2 Cor. 5:18-19

[Quantrill]

Q, the light came on for me when I read the Bible. I once believed as you teach, but the Bible speaks and told me I was wrong to hold the position you hold. Merit-based salvation is not presented in the Bible.

I see. Well, I never said it was.

Quantrill

 

[Alan Gross]

I see. Well, I never said it was.

Quantrill

No One, generally, does. If you don't mind me entering this quest.

There will be examples AustinC can show from your writings.

We'll just be looking at them and say that that is how we saw what was said, etc.

 

[Dave G]

To which I say, that's handy. I can make the world mean whatever I need it to mean to fit by theology.

Or,
I can understand "world" to mean what doesn't give me contradictions when I look at other Scriptural declarations.

I understand your feelings on the matter, Quantrill.
It wasn't all that long ago that I would have agreed with you.

Here, try this:

Ask yourself the serious question...
" What are the ramifications if all men are reconciled to God?"
I can tell you where my mind goes:

If the world ( all men everywhere ) are reconciled to God, then God is casting most of those who were made His friends, into eternal torment on Judgment Day.
Does that ring true with other Scriptures that deal with believers and unbelievers, and especially with Matthew 25 and Revelation 20?
It doesn't with me.

Therefore, I took a lot of time studying it out and came to the conclusion that, like John 3:16, "world" in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 cannot mean "every man woman and child who ever lived".
In the case of John 3:16, I clearly see that God does not love the world, even though "world" is the word on the page.
Why?

" The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." ( Psalms 5:5 ). <---- Notice that it says the worker of iniquity, not just the iniquity.

" The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest:" ( Psalms 11:5-6 ) <---- Does that sound like He loves all men everywhere? Not to me it doesn't.

" For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, [whom] the LORD abhorreth." ( Psalms 10:3 ). <---- Abhorrreth means "hates".

" As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." ( Romans 9:13 ).



So, when I bring other Scriptures to bear on who God loves and who God hates,
I necessarily do not agree with people who take John 3:16 and use it as a proof text telling people that "God loves everyone".
To me, the context of John 3:16 is easy to determine after careful comparison...
The "whosoever believeth".

To me, it's the same with "world" in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.
If all men past, present and future ( believer or not ) are reconciled, then they are no longer His enemies.

The question then remains...

How can God cast those whom He loves and has reconciled to Himself ( making them His friends ), into Hell to suffer eternal torment?
They are His friends.

 

[utilyan]

Why does God credit...YOU... righteous?
If it's YOUR faith, not a gift of God, how is it that YOUR faith is not merit-based?

Calvinism is SYNERGISTIC. It requires the unregenerate TO AGREE to hear the gospel.

If a person refuses to hear the gospel they have 0% chance of Salvation. If they agree to hear the gospel then GOD has been granted permission.

Case in point? You don't hear about Calvinist popping out of some tribe in the jungle, never hearing of Jesus Christ talking about TULIP.

If a unregenerate REFUSES to hear the gospel there is ZERO chance of regeneration.

FAITH comes by hearing.

 

[37818]

Sir, that is not his position. His position is that God has already, in the past reconciled the world to Himself.

So then are you saying he is not misunderstanding how God is reconciling the world unto Himself?

 

[Dave G]

FAITH comes by hearing.

" He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." ( Matthew 11:15 ).

 

[utilyan]

There is a difference between God reconciling himself to the world and God reconciling the world to himself.

He is doing one not the other and if you don't catch the difference your going to have a mess.

 

[Dave G]

There is a difference between God reconciling himself to the world and God reconciling the world to himself.

What difference would that be?

He is doing one not the other and if you don't catch the difference your going to have a mess.

Please elaborate, utilyan.
I'm interested to know what kind of a mess that that would present.

 

[AustinC]

Calvinism is SYNERGISTIC. It requires the unregenerate TO AGREE to hear the gospel.

If a person refuses to hear the gospel they have 0% chance of Salvation. If they agree to hear the gospel then GOD has been granted permission.

Case in point? You don't hear about Calvinist popping out of some tribe in the jungle, never hearing of Jesus Christ talking about TULIP.

If a unregenerate REFUSES to hear the gospel there is ZERO chance of regeneration.

FAITH comes by hearing.

How do the dead hear unless God makes them alive?
You gotta troll harder than this, uti.

 

[Quantrill]

No One, generally, does. If you don't mind me entering this quest.

There will be examples AustinC can show from your writings.

We'll just be looking at them and say that that is how we saw what was said, etc.

No, I don't mind.

That's fine. Saying 'that is how you saw it' needs to be supported however.

