Interesting that you bring up Mike…
Yes God HAS forgiven sins without faith in Christ, and can and will forgive without repentance,
I assume we will be at war.
Not with me. I’m out of this discussion now.
No hard feelings on my side; in fact, I’ve learned a lot even from my brothers-in-arms. 
But I see no need for further wrestling.
Cheers.
1 Like
That’s it, bro. Differences aside, fighting for what is good and true and beautiful!
What a GREAT song.
DaveB
11m
That’s it, bro. Differences aside, fighting for what is good and true and beautiful!
What a GREAT song.
we’ll work it out.
thanks
1 Like
I disagree. I think Scripture somewhere does state reconciliation occurred on the cross, in one of the very passages under discussion above, Colossians 1:20-22, specifically,
“yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death”
DaveB
-I do not believe that “repentance,” with the interpretation of changing one’s mind, could be considered a work.
-I would not say God is “pleased” with mankind now, but that He totally loves every last person, even the most vile sinner. (For the reason that He is love.)
-With the idea of “reconciliation” meaning “to bring back to a former state of harmony,” we would say Creation became “out of harmony” with God through the angels’ sin, followed by man’s sin. But Jesus has rescued us from the disharmony; now it is a matter of us hearing, believing, receiving, and re-harmonizing with God:
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Hebrews 2:14-15.
-As to “sin,” there are so many words in Hebrew and Greek translated “sin” or “iniquity,” with definitions like “a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness,” or, “to miss the mark.” But consider “iniquity” in Isaiah 53:6,
“We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Here the Hebrew word translated “iniquity” is avon (ah VONE). Strangely, it can mean both sin, and the “punishment” or “consequence” of sin! Since I think God’s nature is never vindictive, I will go with sin and its consequence. (Satan & Friends are also still right there to both tempt into sin, and then to legalistically hand out deadly consequences–at least to those ignorant that those powers have been disarmed and have no authority, Col. 2:13-15.)
In the “Divine Exchange” described in Isaiah 53, the prophet foresaw that the Messiah would TAKE our sins—and their consequences of suffering, and GIVE us his shalom (ָלוֹםשׁ), variously translated as “health,” “prosperity,” “friendship,” “safety,” “contentment,” and “peace,” among others.
As to our part in re-harmonizing, the Divine Exchange must be appropriated by faith; and I would argue that “faith,” like everything from God, is a gift which must be freely received from the Author of faith, Jesus.
-Yes, iniquity does seem to be on the increase in the world, but Christ’s work is done. “It is finished.” Step by step, the Creation is being re-harmonized to God:
He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was ALL leavened.” Mt. 13:33.
As an evangelical universalist, I believe that this world is a classroom, a very terrible classroom, but that we will ALL graduate from time, and into eternity, together, when that last and slowest student receives Christ.
I think my study of Hellenistic Greek formally for several years, and informally for over twenty, qualifies me to understand the infinitive mode.
It is talking about Jesus’ time on earth when He was fully human. God began to indwell Him, probably right at His birth—or at least by the time He was 12 years old. That indwelling ceased with His death. After God raised Him from the dead—Yes that means raised from DEATH—He became a life-giving Spirit again as the divine Son of God—became again what He was prior to His incarnation—the divine everlasting Son of God—He who was once begotten before all ages as the first of God’s acts. He didn’t need to be indwelt by God after His resurrection from death. For He was again the divine Being in the form that He had been prior to His incarnation—another exactly like His Father—the exact image of the Father’s essence. (Hebrews 1:3)
From where did you formally study your double Greek or Koine Greek… a “bible college” or a university accredited ‘theological college’ — or some other?
I successfully passed my first year of Greek at the Winnipeg Bible College, with a mark of 96%, and then I repeated first year Greek (because I wanted to get a better handle on it) at St. John’s Anglican College, a college that forms part of the University of Manitoba, with a mark of 93%. This was followed by second year Greek at St. John’s Anglican College where I studied New Testament writings in Greek, as well as other writings in Hellenistic Greek. The exam required translation of unfamiliar writings visually, using no aids. I achieved a mere 75%.
Well…if the Zombie Apocalypse… is really the most probable, end-times tribulation model - as I propose. They are probably the SLOWEST and the LAST. 
