Well, that affirms the only thing I contended. I’m unclear what the quibbling is about.
You appear to argue that references to repentance that do not specifically add the words “from sin” shows that the turning from a life of obeying false gods to the true one is not pertinent to their sins. But I find the full Biblical nature of the repentant lifestyle that God urges is so evident, that it does not need to be specified every time there is a call to repentance.
I don’t understand why repentance gets such a bad rap here either. Certainly the scriptures require it; and it is overall a great blessing. Finding oneself to be going in the wrong direction, because of inner attitudes, lack of love, lack of wisdom, and not in fellowship with the Creator - to be shown that and to turn gladfully from it is the beginning of wisdom and life.
A thing much to be desired.
I have no great quarrel with those for whom Max King is master. They do read the NT much differently that I do but that’s no big deal, until I’m told that there is a new truth that noone has seen until now, and then am chastised for being too ‘evangelical’.
Live and let live.
Come, Lord Jesus.
B and C are part of Lordship Salvation which means if you believe He is Lord you will do as he says. He is Lord and Savior, not just Savior.
Do you hold to the necessity of repentance? I have been told that repentance is a ‘work’ and is not necessary for salvation. Same with faith, same with belief. Don’t make me look all over the forum for those quotes please. Perhaps whoever made the comments will chime in.
Along with this has been the statement that ‘Christ has done everything’ and that now He is not our concern. He was for the Jews ONLY. The NT has nothing to say to US. Though we might, I’m told, find a little good advice in there.
Again I’m not criticizing, just pointing to things that have been said. I’m really not going to look back over 6 years of postings to find the exact sentences.
Not that my agreement will add much weight to your argument… but yeah, I tend to agree.
Furthermore, regarding repentance, Davo’s position seems to ignore the following:
[Without eventually hating such an experience] Does anyone really hang out with a person who is fully unrepentant of wrongs they have committed towards them?
With all due respect Drew… this above is a load of rot!! That is some weird conclusions you’ve drawn of my position. 
Show the quote Bob where I APPEAR to argue thus… this appears to be just more of your spin??
Certainly when God’s people Israel turned away and followed false gods that was a grievous sin they were to repent of, i.e., change their minds and thus turn from… it’s all there in the OT. BUT for ignorant pagans who followed false gods but then came into the light of Israel’s God their turning, their change of mind, their repentance was more a turning TO God than it was a turning from deliberate sin, as per Israel’s idolatrous behaviour.
Based on past and current evidence I don’t expect you to perceive this above to be true either, but it is how I see it.
I can appreciate that’s how you see it… I just think there can be more to it than your one-trick pony. Repentance is simply a change of mind… sometimes that repentance had to do with sin and sometimes not. Example:
Mk 1:14-15 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel.”
This link below just appeared in my news feed and demonstrates perfectly what I’m saying about how forgiveness as a heart attitude doesn’t in self-righteous judgement wait or demand “repentance” of the offending party as a requirement for the dispensing of forgiveness, but rather, in proactive grace moves forward to where healing can start to flow EVEN TO the perpetrator.
And it must be noted… there was NO prior “relationship” that needed restoring relative to the forgiveness given!
You certainly seem stuck on the King’s… you’re the only one who’s brought them up in this thread, and that several times now; despite your disclaimers methinks you might have issues. And to what ‘new truth’ do you allude?
Yeah we can’t have that… lest your dummy-spit be seen for what it is, total overreach 
Sure, e.g on repentance in Acts you repeat that “there’s no mention relative to sin.” On 11:18, you emphasized that there’s “no mention of repentance away from sin.” Similarly you insist on 20:21, “repentance is NOT from sin.” On 17:30, “repentance is from futile trust in their gods… sin is not the issue at hand.” And later you conclude:
I perceive instead that the record of the apostles presents unbelievers coming into a life with a repentant response as vital and central.
Well your instead aside… I believe this perception to be 100% correct The pantelist’ take on that is… for those coming into the call of God for service, such you have said above was indeed paramount!
Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Acts 15:14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
In the below quote, you seem to be treating two aspects of forgiveness,
AS IF those two aspects of the forgiveness concept are the complete concept of forgiveness.
My argument was that in most Christian minds, “forgiveness” includes:
A) letting go of negative thoughts
B) passively agreeing not to seek revenge
C) actively seeking to either mend the relationship or establish “good terms” between the offended and offending parties
I.E. “good terms” = the ability to smile and say, ‘Hi’ when passing each other at the supermarket
So… your statement:
Might be better argued:
Thus portions of the concept of forgiveness are not solely reliant upon repentance.
(The portions of forgiveness not necessarily reliant on repentance being A and B.)
So… where is the “rot”?
It seems that when I say unbelievers are called to repent, you resist and seek to minimize that God is calling them to turn from their sins. But when they turn to God and become 'God’s people," you affirm that then a repentant response toward their sins IS quite vital.
