Reconciliation means “to make friendly again or win over to a friendly attitude; to bring two parties into harmony or peace with each other.” By definition, reconciliation means that a peace deal has been struck on the part of all that were once at odds or at war with each other. However, reconciliation requires a process by which all parties come to terms of peace, and generally, this process must start with one of the parties making the first move. In other words, one party must be willing to raise the white flag of peace in order for the other party to respond, whether favorably or unfavorably. Obviously, if one rejects the deal and keeps shooting, so to speak, there is no peace. However, this peace deal does not start with reconciliation per se, but with a less known word that is seldom heard in modern-day conversation. The first step of reconciliation is called conciliation, which is exactly what Paul explains in relation to God, the world, and His ambassadors.
This unnecessary Universalist’ doublespeak of conciliate just messes with the clear text — to beconciliated IS TO BE reconciled, and reconciled IS specifically what kattallassō καταλλάσσω means — nothing more and nothing less.
If I am reconciled (to settle or resolve, to bring oneself to accept) to a situation it means nothing more than I have come to a position of peace with regards to said situation… IOW it is wholly a unilateral decision on my part — THAT is exactly what God did through Christ with regards to humanity.
If that is the case, then we are still enemies in our hearts in some way - this is bleedin’ obvious - and we need to change that. Being reconciled unwillingly just makes no sense to me; I don’t have your clarity as to that whole concept. We’ve been through this before.
Yes God has reconciled the world to Himself; but He has not stopped evil in the world or in men’s hearts. That is yet to be done, and the Body of Christ is to be the channel. At least, that’s as far as I can go at this time. My neighbor is at enmity with God, and God knows there is even enmity in mine at times.
Well onward and upward.
Haha - I can just see you rolling your eyes - and I probably wouldn’t blame you for it…
Lol the penny finally dropped as to why you don’t get it… you’re a universalist and what you guys can’t grasp you change
I think you’re a bit too harsh on yourself Dave… you’re not an enemy of God in your heart, neither am I.
That’s it Dave… no need to qualify further and thereby disqualify!
That’s our job not God’s.
If anything people are only enemies of God in their own minds but not in actuality BECAUSE they have been told their deeds considered as evil separate them from God, cf.Col 1:21.
Properly denotes to change or exchange, or to change from enmity to friendship.
Reconciliation is what God accomplishes in the extension of His love & grace to sinful mankind in Jesus Christ.
The enmity is alone on our part. It was we who need to be reconciled to God, not God to us, and it is propitiation, which His righteousness and mercy have provided, that makes the reconciliation possible…
Strong link to Apokatallasso
To reconcile completely/ to change from enmity to friendship .
It is the Divine purpose to reconcile the all of ta panta through Christ unto Himself.
“It is in Him, and through the shedding of His blood, that we have our deliverance–the forgiveness of our offences–so abundant was God’s grace, the grace which He, the possessor of all wisdom and understanding, lavished upon us, when He made known to us the secret of His will. And this is in harmony with God’s merciful purpose for the government of the world when the times are ripe for it–the purpose which He has cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ; yes, things in Heaven and things on earth, to find their one Head in Him. And you…”
“If anything”? Do you doubt that some people are enemies ‘in their own minds’?
But, more importantly, If John is at odds with Julie even though Julie is not at odds with John, then they are NOT reconciled with each other.
It takes BOTH sides to be fully reconciled otherwise there is no reconciliation
I personally know of a Mother who dearly wishes to be re-united with her son. She holds nothing against her son for what he has done to her in the past, but the son wants nothing of her desire to be reconciled. He will not have any relationship with his mother.
By your definition they are reconciled.
Likewise, the prodigal son and his Father.
‘their own minds’ makes it an actuality.
The Father always loved his prodigal son but while the son remained at enmity with his father, they were not reconciled.
Reconciliation takes a willingness on both sides.
The amazing thing about my comments above is that they are blatantly obvious. The only time I have known people to reject what is blatantly obvious is when they desperately NEED the obvious to be untrue because they would otherwise have to throw away a cherished belief system (usually religious).
No John, I’m saying that’s the most it can come down to… people’s puny misguided reactiveness that has NOTHING on the gracious mercy of God.
That John is exactly how it is in horizontal human-to-human terms, BUT… in verticalGod-to-man terms not so… you can take it to the bank that Paul was on the money when he said… “God was in Christ reconciling the world (that means everyone) to Himself, NOT counting their trespasses against them” — how good is the matchless grace of God!!
“Enemies in their minds” speaks to and of being IGNORANT of reality… the prodigal son in the Father’s heart was already reconciled — the ignorant son just hadn’t come to recognise and so know this present reality. Paul, the greatest of sinners was the recipient of the marvellous and free grace of God at the heights of his murderous rage against God’s very elect AND YET without a skerrick of… “Jesus please forgive my sins and come into my heart” formulaic rhetoric God unilaterally poured out His mercy on the Damascus road, again, in the height of his blasphemous IGNORANCE (1Tim 1:13)… God’s ways John are FAR above our objectionable ways!