That says “now He has reconciled”, not “on the cross He reconciled”.
The “body of His flesh” could refer to 55 AD, 555 AD or 5555 AD.
The phrase “through death” could refer to a death related to the believer, e.g. the death of the old man, or that the “now” reconciliation required Christ’s death, not that it occurred at the moment of His death.
It seems we have clear evidence in Scripture that reconciliation & forgiveness of sins is conditional, not already accomplished on the cross:
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.
Lk.24:47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Thank you.
Well realistically… with all due respect to whoever instructed you in NT Greek, they would be turning in their grave at this blatant false claim regarding “the infinitive” relative to Col 1:19-20. NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE does “the infinitive” render “a process” as you wrongly claim. The infinitive is results orientated and speaks to PURPOSE and not process, i.e., definitive action. Example:
Mt 20:19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.”
To mock / to scourge / to crucify — all in the infinitive… indicative as to what was to occur or result (for the purpose of) Jesus being delivered up.
Had Paul wanted to say… “He is reconciling all things to Himself” as your theory suggests he would well have inserted the Greek ἐστιν <estin> = IS, and likewise used either the present or possibly the perfect tense throughout… he did neither; but employing rather the aorist which indicates an action as having occurred at one point in time, past with indefinite results, i.e., such was a set PURPOSE.
Let me quote with highlights…
Reconciliation is the word used in the NT to describe the changed relations between God and man which are the result of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To reconcile is the distinctive activity of God himself, and the world of man is the object of reconciliation. … As in other passages the source of reconciliation is the love of God,… Reconciliation is thus an act rather than a process by which men are delivered from a condition of estrangement and restored to fellowship with God; the act is accomplished by God through the power of the sacrificial death of Christ.
A Theological Word Book Of The Bible (1956 p.185) F.J. Taylor, M.A., Principle of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford
For your consideration…
1 Like
The following link is to a master’s thesis written by an Ethiopian scholar, centering on understanding God’s reconciliation through an exhaustive exegesis of the 2 Cor. passages mentioned above.
The fascinating thing about it is the writer’s application of the truth of reconciliation to the various conflicts in Ethiopia between factions, tribes, church sects, which he knows by personal experience.
He is meticulous writer with a real understanding of the issues. This is a long, scholarly thesis.
I posted short commentary by IVP earlier today in a new thread. I think there is much more common ground than I thought on this subject.
From that post: "Two things need to be noted. First, the verb is passive. It is not that we must reconcile ourselves to God—as would be the case with the Greeks or Romans vis-à-vis their gods. Rather, we are to be reconciled, that is, to accept what God has already achieved. Second, the gospel minister’s job is not to bring about reconciliation but to announce what has already occurred. "
Well Davo, to quote an old hillbilly proverb, “You’re saying so don’t make it so.”
Here again is the verse in question:
… and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:20 ESV)
The verb in question, translated as “reconcile” is an infinitive. I’m sure we agree on that point.
Are you more knowledgeable concerning Greek than William D. Mounce? Dr. Mounce is the author of the first-year text book that I used at St. John’s College, University of Manitoba. The book is entitled, “Basics of Biblical Greek.”
Dr. Mounce states in “Chapter 32:Infinitive” (page 295)
"The infinitive based on the present stem indicates a continuous action."
So, as you can see, this statement directly contradicts your own dogmatic statement above.
Your insistence that the infinite “merely refers to a verb being put into its infinitive form,” (giving the example:“to be reconciled is a wonderful thing”) is a quite limited application of the Greek infinitive.
Dr. Mounce also writes:
"The infinitive based on the perfect stem indicates a completed action with ongoing implications."
Hmmm… maybe you could use this statement about the infinitive to prove your “completed reconciliation” theory
Looks like we need to ask ourselves which of the two is the case with respect to Colossians 1:20. The answer is neither! For it’s an infinitive based on neither the present stem nor the perfect stem. Rather, it is the infinitive based on the AORIST stem. Dr. Mounce states that such an infinitive indicates “an undefined action,” (that is, “undefined” in the sense that it defines neither a completed action nor an ongoing action, nor whether the action is past, present, or future).
In conclusion, I admit that I cannot use Colossians 1:20 as teaching ongoing reconciliation, nor can you use it as teaching completed reconciliation. However, there is another passage that I CAN quote that indicates ongoing reconciliation. I will do so in my next post.
