Is 2 Corinthians 5:17's "new creation" speaking of the believer?

[Robert]

6 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

The Gospel is the Gospel of the kingdom (Matt 4:23), of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1), of grace (Acts 20:24), of God (Rom 1:1), of peace (Rom 10:15), of your salvation (Eph 1:13).

It's what God did through Christ Jesus.  That's pretty much what you said above.....

The question is HOW did God save us in Christ and at the same time satisfy His law that condemns sinners to eternal damnation.

But the context of this thread is what is " 2 Corinthians 5:17's 'new creation'" :

1] the believer?

2] what the believer is in Christ?

I've given you my position based on numerous Scriptural quotes.  I say it's # 2

[Robert]

13 hours ago, Robert said:

Adventists traditionally belong to the Wesleyan Arminian school of theology. ...The Arminians believe that Christ only “potentially” or “provisionally” saved all of mankind on the cross.  For this provisional salvation to become a reality, one must repent and believe in Jesus Christ.  Only then will God place that person into Christ and the provision will become a reality.  Thus, traditionally, we Adventists have limited the in Christ motif only to believers

This conclusion is a subtle form of legalism, salvation by works, since repentance and faith contribute towards ones salvation.  

Actually, Jack said the above, but I concur. 

The problem is that the majority of SDA belong to the Wesleyan Arminian school of theology.  So the gospel of God naturally gets watered down to a provisional gospel, which means the cross really didn't do anything.  This view actually attacks the gospel of God and makes it impotent. 

The gospel that the majority of SDA have been presenting over the past 150 years (with some minor exceptions) is not the gospel the Apostle Paul preached.  

Does that mean that the other Protestant denominations are preaching "the everlasting gospel"?  No, absolutely not.  Their gospel is not even close because they didn't continue in the Reformation. They've stalled out here....

The everlasting gospel is being taught within Adventism, but it's a minority who are teaching it.  When SDA  actually preach the everlasting gospel to the world then we can all go home:

Matt 24:14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

Also, according to Ellen White, the majority of SDA will not support this message:

"The work which the church has failed to do (preach the everlasting gospel) in a time of peace and prosperity she will have to do in a terrible crisis under most discouraging, forbidding circumstances....And at that time the superficial, conservative class, whose influence has steadily retarded the progress of the work, will renounce the faith and take their stand with its avowed enemies, toward whom their sympathies have long been tending." [TESTIMONIES FOR THE CHURCH, VOL. 5, PAGE 463]

The work the church has failed to do is restore the everlasting gospel to its original purity. Hence even here the reformation has almost stalled with Adventism. 

Now it's ironic that I learned the gospel from a ex-Roman Catholic.  And it's also ironic that the majority of SDA belong to this "superficial, conservative class" who will oppose the gospel in it's purity and join Roman and the fallen Protestants churches*.  

Is it also not ironic that the majority of God's people are within the Roman Church?  As things get worse within Christianity they will come out of the fallen churches*, but many SDA will go in where others have come out of Babylon.  Why?  It will be over the gospel.

You see those who oppose the gospel truth - that God has already reconciled the world to Himself in Christ - do so because there's no glory in it for them.  So they will join Roman because that system is a combination of faith and works.  That's the coming issue.  So we better know the gospel now.

That's primarily why I am here at CA because I want to share what I have learned.  If I am wrong, and you can convince me from Scripture that I err, then I shall recant. 

Note *

I am not accusing any church of being fallen.  This is a future issue. Today Babylon has not yet fallen. (That's paraphrased from Ellen White)  When the churches in Christendom oppose the everlasting gospel, then Babylon is fallen, is fallen.  But that's not true today.

