That is absurd. Forgiveness has nothing at all to do with a court. If a little girl breaks a fancy vase while running through the house, her father has a decision to make. He can either punish her or forgive her. The two are quite different.
Again, this is absurd. Reconciliation takes place when both parties, in this case God and man, agree to end the hostilities between them.
I can see you don't have a reason for what you believe. You are forcing a dogma onto the text.
Your reasoning is faulty because it doesn't understand what reconciliation is.
Thats your opinion, you entitled to it, but I see you as opposing truth
My sentiments exactly about you.
Except, for some reason, you can't explain why. Perhaps you should look up reconciliation in the dictionary.
False statement, not based on scripture. Reconciliation is an absolute truth by the death of Christ, nothing potential about it, thats anti truth. The word reconciled katallassō in Rom 5 10 is aorist indicative meaning a statement of fact ad aorist highlights it a completed
Reconciliation is the restoration of fellowship between estranged parties after hostility has been removed. In biblical terms, it means that God, the offended party, provides the means for peace through Christ’s atoning work, and humans respond by turning back to God in faith. It is not merely the cancellation of guilt but the renewal of relationship—enmity replaced with peace, distance replaced with communion.
If you know, as you claim, that reconciliation is between two parties, then how can you say that the elect were reconciled at the cross? That can't be true because hundreds of elect weren't yet born.
Like I said, Im doing a thread on it right now explaining my views on reconciliation. Thats on you if you dont pay attention,
