Perhaps we need churches, that align with and teach - these “non-transitional” viewpoints?
Origen: “Davo, are unbelievers already forgiven without repentance or faith?”
Bob: Origen, thanks for pursuing the actual issues that I sought to raise, which I’m finding from pm’s that most on the forum easily recognize. Though it has nothing to do with my own challenge, Davo seems to hear me as denying that he thinks (faith and) repentance is vital for being a “servant of Christ,” even though I’ve repeatedly assured him and applauded that he has made that vital affirmation wonderfully clear.
Of course, I actually have tried to repeatedly anchor my own challenge in the context of the apostle’s preaching repentance to pagans as a condition for entering into Christ’s reconciling forgiveness and avoiding exclusion from His presence. And I continue to sense that Davo has some differences with this traditional understanding of our message for today (based on changes that he perceives Rome’s later attack as bringing) .
My only regret is his painful perception that I would intentionally lie about what I know is his view on this is. For I would see no excitement at all in sparring with a straw man! Rather, I’d genuinely hoped that our two vantage points would be clarified. Thanks again for pursuing that.
Thanks, I think this kind of balance is what most commentators do with the tension between the already, and the not yet, of reconciliation and salvation. And it’s the kind of balance that my responses repeatedly affirmed.
1 Like
1 Like
That’s an interesting article (19 pages). I’ve noticed Davo prefers the terms “vertical” & “horizontal” rather than objective & subjective. That author also uses the former terms:
"Corporate reconciliation is also the theme of reconciliation language
in Ephesians 2. Here Paul stresses the grace (2:5, 7-8), mercy
(2:4), and kindness (2:7) of God who reconciles (2:16) those who
deserve wrath (2:3). Here the state of alienation from God (2:1) is also
described as a state of satanic influence (2:2) and alienation from
God’s Messiah, covenant promises, and covenant nation (2:12-13).
The enmity (e@xqra) or hostility removed by Christ’s redemption is not
merely vertical but is also horizontal. The stipulations of the Mosaic
Covenant formed a barrier between Jews and Gentiles which Christ
abolished (2:14-15) when he created the church (1:22) as “one new
man” (2:15), and “one body” (2:16) in which equal access to God is
opened up to all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike (2:18). It is
“noteworthy that Christ, not the Father as generally stated elsewhere in
Paul, is the subject of the act of reconciliation in 2:16. This is not a
point of tension or contradiction since the Father is acting to reconcile
through, his appointed Messiah.56 The experience of reconciliation
through Christ radically redefines vertical and horizontal human relationships
as there is now peace between mankind and God and peace
between Jew and Gentile (2:14, 17). Both are built into one dynamic
dwelling of God through the Spirit (2:19-22).57”
p.90-91
1 Like
What does this mean?
It’s what I’ve mentioned… there comes to the inner man experientially (subjectively) the peace of God that His reconciliation in Christ wrought (objectively) — it is one’s repentant faith response that taps into this established reality — thus actualising IN THIS LIFE God’s peace in a meaningful way.
It is unfortunate that the above quote starts off with a qualifying “Although” as though THAT somehow limits the efficaciousness of God’s reconciliation, i.e., needing man’s response to really make it true… whereas it CAN be experienced BECAUSE it IS fully true, period!
I could not have said it better.
There is the problem of the abysmal lack of Christian understanding that has to be overcome; a 21st century person hears the word ‘god’ and has no real content to draw on to understand what we are talking about. The story of God the creator, the son the redeemer and the other riches of the NT are the background against which our appeal to 'tap into this established reality" has to happen; if we don’t educate them, they will be doing nothing other than having faith in faith.
Yet even in your view is “man’s response” not also required to experience reconciliation?
There are two views:
-
reconciliation “can be experienced because it is fully true.”
-
it can be experienced because Christ’s sacrifice has made it available to all who receive it by responding via free will.
Is that anything more than a trivial, insignificant distinction?
Preachers will say, based on the 2 views above, respectively:
-
“You are already reconciled.” [And those who believe it experience it.]
-
“Christ’s sacrifice for your sins has made reconciliation available to you.” [And those who believe it experience it.]
Either way faith is required for reconciliation to mean anything in man’s experience. Otherwise, in the reality of the real world, i.e. man’s experience, it means & does nothing.
1 Like
As davo said, a ‘repentant faith response’ is necessary - I might emphasize it a bit differently but , in response to hearing the Good News (in some detail and fulness) a repentant faith response is what we are looking for, I reckon?
1 Like
There isn’t one person who has ever lived who wasn’t or isn’t reconciled to God. Those who actively come to God expressing faith towards Him in Christ experience the benefits of this reconciliation in a way not realised by those ignorant of this reality. The gospel presents this reality and the attendant blessings.
[quote]
"Accepting Christ, coming under the rule of God does require something of us; namely, repentance for the evil we have committed against the reign of God. Repentance is not something that we can do in order to earn the favor of God, it is rather how we respond to the grace of God. Such repentance is manifested by a new life, a life now lived in the resurrected Christ.’
[end quote]
The Nonviolent Atonement by J. Denney Weaver
1 Like
davo said:
“There isn’t one person who has ever lived who wasn’t or isn’t reconciled to God. Those who actively come to God expressing faith towards Him in Christ experience the benefits of this reconciliation in a way not realised by those ignorant of this reality. The gospel presents this reality and the attendant blessings.”
AMEN
DaveB said:
Interesting. I would point out that while I like the quote the word require is used and all who read can see the difference between davo’s quote and the Denny Weaver quote. The Gospel of grace is there for our salvation in this life, pluck it and you will be blessed. You could say it is required that we acknowledge, but I think that verbiage is subtly miss leading. Maybe we could say that an incredible life is waiting for us when we experience God. I think that is the same thing but the verbiage is positive and fulfilled grace is just that, fulfilled. Not as a necessary works, but I may be splitting hairs. As humans we seem to want to tell others how to do it.
I really like the idea of symbiosis - working together with our Elder Brother and our Father; the word ‘require’ does not frighten me as it seems to do others - on the contrary, being required to do something gives me the dignity that the one who is requiring believes that I can and want to join in the effort.
To me, THAT is very positive.
1 Like
Cool, just making an observation. I agree, but many times the requirement gets in a bit of a quagmire depending on who is doing the requiring.
For me, I have to say that everyone is reconciled, despite their current understanding of God and Christ, I’m all in.
2 Likes