 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

13If we are in a frenzy, it is for God's cause; if we are calm and coherent, it is for your need,14as Christ’s love–the design protocol upon which all life is built–is what rules our lives. We realize that one man died to provide Remedy for every human being, as all are terminal.15He died to provide Remedy to all humanity so that those who live will not live dominated by selfishness, but in love for him who died to heal them and was raised again!16We no longer view people through the lens of self-promotion, like the world does. Sadly, we had once regarded Christ as foolish for not promoting himself, but gladly, we no longer do.17For anyone who has joined their heart in unity with Christ receives regeneration of character and is created anew to be like Christ. The old selfish character is replaced with the new Christlike character.18All of this healing and transformation is from God, who–in the person of Christ–fixed the damage sin did to humanity and restored humanity into unity with himself, and now gives us the privilege of sharing with others the healing Remedy that Christ achieved.19God has not been counting men's defects and sins against them as something to be punished, but has been working through Christ to heal mankind and restore humanity back into perfect unity with himself. And he has given to us the mission of sharing this healing Remedy with everyone!20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, reaching out to you as though God himself were pleading with you to come home and be healed. We beg you, on behalf of Christ: Let God heal you from certain death to eternal life! (2 Cor. 5:13-21)

This is from a paraphrase by Tim. Jenkins.

[pnattmbtc]

18 hours ago, Robert said:

Listen between 51:43 to 1:02:07

I miss him.

[pnattmbtc]

A couple of points.  One is the OP started with this:

Quote

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Unfortunately the conclusion that Paul was driving towards was left out, which is this:

Quote

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

I've been making the point that since our message to unbelievers is "be ye reconciled to God", it cannot be the case that unbelievers are already reconciled to God, which is pretty much self-evident, and no answer has been suggested to my question.  It's just been ignored, but Paul really did say this, so what Paul was actually thinking when he wrote this must be taken into account.

Now there was indeed a corporate work which was done by Christ, which involves every person.  This much is true.  And not only Paul, but John also, ever more clearly than Paul,states that Christ is "the savior of the world."  This is in John 4, and I believe John says this twice.

So there *is* a sense in which Jesus is the savior of the world.  How should be understand that this means?  It must be in a way which harmonizes with 2 Cor. 5:20.

A second point is actually a question, that this is, what is the problem which God needs to solve?  From Robert's point of view, it is a forensic one, but this is unlikely, for the following reasons:

1.The theory wasn't invented until more than a millennium after Christ's death.  It defies belief that there were no Christian writers who understood Christ's work in terms of the forensic model, if this were indeed the correct view.

2. Jesus Himself did not have this way of seeing things.  To Nicodemus he presented the truth that one must be born again:

Quote

 

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

This truth has been set aside in favor of a theory involving only Paul's words (as Robert presents it; if you listen to Wieland, you will see he often refers to John, and the words of Jesus Christ as well).

Surely the gospel is present throughout the entire Bible.  If we can correctly understand the problem which God needed to solve, it can be easily seen that this is indeed the case, and in no place is the gospel more clearly seen than in the appropriately named gospels.

Finally, no attempt has been made to establish that the forensic idea is correct.  Some individual verse are presented, but the presumption is already made, before presenting the verses, that the problem is forensic.  But this is not the only way of seeing things.

For example, Gal 3 has been presented, speaking of the curse of the law, but this is a quote from Deuteronomy, and in the original that Moses wrote, which Paul is quoting from, there is no idea of a forensic problem.

The foremost preachers of righteousness by faith in our denomination, Jones and Waggoner, did not see a forensic issue.  Later on I'll quote what Waggoner wrote on the Galatians text.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

 Jones and Waggoner, did not see a forensic issue.  

I don't know if they did or they did not, but it doesn't matter.  The Bible is the standard....

[pnattmbtc]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

I don't know if they did or they did not, but it doesn't matter.  The Bible is the standard....

Why do you quote Sequeira?  You must realize that God isn't so straight-jacketed that the only revealed truth from Him is Scripture.

Your complaints ring hollow because you quote non-Scriptual things as much as anybody else.  The only difference is you complain when other people do it, but not when you do it yourself.

Perhaps I should follow your lead, and anytime you say something that's not scripture retort "What you said just now doesn't matter.  The Bible is the standard."

