Nah, you’re tough 
Eusebius Said:
I think someone already explained this to you. Especially your use of the word conciliated.
Romans 5:10 is a key verse on that subject.
I’ve always understood that to mean that all mankind was reconciled to God at the cross for God’s part, guaranteeing eternal life for all mankind. However, only believers have been reconciled to God on the human side and so only Christians are saved to live a new life in this temporal life.
DaveB said:
Yes sir, I think he said he has been studying that book for 30 years. 
Quite a pit bull I would say 
I am sure NT Wright is one of the best, yet I don’t think he holds to the universal salvation of all mankind and so somehow he misses the grand conclusion in Romans 11:32, that God has given (not simply offered) mercy to all.
Jeff, From what I understand according to your interpretations, Jesus died on the cross and imputed righteousness to all of mankind. After which you say that we should not get the impression that we can do anything we want to do and this is okay with God. However, that is exactly the impression I get. If all one must do is believe, then that is pretty simple. If the thief believes that Jesus died on the cross, wiping away all sin, he is thus free to continue on in his thievery, because Christ will cover his sin and he will be able to stand righteous before God. Yet you go on to say that we will be held accountable. I’m just not getting it. If, as you say, the wrath of God for our sin is eternal damnation, Jesus is not serving this punishment for us.
Jeff - he’ll come around
Eusebius, I showed you from three different Greek lexicons that “εις” is frequently used to mean “toward”, with a goal in mind. Why do you reject this fact? Just because it doesn’t jive with your paradigm?
Here is a clear example:
(Romans 7:10 NASB) and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me.
What Greek word was translated as “to result in” here? None other than “εις”.
So Abraham believed God and it was counted (as a first step) toward righteousness (or with righteousness as the goal—or to result in righteousness).
Yepper
Yes, that is the gospel.
Here you have a misunderstanding. The gospel declares that no sin will ever separate us from the love of God. So on one hand it is possible that we could stumble in the worst of ways and this will not in the least jeopardize our eternal destiny or God’s unconditional love toward us. Yet on the other hand both God and repentant sinners know that sin is bad and so it is not ‘okay’’ with God because sin brings harm to ourselves and others. Furthermore, God is a perfect heavenly fathers who has already forgiven all sin, but he also still temporally disciplines sinners for our own good. So he will not ever condemn us or eternal damn us, but he will discipline us. Again sin merits condemnation, but instead we get forgiveness and loving discipline.
Yep also the gospel. Though the difficult part is that unbelievers refuse to lay aside all self-righteousness to lean on Christ’s righteousness.
Sure it is possible that repentant sinners, Christians, can stumble into sin again. However, something has changed in the heart of the born again to recognize that both God is good and sin is bad.
Sure, God is a father who has forgiven sin and now also disciplines his people as a loving father should.
Hmmm, what? I have said our sin deserves eternal damnation. However, I have also said no one human being will ever get eternal damnation because Christ has paid the price in our stead. I am not sure I understand your last sentence.
Perhaps this would all make sense to you if you did the following… so even if you don’t agree just hypothetically consider the following points; 1) agree with God that you have broken his law and hated his person and thus merit condemnation because you have been an object of wrath by your very nature, 2) agree with God that Jesus does not condemn you, but has instead forgiven all your sin at the cross, and 3) agree with God that though your sin is forgiven God is also a father who disciplines his sons for our own good. That seems simple enough.
NT Wright is wrong concerning believers of the nations needing a covenant relationship with God. If what I said offends you, maybe that’s a good thing.
Like I stated before, a covenant is where two sides agree on something and enter into a contract. If a person will do such and such then God is indebted to do this or that. Believers of the nations do not indebt God to anything. We are saved by grace, not by works.
Yes, NT Wright should flush his stuff down the toilet as it relates to covenant. I don’t apologize for that. Sorry, you can’t embarrass me out of my position. But you know what? I did think I came on a little too strong when I originally posted that. I think I need to tone it down. Sometimes I just get rather impassioned about these things.
Eis is literally “into” and sometimes idiomatically translated as “for.” We, in English speaking countries, don’t say “reckoned to him*** into ***righteousness” in Romans 4:3. So we say “reckoned to him for righteousness.” Note the Concordant Literal New Testament as a superscript “io” before and attached to the word “for” in that verse.
Rom 7:10 and it was found that, to me, the precept** [eis]for** life, this is [eis]for death." It wasn’t toward life but “into” or “for” life. It wasn’t toward death but “into” or “for” death.
No. So Abraham believed God and it was reckoned TO HIM FOR righteousness.
Believers are not saved by steps as you suggest above when you say “as a first step toward righteousness.” There is just one step and that is "believe God that Christ died for our sins, was entombed and roused the third day and you are righteous. You are saved. You are justified. You are sealed with the spirit of promise for the day of deliverance.
Notice how Paul put it to us of the nations and notice he never says “Oh, and by the way, this is just one of many steps you must do to save yourself”:
“Now I am making known to you, brethren, the evangel which I bring to you, which also you accepted, in which also you stand, through which also you are saved, if you are retaining what I said in bringing the evangel to you, outside and except you believe feignedly.” For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the scriptures,
(1Co 15:1-4)
Let’s take a hypothetical case. Who would you want us to believe, Eusebius? NT Wright, a leading scholar of New Testamen? Or some unknown named Tony, who is a big Trump supporter? And collaborates with a sidekick named Dean?
Not that you have stated your argument this way but just for the record . . . That is a fallacy of argument to suggest that if one is a leading scholar that they therefore have a handle on the truth.
But to answer your question: I would rather you believe the Bible. It is very clear and to the point.
And what do you say to my hypothetical unknown? Does it sound familiar to you?
I gave you my answer to your hypothetical unknown. I will repost it: “But to answer your question: I would rather you believe the Bible. It is very clear and to the point.”
Well, my standard reply to both Eusebius and a hypothetical Tony - is this. If it were very clear and to the point, then everyone would be in accord - to what it is conveying.
What was unclear concerning what I posted? Maybe I can work on making it clearer? If not me, are you saying "if the bible were very clear, everyone would all believe the same concerning it?
That is not so. 1 Timothy 2:4-6 is a very clear classic case corroborating ceaseless incompatibility of beliefs relating to that passage. Nonetheless, the passage is very clear.
I understand what you posted. And what others posted here. But folks are not in accordance on this thread, with everything the bible says. Is this clear or should I say it a different way 
Okay, but can you give an example of what is not clear which no one is agreement on?
Is it, for instance: “Abraham believed God and God reckoned it to him for righteousness”? And so people are in disagreement on that verse? The problem is not the clarity of the verse. The problem is the rose colored glasses people wear to view the verse.