Maybe our difference is simply in our eschatology and our sense of what consequences of radical non-repentance are relevant. But sometimes it sounds semantic. You rightly emphasize initial forgiveness and identification as God’s people doesn’t require overcoming one’s sins. But then agree that a life with such a repentant response to sins is what’s vital after they enter the people of God.
Perhaps unfairly, this feels like a bit of bait and switch that I experienced in my evangelical upbringing (being saved and restored to God is free grace and needs no repentance toward sins, followed by constant sermons that we needed to repent of our lack of devotion to turning away from our sins, or else God would have a threatening POed stance toward us).
My sense is that it’s better to have a more consistent message. I.e. as vital to experiencing restoration, we’re called at the outset to turn toward God and away from sin, with a consistent balance of knowing that we live in assurance of God 's gracious love, and yet that we can face his judgment’s consequences upon persistent unrepentance from our sins when God’s love deems this is needed to complete his saving and restoring work in us.
Am I making any understandable sense?
Qaz with respect, go back over the many threads over the years that have talked about this, and you will find numerous statements that repentance, faith, belief and obedience are NOT necessary for salvation or for ‘getting right with God’. That ‘Christ has done everything’, and anything we ‘add’ to that is abominable.
In THIS particular thread, maybe not - but this is only the most recent of a long line of threads
Yeah qaz, that’s how it goes… make an honest request and you’ll get fed false blurb with no evidence. Or, when put on the spot something lame like… “I don’t understand the question”… pfff No integrity!!
Davo - I don’t feel adversarial toward you or your stance on the subjects of your thread. I have said many times that I respect your diligent study of the scriptures, and you have added a lot to my understanding as well, and I respect your position as being well-thought-out and responsible. As you know I spent a bit of time reading all that you’ve posted on the forum.
I did not take a lot of notes and such; I just wanted a clearer idea of what you were trying to say.
I have found it difficult to pin down the real differences between your position and the evangelical position that you disagree with (to the point of ridicule at times, out of frustration most probably). Oh, there are some obvious differences: Christology perhaps foremost, but eschatology and soteriology as well. And the very real problem of mutual understanding of the key term: Reconciled.
At bottom, I think the major dividing point is the “now - not yet” stance that I and others take, compared to the ‘fulfilled eschatology’ (or other nomenclature) view that you and others hold to. What is ‘apparent’ to ‘us’ is in fact debated by ‘you’, and we both use the same scripture to ‘prove’ our points. A problem. We don’t see Christ’s work as ‘finished’ in the sense of him being ‘done’ - yes certainly he lived, died and was raised in obedience to the Father, that part is done - but we believe in his ongoing work as King of the world, bringing men to himself in thankfulness and adoration, and bringing men to one another in brotherly love. Now perhaps you see it that way as well; if so, I missed it as I read your posts; I was under the impression that you differ from that view in some important respect, but I’ve not been able to pin down exactly what that difference is.
We also think of the world as still in rebellion, in the main, against God; partly out of mankind’s ignorance, partly - and at root - because of sin; we feel that the scripture attests to this, and that it is “bleedin’ obvious” that the world is in one hell of a bad shape. Men have not reconciled themselves to God, for whatever reasons; and until they do that, they have a loving and just ‘Holy Adversary/Advocate’ that is bent on delivering those who have been in bondage their entire life because of a fear of death. And the only way is the way of realizing - by the help of the Holy Spirit, by the preaching of the word, by conviction of conscience - one’s condition, asking for help, repenting of what wrong one finds in oneself, and being joined to Christ in faith and love. And forgiving those that have wronged you.
Perhaps you see it that way as well, but the impression I have gotten is that you don’t; that in some way Christ’s work ‘did it all’, that every man is reconciled by God already, no matter the condition of his actions or heart. Again I may have misread you.
So okay, we have differences. I think we also have much in common and I respect you as a brother, and a responsible man. I’m happy to leave it at that.
Although you don’t agree with it the pantelist position is real simple…
Humanity was reconciled to God through Christ, period! It is an established reality not needing any man’s involvement in any way shape or form to make it true. If anything… the only thing man contributed was the sin that made the reconciliation necessary.
To be a servant follower of God in Christ one needs… belief, faith, repentance, obedience, etc — not everyone is called to this calling.
2 Corinthians 5:11-21 shreds your partially true, yet incomplete view.
Oh wait… There’s something magical that happened in AD 70, after Paul wrote 2 Corinthians?
Thus when Paul said, “Be reconciled to God,” that only applied before AD 70?
Apparently the above statement warranted the reply by Davo:
Then Davo says:
which is exactly what Dave was claiming.
Earlier Norm said:
You’re not alone Norm in finding it almost impossible to work out what Davo is trying to say.
What is it John that you don’t understand about…
I understand that statement completely. Where is the ‘false blurb with no evidence’ in Dave’s statement?