And, in some other post and thread I remember someone declaring the Bible was the Word of God, and you said no. Do I remember that right? I ask, because if the Bible is not the Word of God, then it certainly carries no authority as to what we believe. So, if you enter the discussion, what will be the basis or authority of your belief?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Or,
I can understand "world" to mean what doesn't give me contradictions when I look at other Scriptural declarations.

I understand your feelings on the matter, Quantrill.
It wasn't all that long ago that I would have agreed with you.

Here, try this:

Ask yourself the serious question...
" What are the ramifications if all men are reconciled to God?"
I can tell you where my mind goes:

If the world ( all men everywhere ) are reconciled to God, then God is casting most of those who were made His friends, into eternal torment on Judgment Day.
Does that ring true with other Scriptures that deal with believers and unbelievers, and especially with Matthew 25 and Revelation 20?
It doesn't with me.

Therefore, I took a lot of time studying it out and came to the conclusion that, like John 3:16, "world" in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 cannot mean "every man woman and child who ever lived".
In the case of John 3:16, I clearly see that God does not love the world, even though "world" is the word on the page.
Why?

" The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." ( Psalms 5:5 ). <---- Notice that it says the worker of iniquity, not just the iniquity.

" The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest:" ( Psalms 11:5-6 ) <---- Does that sound like He loves all men everywhere? Not to me it doesn't.

" For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, [whom] the LORD abhorreth." ( Psalms 10:3 ). <---- Abhorrreth means "hates".

" As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." ( Romans 9:13 ).



So, when I bring other Scriptures to bear on who God loves and who God hates,
I necessarily do not agree with people who take John 3:16 and use it as a proof text telling people that "God loves everyone".
To me, the context of John 3:16 is easy to determine after careful comparison...
The "whosoever believeth".

To me, it's the same with "world" in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.
If all men past, present and future ( believer or not ) are reconciled, then they are no longer His enemies.

The question then remains...

How can God cast those whom He loves and has reconciled to Himself ( making them His friends ), into Hell to suffer eternal torment?
They are His friends.

I do not let apparent 'contradictions' change my belief. I do not try and make a word mean something it doesn't to make it fit my theology. I may have to say, I don't understand it. Or, have no explanation at this time. But I don't opt to changing the word and it's meaning. Also, that meaning will be dictated by Scripture.

Understand that it is not God that needs to be reconciled to man. It is man that needs to be reconciled to God. God, Who loves the world, remains the same. Because He loves the world, He moved toward man sending His Son. God moved to remove that which was causing the rift, the world's trespasses against Him. God had to do it because man could not do it.

So, by the death and blood of Christ, God reconciled the world to Himself. (2 Cor. 5:18-19) (Rom. 5:10) He can justly not impute the trespasses of the world to them. Because He can impute them to Christ. God removed that which was a contention between man and God. Therefore man could now come to God. Man could reconcile himself to God by coming to Christ. Which is why Paul said, now, 'be ye reconciled to God'.

When God reconciled the world to Himself, it doesn't mean the world is saved. It means the world can be saved as God removed that which blocked the way. It means God does not impute mans trespasses to him, which blocked the way. Picture a mountain ridge blocking the way between man and God. God blasts a hole in that mountain ridge. Before the entrance is Christ and the Cross, and a sign saying 'be ye reconciled'. That is the way. That is the removal of that which separates. Many run to it and are saved. They receive the reconciliation. (Rom. 5:11) But others say, no. I don't want to go that way. I will find another way.

God, when He reconciled the world to Himself, didn't make the world His friend. Those who hate God, still hate God. And even though God makes a way, and their trespasses are not imputed to them, they still hate God and will not go that way. Just because they still hate God and reject the reconciliation, does not mean God did not reconcile the world to Himself. He did.

You seem to have a conflict with a loving God sending anyone to hell or eternal separation from Him. And most likely most people, Christians included, would never send anyone to hell. It is too horrible a thought to entertain being in hell forever. There are going to be a lot of 'good people' in hell. And a lot of 'bad people' in heaven. What can we say? It is good that this is God's decision and not ours. It is good that He can make those decisions and not us. It is left to us to know that whatever God did or does, was and is good.

Quantrill

 

[Alan Gross]

No, I don't mind.

That's fine. Saying 'that is how you saw it' needs to be supported however.

And, in some other post and thread I remember someone declaring the Bible was the Word of God, and you said no. Do I remember that right? I ask, because if the Bible is not the Word of God, then it certainly carries no authority as to what we believe. So, if you enter the discussion, what will be the basis or authority of your belief?