[pnattmbtc]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

I don't know if they did or they did not, but it doesn't matter.  The Bible is the standard....

Another point is that the whole subject that you exclusively talked about has it origins in Waggoner and Jones.  So if you weren't for them, the likelihood is you'd be talking about something else.  That is, it was Jones and Waggoner, especially Waggoner, who first started communicating the idea that the Gospel wasn't provisional.

[Robert]

Quote

That is, it was Jones and Waggoner, especially Waggoner, who first started communicating the idea that the Gospel wasn't provisional.

Okay, but we really need to return to the question of this thread:

Is 2 Corinthians 5:17's "new creation" speaking of the believer?

Using Scripture, and in context, I proved that it was not.

If you disagree, you need to use the same Scriptures I used to disprove my position.  I'm waiting...

[pnattmbtc]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

Okay, but we really need to return to the question of this thread:

Is 2 Corinthians 5:17's "new creation" speaking of the believer?

Using Scripture, and in context, I proved that it was not.

If you disagree, you need to use the same Scriptures I used to disprove my position.  I'm waiting...

Verse 20 says our message is "be ye reconciled to God".  Therefore those to whom we are addressing this message are not reconciled.

This is sufficient right here.

Also I disagree with your whole starting point, which is that there is a forensic problem.  You haven't established this.  Every verse you quote you interpret with this perspective, but I've pointed out several reasons why this perspective isn't correct, which you have to address.  So I have addressed your arguments, but you haven't addressed mine.  There are a whole bunch of unanswered posts I've made, addressed to you.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding "new creation", given how much Paul quoted scripture, the following comes to mind:

Quote

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Ezek. 36:26

 

[Robert]

6 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

Regarding "new creation", given how much Paul quoted scripture, the following comes to mind:

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Ezek. 36:26

 

Yes, but that's not the immediate context.

Also, "a new heart" refers to the converted mind.  The converted mind/heart is in harmony with the principle of God's  agape, but "the flesh" remains at odds the converted mind and therefore God's agape love.  

This is evident in Romans 7:22-23

"For I delight in the law of God in the inner man (the converted mind, see 2 Cor 4:16/Ephesians 3:16) , 23 but I see a different law in he members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind (the inner man) and making me a prisoner of the law of sin (the fallen nature) which is in my members.  Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death (mortality)?"

Now notice that the change that happens in the believer is only in his mind/heart  (the inner man).  No change has taken place in 

a] his fallen nature

and

b] his mortality.  

However, if you are honest with this "new creation" that Paul writes of in  2 Corinthians 5:17, all things have not become new in the believer!

Therefore Paul's "new creation" cannot refer to the believer, but rather his new, glorified life in Christ !

[Robert]

22 minutes ago, Robert said:

Now notice that the change that happens in the believer is only in his mind/heart  (the inner man).  No change has taken place in 

a] his fallen nature

and

b] his mortality.  

However, if you are honest with this "new creation" that Paul writes of in  2 Corinthians 5:17, all things have not become new in the believer!

Therefore Paul's "new creation" cannot refer to the believer, but rather his new, glorified life in Christ !

Has this change taken place in the humanity of Christ?

Romans 8:2 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me (my "new creation") free from

a] the law of sin (my fallen nature)

b] and death (mortality).

So again, this  "new creation" refers to our glorified life "in Christ" that He obtained at the resurrection.  It is this "new creation" that Christ presents before God and His holy law in the most holy place.  In Him we are blameless and holy. See Col 1:22

Heb 10:9 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus (His life, which was our old life, laid down in death - see Rom 6:6/7:4), 20 by a new and living way (i.e, "behold all things have become new") which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh..."

[Robert]

6 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

Verse 20 says our message is "be ye reconciled to God".

The Bible doesn't contradict itself, right?

