciled & forgiven (for all time & eternity) at the cross in 30 AD, that doesn’t make it so. Though it is said if one tells a lie enough times, one may actually come to believe it is truth.
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, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol.1).
“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]
Unlike yourself… I would never dare infer the Apostle Paul ‘tells a lie’; I simply believe his words as given… but that’s my choice and you’ve made yours.
Again, Paul is pretty clear elsewhere as to the WHEN and WHERE this said reconciliation IS brought under consideration, in terms of verses 19-20…
Col 1:19-20 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
Yep… it is truly astounding the lengths some will stretch in their vain unbelief thereby nullifying the word of God.
And the lengths some will go to not to share what ‘reconciliation’ means.
The joining together of that which has been separated.
Although I’ve been answering your questions Dave… any reason why you’re refusing to answer mine?
The reason is, davo - you have a system, pantelism.
Like any system, (and I’m not saying a system is necessarily a bad thing), each element is integrated with the entire system.
So, for instance, though I can read almost as well as you, and I see the words Paul is using in the same black/white manner - and further that I tend to believe Paul to the extent that I can understand him - because you have a system, and you think (erroneously) that I am blinded by the system of Evangelicalism or whatever - the connotation of the words Paul uses differ between us.
So, am I trying to avoid what Paul is saying? God forbid!! It is just the OPPOSITE.
Those words don’t explain a thing. I can read each word and combine them and come up with a sentence that I don’t understand - because what ‘separation’ are we talking about? What does ‘joining’ mean? What is the context?
What ‘world’ was being reconciled? The OC world? The entire world?
ETC etc…
You have made a big issue out of… “God did not need to be reconciled to the world”. I said I wasn’t so much disagreeing with the notion in itself BUT THAT I also wasn’t seeing THAT point being made by that verse (2Cor 5:19) — I’ve asked you to clarify but you haven’t, other than to say “most sources” back up what you’re saying… I’ve asked for these sources so I can get a better handle on your apparent opposition to what I’m saying is, because you’re not really answering me other than with things like… “I’m not that deep” etc — well that doesn’t help me much help you.
But having said that… what I’ve suggested as to the simplicity of 2Cor 5:19 is by no means unique to a fulfilled eschatological model of belief, far from it… even Hermano up the page shares a basic agreement as to the uncomplicated nature of the text and he’s an all the way futurist.
Really? 
Yep, I’m beginning to believe you… 
The context of 2Cor 5:19 is the effect and scope of God’s gracious dealings with man through Christ and those through whom Christ’s call moves. Contrary to the separation that Adam wreaked Christ wrought the reconciliation that brought back together… thus joining that which had been apart — God bringing man back to himself; though none had ever really been too far from His heart, though far enough to be stumbling in darkness, i.e., in ignorance as to His great mercy (Acts 17:27; 30).
Both… we have one BECAUSE OF the other. There was a process in play… “to the Jew first then the Greek” as per Acts 3:26; 13:46; Rom 1:16; 2:9.
Where have i ever inferred the Apostle Paul “tells a lie”?
Col.1:19 for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell,
20 and through Him to reconcile all **to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens. (CLV)
** into, Greek EIS
God has purposed by Christ “to reconcile all to Him” (Col.1:20). (The verse does not say He has already “reconciled” (past tense) all). Reconciliation of all is His purpose which involves “making peace through the blood of the cross” (v.20) as well as being accomplished “by Him” (v.20) which is twice repeated in the verse for emphasis. The reconciliation of all is not already completed, but ongoing. Verses 21-23 indicate examples of reconciliation occurring after (not at) the cross and that it is conditional on faith.
Verse 21 describes “the opposite of reconciliation - the state we were in before we were reconciled”:
21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.
Verse 22 says “now” He has reconciled you. If reconciliation had occurred on the cross circa 30 AD, which Scripture nowhere affirms, then how is it that Paul says it occurred “now”, which was decades after 30 A.D.?
Also the word “to” in “to reconcile” (v.20) is EIS, which KJV most often renders “into”. With “into” v.20 would say “and by Him to reconcile all INTO Himself”. Given that unbelievers are not in Christ - if this rendering of EIS is accurate - that phrase in v.20 could not yet be fulfilled & would have to be realized in the future. Compare BDAG’s note:
“…found only in Christian writers…reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20…” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).
Peace via the blood of the cross comes by faith, not unconditionally & without belief:
Rom.5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Rom.3:25a God presented Him as an atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood
“…Jesus existed before all things, He created all things, He holds together all things, and He will reconcile all things. And what does it mean for God to “reconcile to himself all things”? It is clear that the word reconcile means more than squashing opposition. It means a full restoration of peace and harmony.”
“…The “all things” of verse 20 is as extensive as the “all things” of verse 16. So just as God created everything and everybody through Christ, so He will reconcile everything and everybody through Christ (not everything except most of humanity!). The universe will be completely restored to its original perfection and peace. No one will be at enmity with God or with one another. He will completely fulfill “the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure”—“to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). Going from the depths of mankind’s depravity to the total reconciliation of everyone to God and to each other will be more glorious than if we had never fallen in the first place. The restoration of every single relationship to perfect harmony through the work of reconciliation on the cross will be the most spectacular demonstration imaginable of the grace and justice and wisdom and power and love of God.”
http://blogs.christianpost.com/ambassador-of-reconciliation/reconciliation-the-heart-of-gods-grand-plan-for-creation-7138/
“ἀποκαταλλάσσω is found in the NT only in Col. and Eph., where καταλλάσσω does not occur. Since it is never found prior to Paul, it is perhaps coined by him…In men [it] is preceded by alienation and enmity (Col.1:22)…Col.1:20 speaks of the gracious purpose which God had demonstrated…to reconcile the whole world to Himself; it does not speak of a reconciliation of the world already concluded. ἀποκαταλλάξαι cannot refer merely to the removal of a relationship of guilt by God, since it is plainly expounded as a conclusion of peace in Col.1:20 and Eph.2:15. Hence it is not something one-sided. It embraces the total life situation of man. It does not refer merely to his guilt before God. In Eph.2:16 reconciliation to God also brings reconciliation to Jews and Gentiles, and in Col.1:20 the reconciliation of men to God also carries with it that of supraterrestrial beings” (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Vol.1, p.258-259, Friedrich Buschel, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 1st printing 1964, 2006).