Sorry John, no it does not take ‘both sides’ there is a growing and quite understanding group of bible connoisseurs that realize GOD is working and has been working through humanity. The evolution seems to be lost on folks that are ‘fundamental’ and I would say you are in the camp. I do not have a problem with such, but you are what you is.
God HAS reconciled HIMSELF with HUMANITY. You hate that idea because you hate the idea that unrepentant sinners are some how going to have the same privileges that you believers have. Am I right?
In a way that is true for the present time but could change.
Reconcile=
Katallasso
Properly denotes to change or exchange, or to change from enmity to friendship.
Reconciliation is what God accomplishes in the extension of His love & grace to sinful mankind in Jesus Christ.
The enmity is alone on our part. It was we who need to be reconciled to God, not God to us, and it is propitiation, which His righteousness and mercy have provided, that makes the reconciliation possible…
Strong link to Apokatallasso
To reconcile completely/ to change from enmity to friendship .
It is the Divine purpose to reconcile the all of ta panta through Christ unto Himself.
Dear Davo: The word “provisionally” is what is troubling me. There is nothing provisional regarding our Father’s Reconciliation. It is true yesterday, today and forever. It is NOT only for the present time & subject to change!
YES!! I couldn’t agree more FL… and that’s what I was alluding to, and yet most evangelicals will argue by their interpolation of conditions upon reconciliation that Paul is wrong. ‘Provisional’ by word or meaning appears nowhere in the text, BUT that is exactly how purgatorial universalists (PU) actually read the text.
“Provisional” has in mind conditional, which is the essence of what PU’s advocate, saying God only makes reconciliation available BUT that reconciliation can only be obtained via a condition, in this case, repentance, for it to be real — and that right there is your condition or provision. IOW… reconciliation is provisional upon man’s response to God and NOT God’s response to man in Christ, thus denuding the CLEAR truth and teaching of the text as given by Paul.
yes! and that’s all it needs to experience alienation. I agree.
So, for any two beings to be fully ‘at-one’ with each other it takes both parties … apart from one exception … you have given no text for this speculation which you require for your pantelism. If there was no-one in the entire world not at enmity with God, then there would be no people at enmity with other people made in His image. Finelinen is correct is stating that God now holds nothing against the world, but many are at enmity with God. That is not full reconciliation.
In addition, it is important to realise that my faith does not depend on the validity of either side of this debate, I have no dog in the game, but your entire belief system collapses if you accept what is self evident.
Here’s the definition of reconciliation: “the restoration of friendly relations” so according to you, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, Sam Harris extend friendly relations to God.
I agree. So what? Many people in the world have not realised his forgiveness (note: ‘to realise’ means ‘to make real’).
Yes…so?? This does not support your position and if it’s the best you can come up with then it tells me you have no support.
Just stating that does not make it so.
I agree (apart from the abuse of the spelling across the pond) and I know of no bible scholar (including fundamentalists) who would disagree. Again, this does nothing to support your position.
You can call me any names you want, it doesn’t put you in a good light and does nothing to support your position,If name calling is your best argument then I’m on safe ground.
And I could reply in like manner to you, but I don’t stoop that low.
You now put yourself in the position of God claiming to know my heart. You are wrong and
your personal attack does nothing to further your cause.
Christ IS reconciling the world to Himself but it is self evident that that work is not yet accomplished.
This debate has degenerated to name calling as a defence mechanism (another example is DaveB being called a ‘universalist’ as an explanation for his position on this topic when any reasonable person would know that universalists are free to take either side of this issue).
I will not continue to threaten your belief system by voicing my agreement with the dictionary definition of the word ‘reconciliation’ as it obviously causes sufficient distress within yourselves.
Feel free to have the last word, I see no point replying
John… your problem isn’t with pantelism your problem is with PAUL! Not only don’t you like Paul’s unilaterally reconciliation, as per the text, you don’t like what Paul goes onto say, i.e., “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself NOT imputing their trespasses to them” — wow, the audacity of God, fancy that!
Imagine John the awe-inspiring shock these three nobs experienced as they stepped into God’s glorious presence realising the blessed mercy He extended to them, each fully undeserving and yet graciously given BECAUSE they had been reconciled through Christ at the Cross… you think they may have felt completely undone? Methinks so. Consider this… who in all their prideful arrogance or blind ignorance would not respond in worshipful contrition, in-kind, before the presence of God as is reflected in these texts below:
Unlike you John I don’t need to at best ignore Paul or at worst just completely dismiss him as wrong… which what you’re doing.
YES or NO John… was God in Christ (past tense) reconciling (not present not future tense) the world to Himself, as Paul testifies, or not — which is it John, YES or NO?
the penny finally dropped as to why you don’t get it… you’re a universalist and what you guys can’t grasp you change 