I have already established, using the Apostle Paul, that all men are already reconciled to God through Christ Jesus:

 2 Cor 5:19 God was in Christ reconciling the world (all creation) to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own (agape) love toward us, in that while we were still sinners (unbelievers), Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath (the cruse of the law) through Him (Christ). 10 For if when we were enemies (unbelievers) we were reconciled to (past tense, refers to the cross) God through the death of His Son.

We need to tell the unbeliever that he/she has already been reconciled to God in Christ so that he/she will accept this truth so that Christ, our High Priest, can present him/her perfect and blameless in Himself!!!!

The point is that "in Christ" God is not "imputing their (the unbelievers')  trespasses" to them and has legally justified fallen men from condemnation to justification of life.  See Romans 5:18

[Robert]

7 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

I disagree with your whole starting point, which is that there is a forensic problem.  You haven't established this. 

There's a sin problem.  When we become Christians, there's still a sin problem (just less of one, hopefully).  But any sin...any love of self...any bent-to-self, will keep both the unbeliever and believer out of heaven.  Why?  If we took our fallen natures into heaven, paradise would become ruined. That's why God didn't allow Lucifer, turned Satan, to develop his love of self in heaven.

The Bible tells us that God is agape.  Agape is a love that is not self-seeking.  Agape doesn't do anything for selfishly, but lives only for others.  Anything outside agape ends in anarchy & bloodshed.  Hence "the wages of sin is death", i.e., sin pays in destruction.

God's law justly demands that the transgressor, the one bent-to-self, ceases to exist.  That takes care of the sin problem, but swift justice also might create fear in those who haven't rebelled? Therefore God was faced with a dilemma:

a]  Should He wipe out fallen Lucifer and his angels,

or

b] should He allow Lucifer to develop his brand of self-love in opposite to God's agape love?

More later.... 

[Robert]

Correction:  Agape doesn't do anything for selfishly, but lives only for others

[Robert]

12 minutes ago, Robert said:

There's a sin problem.  When we become Christians, there's still a sin problem (just less of one, hopefully).  But any sin...any love of self...any bent-to-self, will keep both the unbeliever and believer out of heaven.  Why?  If we took our fallen natures into heaven, paradise would become ruined. That's why God didn't allow Lucifer, turned Satan, to develop his love of self in heaven.

The Bible tells us that God is agape.  Agape is a love that is not self-seeking.  Agape doesn't do anything selfishly, but lives only for others.  Anything outside agape ends in anarchy & bloodshed.  Hence "the wages of sin is death", i.e., sin pays in destruction.

God's law justly demands that the transgressor, the one bent-to-self, ceases to exist.  That takes care of the sin problem, but swift justice also might create fear in those who haven't rebelled? Therefore God was faced with a dilemma:

a]  Should He wipe out fallen Lucifer and his angels,

or

b] should He allow Lucifer to develop his brand of self-love in opposite to God's agape love?

More later.... 

Answer: God went with "b".

"For the good of the entire universe  through ceaseless ages, he (fallen Lucifer) must more fully developed his principles (i.e., concerning self-love), that his charges against the divine government (i.e, that agape is too restrictive and that true love is manifested in the love of self) might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question.

Satan's rebellion was to be a lesson to the universe (not just our fallen world) through all coming ages--a perpetual testimony to the nature of sin (i.e., the love of self) and its terrible results. The working out of Satan's rule, its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority. It would testify that with the existence of God's government is bound up the well-being of all the creatures He has made. Thus the history of this terrible experiment of rebellion was to be a perpetual safeguard to all holy beings, to prevent them from being deceived as to the nature of transgression, to save them from committing sin, and suffering its penalty." [PP 42,43]

Sin was permitted (and sin originated with Lucifer) so that in the future, free-will "holy beings", would fully understand that anything outside God's agape love brings ruin.

[Robert]

32 minutes ago, Robert said:

Sin was permitted (and sin originated with Lucifer) so that in the future, free-will "holy beings", would fully understand that anything outside God's agape love brings ruin.

