I’ve NEVER stated this above, i.e. you WON’T find it in print from me on this site. Those believers who needed salvation from that end of the age needed ALL those things. THAT’S what I’ve stated time and again… it’s your evangelicalism that stops you reading those terms apart from your own preconception.
Well, @Invernessian I don’t know if you can understand or interpret the following for me, or whether Davo can rewrite it so that I can understand but I certainly don’t understand what he’s trying to say here or whether it contradicts what Dave said was Davo’s position?:
Davo, I asked you where the ‘false blurb’ was. You can simply quote the offending statement from Dave, that will do, because I still don’t believe that he has made any false statement. Please quote him or accept that your retort was wrong.
Have a look at your quoting of Dave right above in my last post. It is NOT true of what I have maintained, period.
1 Like
Davo, if you are saying that Dave’s comment
is a misrepresentation of your position, please tell us HOW it is because it is certainly what I believe you have been preaching for years.
Which part of the above statement is contrary to your position?
There was a coming end (AD70) and… belief, faith, repentance, obedience was needed, by those called, to avoid the consequences thereof. Beyond that end of the age, as it was in that prior end-age… to be a servant follower of God in Christ one needs… belief, faith, repentance, obedience. I’ve NEVER said anything different. That you READ it differently is clearly an issue.
I still cannot see how Dave has contradicted your position. I will rewrite your above statement to see if I have undertood what you are trying to say:
“An end came in AD70 and the Jews needed belief, faith, repentance, obedience in order to avoid the consequences of the Roman’s sacking of Jerusalem etc. Nowadays after AD70 to be a ‘servant follower’ one needs belief, faith, repentance, obedience”
If I have understood you correctly, you are STILL showing NO CONTRADICTION with what Dave said which was that salvation is NOT dependent on these things and not dependant on being a ‘servant follower’(according to you).
NOTE:
I asked you
You have avoided doing that.
Now, PLEASE quote exactly just the part of Dave’s statement which is contrary to your view and explain why.
I took Dave’s statement to mean that ‘the message that repentance is necessary for salvation’ is seen as abominable and I concur with Dave that this is Davo’s position. Perhaps you have read Dave’s statement differently to me.
Amid perceptions of the ‘Great Commission,’ it’s commonly believed that God still wants (and thus calls) everyone to be a follower of God in Christ, as well as wanting (and calling) the whole world to trust and obey him. When you suggest that God does not do this, which texts most clearly declare that God is not calling all of his offspring made in his image to faith and obedience, or to follow Him?
I’m glad you recognize these three, Drew. I have referred to a similar three in the past. However, I think true forgiveness applies only to C. Your relationship with him being restored can take place only when the person has repented (had a change of mind and heart) about what he had done.
Many people use the word “forgiveness” with too broad an application.
If we merely (A) Let go of any ill feelings toward the person) or (B) Not require any restitution for his offence, we are not forgiving the person; we are merely pardoning him.
Though forgiveness includes A and B, it must also include C in order to be true forgiveness.Otherwise it is mere pardoning.
Jesus Himself made true forgiveness conditional upon repentance:
… If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him." (Luke 17:3,4)
2 Likes
Nice writing. For clarity’s sake, the English language should probably adopt your definitions of pardoning vs. forgiving. I think the two words have connotations that converge towards your definitions of them.
However:
The current Merriam-Webster definition of “forgive” does not explicitly include C in the definition. To them, “forgive” means - just A - or a combination of A and B.
It appears Davo may be literally correct in addressing “forgiveness” as A and B. C comes more in the total package of the concept of forgiveness.
But then again, is it true that you are probably more correct in focusing on C when it comes to “forgiveness” translated from Biblical languages?
It’s in the distinction between the all and sundry hearing and hopefully responding to the gospel AND those who actually do respond, being those that the likes of evangelicalism sometimes labels as the priesthood of believers. Thus from within reconciled humanity are those who are specifically called, what I describe as being… “saved to serve”.