It may be NEITHER of those two, Dave. It may be that God STARTED the process of reconciliation, and is still engaging in it. However, what He has begun can be completed only if we coöperate with the process.
There are always two sides to reconciliation.
The quote does show two sides, but not in the way you are stressing. The commentary I posted in a new thread earlier today might be worth a read.
Qaz, Orthodox Christians say things like, “whereas the saved will see the glory of God as sweetest light without evening, the damned will see the same glory of God as consuming fire, as fire that will burn them.”
I think they’re seeing part of the truth there, BUT in the lake of fire, the divine presence there is purgative and temporary. I think that our loving God, as a consuming “fire,” will fully purge out all lies, sin, and death from Creation.
I don’t know about you, Qaz, but I suffer a lot in this life, even though I am a Christian trying to be obedient to God. So, yes, first hell, and then afterwards the lake of fire, will both be excruciatingly painful for unbelievers, but from different sources, and for different reasons:
-
Hell (Hades): temporary POW camp after death, for unbelievers. As in life, people there will continue under demonic influence.
-
Lake of Fire: temporary place of divine (non-physical) correction. People there are under God’s remedial influence, in order to let go of lies, and become free to receive His love in Christ.
Then Death and [first 1] Hades were cast into [then 2] the lake of fire. This is the “second death.” Rev 20:14.
This is followed by death being destroyed; the lake of fire will have finished its purpose.
The last enemy that will be destroyed is death….Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, [finally 3] that God may be all in ALL.” 1 Cor. 15:26, 28.
For me, God was, is, and always will be, “Daddy.” Anything else, perceived at any time, by anyone else, is less than fully correct. But that correct perception of “Daddy” is where everyone is eventually going to end up! 
Qaz, I don’t know if there will be a sensation of burning in Hades, or in the later lake of fire, either; but if there is, it could not be physical.
Sheol Hades vs Sheol Paradise:
“Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’” Luke 16:24.
Qaz, this passage may be some kind of allegorical warning for the Jews; we know it was shared by Jesus to them BEFORE he went to Sheol at his own death. For example, consider this excerpt of discussion from Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“that he may dip the tip of his finger in water; in allusion to the washings and purifications among the Jews, and the sprinkling of blood by the finger of the high priest; which were typical of cleansing, pardon, comfort, and refreshment, by the grace and blood of Christ:
and cool my tongue; which had spoken so many scurrilous and blasphemous things of Christ; saying that he was a sinner, a glutton, and a winebibber, a Samaritan, and had a devil; that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils; and that he was a seditious person, and guilty of blasphemy: so the Jews represent persons in hell, desirous of cooling water…”
The Lake of Fire:
“He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” Revelation 14:10.
Remember the positive, Qaz:
1 Like
Of course I’m not. Mounce, however, wouldn’t raise a cavalier hand of dismissal in trumpeting his own Greek prowess as a means of deflecting and NOT dealing with an issue raised.
You’re unbelievable! Total red herring! As you and everybody else reading along fully knows… my statement above was specific to the verse under discussion, i.e., Col 1:20. It is quite juvenile of you to even try and use Mounce to say he contradicts me WHEN what he references (correctly) is the present stem — as you know full well <ἀποκαταλλάξαι> apokatallacai of Col 1:20 is the aorist stem to which Mounce obviously makes to such claim… BECAUSE it’s not relevant!
Umm yes… that’s what they do. By the very nature of things various parsings usually DO have specific and “limited application” — that limits such being hijacked and abused; said to mean one thing when indeed they mean another. 
You are simply obfuscating… repeat a line and you think it gives credibility where in fact it just demonstrates your own lack. As I already agree… Mounce’s statement IS correct FOR the present OR perfect stem (as I ALSO noted in my previous post) — Col 1:20 is neither — it is the AORIST stem.
But this then takes the cake…
So you went through all that unnecessary BS palaver above, using Mounce to raise issues clearly not germane, to finally only then acknowledge Col 1:20 is in “the AORIST stem” — weird!
Finally… you should have put this at the start and left it at that BECAUSE that was my WHOLE point. 
PS…
Rubbish!! Check out COMPLETELY-RECONCILE.
1 Like