So God allowed Satan's love, based on self, to be developed here on earth because our original parents, Adam & Eve, fell for Satan's sophistry. 

Because of Adam's sin, we were born bent-to-self, at no fault of our own. However, legally speaking, the justice of God's law demanded our extermination for the good of the universe. But, as I already stated, doing so might put fear in the minds of God's holy being throughout His universe. But, in allowing sin, another problem was created concerning the justice of God's law.  

Let's go to where sin originated with our humanity:

 And the Lord God commanded the man (Adam), saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” [Gen 2:16,17]

God wasn't speaking of a spiritual death, although that did happen.  God was warning Adam that if you sin you must die because if you turn your back on Me you will become a slave to sin (i.e., the love of self).  Since sin brings anarchy and death, I (God) must in justice bring your life to an end.

Did God bring Adam's life to an end?  No!  But, God's own law (for the good of the universe) demanded that "the soul that sins it must die".  Since God didn't bring down His justice on Adam, and by default on Adam's fallen children, are we to assume that the justice of God's law has been made void? No!  But in allowing sinners to live another dilemma was created concerning the justice of God's own law. The gospel of God solves this second dilemma.  Hence "the true gospel" answers the following question:

"How can God justify the ungodly [Romans 4:5] and still maintain His integrity to His holy law which condemns sinners [Gal 3:10]?"

 

[Robert]

30 minutes ago, Robert said:

 

"How can God justify the ungodly [Romans 4:5] and still maintain His integrity to His holy law which condemns sinners [Gal 3:10]?"

 

Basically two gospels have emerged, which are not the gospel!  They have attempted to answer the above question:

1] God did away with His law nailing it to the cross.  Hence, God's law no longer demands the death of the sinner.

Many of the Sunday keeping churches teach this. This is "another gospel".  If what what they say is true why did Christ take upon Himself the curse of the law.  Why did He have to die?

2]  God didn't do away with His law.  Instead He forgives us of our sins and through the process of sanctification makes us fit for heaven by perfecting us before the law!  This too is "another gospel".  It is a subtle form of legalism and belongs to the camp of salvation by works.

Both of these gospels are what I like to call, heresies.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Me:Verse 20 says our message is "be ye reconciled to God".

Robert:The Bible doesn't contradict itself, right?

I have already established, using the Apostle Paul, that all men are already reconciled to God through Christ Jesus:

 2 Cor 5:19 God was in Christ reconciling the world (all creation) to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own (agape) love toward us, in that while we were still sinners (unbelievers), Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath (the cruse of the law) through Him (Christ). 10 For if when we were enemies (unbelievers) we were reconciled to (past tense, refers to the cross) God through the death of His Son.

We need to tell the unbeliever that he/she has already been reconciled to God in Christ so that he/she will accept this truth so that Christ, our High Priest, can present him/her perfect and blameless in Himself!!!!

The point is that "in Christ" God is not "imputing their (the unbelievers')  trespasses" to them and has legally justified fallen men from condemnation to justification of life.  See Romans 5:18

 

There's a problem with your methodology here.  You come up with ideas, and considered them "proved", because they make sense to you, and when someone presents evidence which disagrees with your idea, you simply ignore it.

Given the Bible does not contradict itself, and given that Paul certain wouldn't contradict himself in mid-sentence, the fact that Paul says our message to unbeliever is "be reconciled to God" immediately shows you've got the wrong idea here.

Try again.

I've already acknowledged that there is a corporate theme, that in John, for example, we see Christ presented as "the Savior of the world".  Now figure out some way of harmonizing that with Paul without making Paul contradict himself in mid-sentence.

[pnattmbtc]

4 hours ago, Robert said:

Yes, but that's not the immediate context.

Also, "a new heart" refers to the converted mind.  The converted mind/heart is in harmony with the principle of God's  agape, but "the flesh" remains at odds the converted mind and therefore God's agape love.  