This reality can be seen in the example of Gideon… he was God’s chosen judge (Christ) who under the guidance of God wrought deliverance (salvation) on Israel’s behalf and he did this by God calling or selecting or electing of certain ones from with the greater whole, from within the covenanted community. Those who were NOT called or chosen were in nowise cast aside or considered outside the grace or covering of God… they simply weren’t elected of chosen for that salvific calling. Thus we find…
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.
Now the purpose of those called and chosen was this…
Acts 15:17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does all these things.’
Those thus called were the firstfruits…
Jas 1:18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
Rev 5:9-10 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made them a kingdom and priests to serve God; and they shall reign on the earth.”
Rev 14:4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
Yet again, you see the same pattern from within the covenanted community of Israel where certain ones were elected, called to serve God and their brethren, i.e., the priesthood. It’s all the same principle.
For Jesus and His disciples this was a unique calling and ministry… not all were called to it and yet for those who were it took faith, repentance, obedience etc to follow through to the end of their mission; culminating in the redemption of all Israel and thus the reconciliation of all mankind. THAT was the purpose of Jesus and his firstfruit saints, i.e., “the church of the firstborn ones” (Heb 12:23)… thus all is complete as far as redemption and reconciliation are concerned, i.e., it is finished and nothing has been left half baked.
Having said that… I see no reason post Parousia why God hasn’t laid it on the hearts of many to join in the service of Him through faith in Christ, from that time forward. The message now is a fulfilled message, i.e., God HAS done it, come and be blessed! Thus there is always relevance to the message of God.
I think that a relationship changed; but man’s nature has not, thus the need to turn from evil (and there is still such a thing for now, though Jesus will have victory over it - in men’s minds and natures) and turn toward God. I get the impression you want one without the other, which seems a bit naive as we look at the world as it has been since the resurrection. It’s very apparent that some things may have changed, but men’s alienation from God has not; though God has done everything He can for us.
By all means let us glory in the work of God through Christ; a price paid for his enemies - then and now - above all measure. But that work is imo not finished, and I am not using ‘fleshly eyes’ as you accused me of some years back. I accept Christ’s work even more gladly now than I did then (getting old tends to focus one’s intentions :-)), but I also see He has much more to do, bringing men to repentence and love.
How do you figure that from what I wrote?? I wrote…
God HAS done it, come and be blessed! Thus there is always relevance to the message of God.
Because God has done it all it makes it fully possible for people to change… He may just use you or me or any other believer in Christ help them along the way.
Thanks for numerous texts. I’m unclear that they show that God only wants or seeks that some of his children will come to faith and obedience in Christ. (My overarching sense of the Bible’s story is that God desires that all of his offspring will trust in Him and obediently reflect his character, such that his glory will be seen in his whole creation.)
Indeed James 1 says those who believe early on are the “first-fruits” of this desire, such that “the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles.” Acts 15 does qualify that this “the rest of mankind” God wants to “seek” him is “all the nations upon whom my name is called.” Do you hear that as meaning that there are some nations (or persons) that God does not want or call to seek him?
Your apparent belief (which Fuller Seminary also tried to teach me) that God wants only some individuals to come to a faithful and obedient relationship with him seems most akin to what Acts 13 sounds like. When it says that those that believed and thus gained eternal life that day “had been appointed,” do you interpret that as stating that God did not want the rest of that crowd to believe or have eternal life?
Hmmmmm Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob 
… it’s NOT a case of… “that God only wants or seeks that some of his children” — you often ask your questions in the negative (why??) and so, it immediately skews my answer to feed your misrepresentation of what I’m actually saying.
The some I might refer to are the ones those texts CLEARLY refer to (which you seem to ignore) so as to be a testimony to the rest of mankind He in fact HAS reconciled. I’m really not sure how your mind works sometimes??
I’m sorry, I truly tried to grasp how you read these texts. You don’t answer any of my specific questions about how you read them, and I have no idea what you are proposing.
I worded what I grasped that you denied as “God wants (and thus calls) everyone to be an obedient follower,” and asked you, what texts instead say that God does not call all of his offspring toward that? Isn’t saying God doesn’t “call” everyone to obedience etc, equivalent to saying he only seeks that in some of them?
You offered a spate of texts to support your view as I articulated it. Now you seem to say, it’s NOT the case that God “only seeks some” for the repentance, faith and obedience we’ve discussed, as if he seeks or calls everyone to serve him that way??
