Sorry the reconciliation seen in the passage is of man to God
WHAT?!?!?! Are you saying that God does not reconcile man to Himself in Christ? It is OUR choice to reconcile, and God has NO say in the matter? Does God cry if we decide not to reconcile with Him, as though it is that important to someone as busy as God? I understand it brings to question whether we have any choice if God has decided, as Creator, to be reconciled to you, His creation, which means that He has to make it so, and we don't get to question or say no. Who are you to talk back at your Creator? As such, it seems to reason that whatever needs to happen to make His will happen, will happen. You will, with zombie like fervor, accept His reconciliation. Not. Whatever may keep you from desiring it will obviously be removed, and obviously within the given system of how the world works.
We do not read of God being reconciled in the passage
One reads that God is reconciling man to Himself in Christ. God is the one doing the reconciling. We are not, hence it ends with "to Himself". That is, He is removing the barrier that stands between Him and us, keeping Him from reconciling us to Himself, and He is doing that... in Christ. So by Christ's actions, that which is keeping God from reconciling the world to Himself (I am not saying He wants to, or is reconciling Himself
to the world), has been removed by Christ's dying on the cross. As such, the passage says that in Christ, God is reconciling the world to Himself. It couldn't be put any clearer. It is as though Christ's only reason for dying is so God can go out and be reconciling the world to Himself. It's like, God's big night out, as Christ is suffering and dying on the cross. (If you deny His suffering, you may want to read Paul again, who not only does not deny Christ's suffering, but revels in the idea that he, simply a man, may get to suffer as Christ had suffered.)
Armylngst
"The idea God was being reconciled to man by the exhaustion of his wrath through an exercise of retributive punishment does not appear in this passage or in any other"
This is called a strawman. This is when you invent/fabricate/make up an argument that actually has nothing to do with the argument, and then smoke it.
That is funny
That is the whole idea behind PSA and you want to call it a strawman
Seriously?
Um no. That is what YOU say is behind PSA, which is why it is called a strawman. You are saying that that is the whole idea behind PSA< where I told you that what stands behind PSA is the idea, as stated by Eusebius, that Jesus took upon Himself the penalty that we could never pay, and paid it in our place. "Oh sweet exchange", as is stated in the epistle to Diognetus in the 2nd century I believe, to the same idea. Exchange, as in... substitution. That is the heart of PSA... exchange/substitution. You don't get to tell us how it is, when we know how it is, and have stated it clearly.