“apokatallasso…604…“to reconcile completely” (apo, from, and No.1), a stronger form of No. 1, “to change from one condition to another”, so as to remove all enmity and leave no impediment to unity and peace, is used in Eph.2:16, of the “reconciliation” of believing Jew and Gentile “in one body unto God through the Cross”; in Col.1:21 not the union of Jew and Gentile is in view, but the change wrought in the individual believer from alienation and enmity, on account of evil works, to “reconciliation” with God; in v.20 the word is used of the divine purpose to “reconcile” through Christ “all things to Himself…whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens”, the basis of the change being the peace effected “through the blood of His Cross.” It is the divine purpose, on the ground of the work of Christ accomplished on the cross, to bring the whole universe…into full accord with the mind of God, Eph.1:10.” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1996, p.514).
“The vb. ἀποκαταλλάσσω occurs for the first time in Gk. lit. in Col.1:20,22 and Eph.2:16… where the response of faith is absent, personal reconciliation has not been realized” (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDNTTE), Vol.1, p.248, Moises Silva, Revision Editor, 2014).
"The passage may well be Paul’s adaptation of a christological hymn, reflecting Jewish beliefs about angels and cosmic powers (cf E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia, 1971, 59 [etc]…). Within this cosmic context is set the reconciliation of believers (Col.1:21 f.). But it should be noted that the reconciliation is conditional on continuing in the faith (Col. 1:23) (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [NIDTT], Vol.3, Editor Colin Brown, 1978, p.172).
"Just as His glories in creation take us back to the very beginning, so the greater glories of reconciliation take us to the very consummation. The universal reconciliation cannot be fully accomplished till the close of the eonian times, when all sovereignty and authority and power and even death are rendered inoperative (1Cor.15:24-27)…(Concordant Commentary, AE Knoch, 1968, Col.1:20, p.303).
To revisit that particular passage:
Colossians 1:20-22 (NKJV)
20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled
22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—
So, the reconciliation came “now” in the body of His flesh through death, and not according to our later individual repentance or faith.
As Davo has been saying, 1) there is God having already been reconciled to all of us, and 2) there is us needing to be reconciled to God, through repentance, that is, through changing our minds and believing this wonderful news.
Here is that relevant passage:
2 Cor 5:19-20
19 For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them [“reckoning to them their trespasses,” YLT]. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. (NLT)
20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. (NIV) 2 Cor. 5:20.
Again, individual reconciliation (return to harmony) from us to God is not realized until we change our minds; without repentance, people remain enemies in their minds, when in fact, God does not consider anyone His enemy—and never has. God is love.
Let’s look at this verse realistically. “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell…” There is an infinitive here. “It pleased the Father that all the fullness to dwell in Him.” What else pleased the Father? “To reconcile all things to Himself by Him.”—another infinitive. This does NOT imply that the Father has already reconciled all things to Himself, but rather that it pleased Him to bring this about through Christ. This is a process that has already begun, and will some day be completed.
In the following verse, the “you” is plural:
…he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Phillipians 1:6)
I have heard it said that even ‘repentance’ is a WORK and is 'adding to the finished work of Christ.
Ok, by ‘reconciled’ do you mean that all the world’s sins are forgiven, even without faith in Christ (since according to M. Williams - it is not our faith that saves us, it is the faith of Christ)? Does ‘reconciled’ to you mean God is just pleased with mankind now? Does reconciled mean that there is no further sin, and even if there is, that it is already forgiven? War, torture, rape, greediness, sloth - are all still in the world and perhaps could be said to be on the increase. But Christ’s work is done? Is that reconciliation? If not, what IS IT?
Hermano, I’m not clear what category you are putting the reconciliation of verse 21, KJV (which occurs in v.22 in most bible versions not called KJ). Do you see reconciliation there as objective (completed at the cross circa 30 AD) or experiential, i.e. what you call the reconciliation needed & obtained through repentance & faith?
Aside from Scripture nowhere stating a mysterious reconciliation occurred on the cross, the Bible speaks of reconciliation occurring after the cross, so to hold to your POV you have to imagine at least two different types of reconciliation. Furthermore, the very word speaks of a restored relationship, yet if this occurred on the cross there would be no need for any further reconciliation since it would have already been a done deal, as in “It is finished”. It would be pointless to urge people to “Be reconciled to God”. Instead, the message would be - you are already reconciled to God…just believe it. But clearly we see a world that has not been reconciled to God.
Moreover, if this objective reconciliation c. 30 AD was true & everyone’s sins forgiven for all time (extreme hyper grace), this is in opposition to a list of texts stating forgiveness is conditional. I take the view that such clear texts should be the standard by which to interpret whether or not the extreme hyper grace position is valid.
Other than just stating it as so and thereby building your entire argument as given, your argument shows a basic lack of understanding of that infinitive mood whereby IF we apply your notion of… “a process that has already begun” THEN the Father’s indwelling of the Son was ALSO according to your logic, ‘a process that has already begun.’ Where and when therefore does your theology allow that indwelling process to come to completion? in the Day of Jesus Christ??
These Greek infinitives… to dwell / to reconcile — are concrete statements, NOT shifting sands!