Quantrill

I believe in The Full (Comparatively by God's people and the Superintendence of The Holy Spirit) Preservation of The Inspiration.

The little quirks and idiosyncracies that are of little or no measure may be dismissed, to give the present version of the KJV, for example, a designation of, "Inspired", as it sits.

God has no use for anyone who says otherwise.

Yes, it is a revised version of the 1611 and needs to be revised again.

A Bible version is to be Compared to the body of texts, which have been preserved and other volumes, such as its predecessors.

Whatever was written on Moses' tablets has no less Authority and Inspiration than, "Do not murder", does, in English.

Inspiration doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks.

The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible are based on its Integrity, which is Perfect.

We have a MORE SURE WORD of PROPHECY (than the Prophets, themselves).

God Has Magnified His Word above His Name because The Bible Testifies of Him.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalm 12:6

You wont see me denying The Word of God by referencing versions based, heavily, on The false Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, or manuscripts which disagree with each other thousands of times.

 

[Van]

Van, believers should be less accusatory and more gracious in their conduct toward others ( Romans 12, etc. ).
Shouldn't we?
SNIP
As I've pointed out in past threads, Van,
.

On and on the same Calvinists post the same screed, attacking the poster and ignoring the post. Next, the Calvinist will say to be "gracious" rather than "intolerant" of false teachers.

 

[Van]

Van, I tend to agree with you here. It seems (and I admit Q's teaching is a bit puzzling) that Q teaches the whole world as being reconciled, but the reconciled can destroy (or rebuild) that reconciliation on a moment by moment basis. It seems to be a hybrid wesleyan or nazarene theology, but I confess it is puzzling.

You, on the other hand, teach human faith, which causes God to either declare it righteous or unrighteous, depending on God's feelings about you on that day.

Both are merit-based means of salvation, apart from grace.

I was a bit surprised you would admit Quantrill's claim is bogus. But I am not surprised you would ridicule God's sovereign choice as emotionally based. Should I falsely claim you deny God's sovereignty? Naw, that would put me in your sandbox.

 

[Van]

(2 Cor. 5:18-19) (Rom. 5:6-10)
Quantrill

Thanks for citing the passages that support God is reconciling the world one sinner at a time, when God alone puts an individual into the body of Christ.

 

[Van]

So then are you saying he is not misunderstanding how God is reconciling the world unto Himself?

Nope

 

[AustinC]

I was a bit surprised you would admit Quantrill's claim is bogus. But I am not surprised you would ridicule God's sovereign choice as emotionally based. Should I falsely claim you deny God's sovereignty? Naw, that would put me in your sandbox.

Well...since I don't ridicule God's Sovereign election or call it emotionally based, you can actually quote what I said.

"You, on the other hand, teach human faith, which causes God to either declare it righteous or unrighteous, depending on God's feelings about you on that day.

Both are merit-based means of salvation, apart from grace."

I do not retract my statement that you teach human faith causing God to declare the human faith as either righteous or unrighteous. This has been your claim since you joined the BB.

 

[Van]

Well...since I don't ridicule God's Sovereign election or call it emotionally based, you can actually quote what I said.

"You, on the other hand, teach human faith, which causes God to either declare it righteous or unrighteous, depending on God's feelings about you on that day.

Both are merit-based means of salvation, apart from grace."

I do not retract my statement that you teach human faith causing God to declare the human faith as either righteous or unrighteous. This has been your claim since you joined the BB.

In the Watergate days, your post would be termed a non-denial denial.

Folks, pay no attention to Calvinists who deny God's sovereignty in Election for Salvation.

 

[37818]

2 Corinthians 5:19, ". . . that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, . . ." is the current on going work God is doing through His Son by means of us who are already reconciled.

 

[Dave G]

I do not let apparent 'contradictions' change my belief.

I admire that.
Believe it or not, I have the same convictions.

I do not try and make a word mean something it doesn't to make it fit my theology.

To me, you're assuming that I have approached God's word with a "systematic theology" framework, and have attempted to fit Scripture to that framework.
I assure you that this is the furthest thing from the truth.

I arrived gradually at this understanding, and I often question it...
Only to be redirected to where I'm currently at and to have it even more solidified.

I may have to say, I don't understand it.

Been there and done that more times than I can count, Quantrill.

But I don't opt to changing the word and it's meaning.

Neither do I...

But over the course of my studies, certain meanings became apparent to me.
Also know that I will not impose such rigid rules upon you...
To me, you're free to understand it as you wish, and we are both free to disagree.

I won't think any ill of you for not going alone with me.