This is evident in Romans 7:22-23

"For I delight in the law of God in the inner man (the converted mind, see 2 Cor 4:16/Ephesians 3:16) , 23 but I see a different law in he members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind (the inner man) and making me a prisoner of the law of sin (the fallen nature) which is in my members.  Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death (mortality)?"

Now notice that the change that happens in the believer is only in his mind/heart  (the inner man).  No change has taken place in 

a] his fallen nature

and

b] his mortality.  

However, if you are honest with this "new creation" that Paul writes of in  2 Corinthians 5:17, all things have not become new in the believer!

Therefore Paul's "new creation" cannot refer to the believer, but rather his new, glorified life in Christ !

Regarding the Ezekiel reference, the issue I was getting at is this was a reference Paul was quoting.  It it was, that provides an insight into how Paul was thinking (in addition to Paul's injunction that unbelievers "be reconciled to God.")

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Robert: There's a sin problem.  When we become Christians, there's still a sin problem (just less of one, hopefully).  But any sin...any love of self...any bent-to-self, will keep both the unbeliever and believer out of heaven.  Why?  If we took our fallen natures into heaven, paradise would become ruined

This isn't a problem which can  be fixed simply by changing fallen natures, as the fundamental problem is in the mind.  Christ took our fallen nature, but did not sin.  Why not?  Because he had the "mind of Christ" and used his free will to choose agape.

The problem is not fundamentally taking our fallen natures to heaven, but taking people to heaven who love sin instead of God.  Christ highlights the issue here:

Quote

 

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:14-21)

 

I included vs. 14-16, because this is in the context of what Jesus was explaining, and it is the solution to the problem which Christ speaks about.

In order to solve the problem of heaven being ruined, the solution is, as Christ explained:

Quote

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

 

[Robert]

5 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

There's a problem with your methodology here.

In your eyes, sure....But then again you are using one verse, 2 Cor 5;20.  

Now compare your one verse, taken out of context,  to the numerous texts that  I have quoted.  So, my methodology is fine.  It is yours that is highly questionable. 

Quote

Try again.

Nope...I've given you much Biblical evidence; you chose to complicate the plain words of Paul.  It's not rocket science.   

Quote

I've already acknowledged that there is a corporate theme, that in John, for example, we see Christ presented as "the Savior of the world". 

That's a start, but you refuse to accept the rest of the story as found in Romans 5:10,18.

Let me quote them for you one more time:

"when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son"

"through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" 

[Robert]

31 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

 "be reconciled to God."

Stuck on that one little sentence, aren't you.  There's a vast amount of other Pauline texts that clarify your above quote.  Perhaps you should consider them also? 

Christ, through His death, has reconciled the human race to God.  That's why God can save babies who have died before the could hear "be reconciled to God."  That why folks who have never had the opportunity to hear "be reconciled to God" can legally be taken to heaven.

Yes, this makes some Christians angry & jealous.  They say, "look at all I've done:.  I believed; I was baptized; I kept God's law...I this, I that...."  What will Christ say?

 "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matt 7:23

You see doing good things in order to get something in return (glory, praise, a crown, & real estate in heaven) isn't agape.  It's self-love or iniquity. So watch out lest you fall!

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Robert: That's a start, but you refuse to accept the rest of the story as found in Romans 5:10,18.

Let me quote them for you one more time:

"when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son"

"through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" 

 

The issue for me is not one of lack of familiarity.  I'm quite sure I've studied this in much more depth than you have.  It's not because I'm not aware of the ideas you are presenting that I am disagreeing with you.  Yours is not the only way of looking at things.  I've presented reasons for why I disagree with your perspective.  To have a functioning dialogue, it will work better if you respond to points that are made, rather than ignore them and just repeat what you said before.

The first person to present the ideas you are suggesting was Robert Wieland, who baptized Sequeira.  You presented a video from Wieland, which is appreciated.  Do you have a familiarity with what Wieland presented?  Do you know that the motivation was for Wieland's presentation?