I know you feel I’m purposely confused about what is so “CLEAR.” It often seems qaz alone grasps much of what you are saying (though sometimes he too doesn’t jive with you at all). And MM certainly resonates, even if he’s sometimes most eccentric in his exegesis.
But when most who sincerely engage your proposals, such as Dave, Pilgrim, Paidion, and Inverness frustrate you with their confusion and express difficulty grasping your arguments, a reasonable possibility to consider may be that clearly recognizing the coherence of your theology is more difficult for those unfamiliar than you perceive that it should be.
2 Likes
I made the mistake of answering to your initial mischaracterisation of my point, instead of just sorting that out first. BUT, I get sick of trying to lead you along every minute step of the way given I know over X amount of years by now I have said the same types of thing, repeatedly, only for me to assume you’re finally grasping such, but apparently not… my bad.
Let’s try something this… humanity belongs to God, period. So that blessing could flow to humanity Israel as a nation was called to faithful obedient service as God’s priestly conduit of blessing… thus they had a corporate calling toward God. Did that calling thereby itself negate the place of men’s hearts beyond Israel in calling out and seeking Him… though He be not far from any?… hardly.
The fact that God reconciled all to Himself in Christ is evidence of His desire that his children to know Him… thus the focus of those passages I gave was to show that God’s calling on certain ones relative to the ministry of reconciliation that was then taking place was to spread that message — not everyone was called to that ministry… which took faith, repentance, obedience etc to fulfil — that’s my point.
To get to the point I want to make, I’d like us first to remember that St. Paul believed that the OT Law had a ‘strange’ work - it was in itself a good thing; but the reason it was given was to make hugely obvious the fact that mankind is in rebellion against God, in his mind and spirit.
The illustration I’ve heard is that, if you put mankind’s sins on a projector slide, then the Law was the light that shone thru the slide and made the writing on it HUGE as it projected it against a wall.
The Law ‘magnified’ sin so we would understand that, in the small group of people known as the Israelites, God had chosen a representative sample of all humanity; to show what all humanity needed - a sacrifice for sins, deliverance, repentance - He gave the Law to show how the sample population really stood in his righteous sight. And that showing was also supremely loving. A doctor giving us bad news, but with a remedy available, might scare us with the truth but it is a loving thing to do - as God’s remedy is not always pleasant, but always loving.
My point - there is nothing in scripture to say that mankind has changed in any way in a rebellious attitude, wanton mind, unreserved lusts etc. People are NOT ok just because we choose to believe that sin is ‘all taken care of’, that Jesus paid it all - yes, he did, but that act in itself did not change human nature; and people still are dead in their sins. They need a living savior.
Thinking people throughout history have wondered about humanity misusing its glorious gifts. How could such a magnificent creature sin against themselves and others, bringing misery into God’s good world, having bee his very image at the beginning?
God showed the world how this could be - the Law made it clear that mankind is not hellbent because of a lack of knowledge, or of information - it is something IN men that needs to be saved.
Now - not yet. Christ has paid the only sacrifice for sin and paid it to the uttermost. Which we are all thankful for. But he is still, as Lord and King of the world, as well as savior, also the head of the Church which is his body. It is in a dark world, and needs to shine with the message of hope, and the medicine that brings repentance, faith, obedience, love.
4 Likes
Now that you have explained yourself (pretty well in a previous post), why do you continue to butcher the English language regarding reconciliation?
Readers can only read what is explicitly written. Though they might “should know” some context of your thought if they have read you enough, they still can’t delve into your mind while reading (in order to easily see your whole picture).
A revision of the statement that is bolded above:
“The fact that, through Christ’s death and resurrection, God has reconciled many to Himself and begun the process of reconciling all to Himself…”
Read 2 Cor 5:11-21.
Any markedly different statement than my revision regarding reconciliation is likely imprecise (aka imperfect/flawed communication). In fact, my revision statement is still vague and does not fully and accurately describe the state of “reconciliation” in creation.
1 Like
Certainly seems a reasonably accurate assessment of your entire approach… 