F
Fiat
Guest
Are you sure about this? St. Paul refers to the people of Corinth as “saints” and as “members of the Church of God.”
Fiat
- Status
Fiat
S
sandusky
Guest
Let’s overview the whole chapter:
I. The Reassurance (5:1–8): Paul speaks concerning our new bodies.
A. The old body (5:1a, 2a, 3–4a, 6–8)
- Referred to as an earthly tent (5:1a)
- Filled with groans and sighs (5:2a)
- Dying (3–4a)
- Unable to see Jesus face-to-face (5:6–8)
B. The new body (5:1b, 2b, 4b–5) - Referred to as a home in heaven (5:1b)
- Without groans or sighs (5:4b)
- Eternal (5:2b)
- Able to see Jesus face-to-face (5:5)
III. The Reckoning (5:10): The apostle reminds his readers of a sober truth.
A. The place (5:10a): It is the judgment seat of Christ.
B. The purpose (5:10b): Here the quality (or lack of quality) of our life will be tested.
IV. The Reconciling (5:11–21)
A. God’s special ministry (5:14–15, 18–19, 21a)1. He has reconciled all sinners (5:14–15): This he has accomplished by the death of Christ on the cross.
2. He has regenerated all repenting sinners (5:18–19, 21a): Each new believer receives a new nature.
B. Paul’s/Our special ministry (5:11–13, 16–17, 20, 21b)1. The task (5:11–13, 21b): We have been given the ministry of reconciliation.
2. The title (5:16–17, 20): God looks upon us as his earthly ambassadors.
Let’s go now to the last four verses, and identify who the pronouns are referring to:
2 Corinthians 5:16-20
16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
We = All believers
No one = All believers/All unbelievers
Him = Jesus
17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
He and anyone in Christ = All believers
18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
Us = All believers
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Their = All believers
Us = All believers
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
We = All believers
Us = All believers
You = All unbelievers (see v19, i.e., reconciling the world)
The clause, “we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God,” is the message of the evangelist; is it, a statement of quotation.
You should already know this stuff, Fiat. It is basic reading and comprehension.
S
sandusky
Guest
Read the whole post #59, Fiat.
You have taken yet another of my statements out of context (that is a bad habit).
Read the quote of Joan and my response and you will get the meaning.
It is basic reading and comprehension.
M
Mickey
Guest
Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.” Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding: but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? “Whose sins you shall forgive,” he says, “they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21-23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven.
St John Chrysostom
St John Chrysostom
F
Fiat
Guest
Sandusky:
Your lengthy outline of 2nd Corinthians was unnecessary in that it doesn’t address what I pointed out: St. Paul is writing TO the Corinthians: people he ALREADY considers to be “saints” and “members of the church of God.” How you conclude that these “saints” and these “members of the Church of God” are unbelievers is what is unclear to me and which I think you need to reconcile with your conclusion that St. Paul was speaking to unbelievers.
I have read your entire post #59, and although you conclude that the “you” spoken of in 2nd Cor. 5 refers to “unbelievers,” you cannot substantiate that by the text. If you think I am taking your words out of context, perhaps it is because you have not yet explained the context.
You insist that the “you” in 2nd Cor. 5:20 are the “unbelievers.” But, St. Paul very clearly addresses his entire letter to believers.
Fiat
S
sandusky
Guest
I snipped Joan’s quote in post #59, here is the full quote, perhaps that will clear things up for you.
Joan is talking about the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles, to which I replied:
Let me re-write that for you with some bracketed information to help you understand it.
(continued below)
S
sandusky
Guest
(continued from post #66)
Fiat:
an•te•ced•ent \ noun
[Middle English, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin *antecedent-, antecedens, from Latin, what precedes, from neuter of antecedent-, antecedens, present participle of antecedere to go before, from ante- + cedere to go]
(14th century)
1 : a substantive word, phrase, or clause whose denotation is referred to by a pronoun
A simple example: May saw John and called to him.
In the example above, the substantive (noun) word is John. At the end of the sentence, John is referred to by the pronoun him. So John is the antecedent of him, and him is the denoting pronoun of John.
When a denoting pronoun is used, it will usually, but not always, closely follow its antecedent, as it does in the example above, and an antecedent can have more than one denoting pronoun.
Let’s look at an example where a denoting pronoun closely follows its antecedent, and in which a second denoting pronoun is used, that is further away from the same antecedent.
Example:
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
In the above example, which is from our text, the pronoun you appears for the first time since v13. Does the pronoun you, in v20, have a close antecedent noun, or is its antecedent prior to v13?
In v19, there is a noun, the “world.” World has a denoting pronoun close-by, i.e., “their,” and we find that “world” has another denoting pronoun in v20, i.e., “you.” (I will show in the following that “world” in v19, is also the antecedent of “you” in v20).
In v20, Paul begins with the word, “therefore,” indicating that he is now going to state his conclusion, or make his point about this “ministry of reconciliation.” And he does so by way of illustration, he says:
“we [all believers] are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us;…"
That clause ends with a semi-colon, which indicates that the following clause is closely related to it; and indeed, Paul will finish the illustration that he began in the preceding clause.
Notice that immediately to the left of the semi-colon Paul speaks of an “appeal” made by God. To whom is that appeal made? To the “world” in the preceding verse.
Paul continues with his thought in v20 on the right side of the semi-colon, by stating the appeal made by God through the believer to the world, i.e.,
*we *[the believer] beg you [the world], on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
The antecedent of the pronoun you is the noun in the preceding verse, world.
For the pronoun “you” in v20 to refer to the Corinthians, Paul would have to state the second clause differently.
IOW:
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; Corinthians, we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
Which as you state, makes no sense, as the Corinthians are referred to as believers.
In order for “you” to mean the Corinthians, you [Fiat] would have to prove that it “you” in v20] has a different antecedent.
I say you can’t.
Unless you completely ignore the grammar, in which case you are a relativist, and the clause will mean to you anything you want it to mean.
Let’s look at the definition of the word “ANTECEDENT.”
an•te•ced•ent \ noun
[Middle English, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin *antecedent-, antecedens, from Latin, what precedes, from neuter of antecedent-, antecedens, present participle of antecedere to go before, from ante- + cedere to go]
(14th century)
1 : a substantive word, phrase, or clause whose denotation is referred to by a pronoun
A simple example: May saw John and called to him.
In the example above, the substantive (noun) word is John. At the end of the sentence, John is referred to by the pronoun him. So John is the antecedent of him, and him is the denoting pronoun of John.
When a denoting pronoun is used, it will usually, but not always, closely follow its antecedent, as it does in the example above, and an antecedent can have more than one denoting pronoun.
Let’s look at an example where a denoting pronoun closely follows its antecedent, and in which a second denoting pronoun is used, that is further away from the same antecedent.
Example:
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
In the above example, which is from our text, the pronoun you appears for the first time since v13. Does the pronoun you, in v20, have a close antecedent noun, or is its antecedent prior to v13?
In v19, there is a noun, the “world.” World has a denoting pronoun close-by, i.e., “their,” and we find that “world” has another denoting pronoun in v20, i.e., “you.” (I will show in the following that “world” in v19, is also the antecedent of “you” in v20).
In v20, Paul begins with the word, “therefore,” indicating that he is now going to state his conclusion, or make his point about this “ministry of reconciliation.” And he does so by way of illustration, he says:
“we [all believers] are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us;…"
That clause ends with a semi-colon, which indicates that the following clause is closely related to it; and indeed, Paul will finish the illustration that he began in the preceding clause.
Notice that immediately to the left of the semi-colon Paul speaks of an “appeal” made by God. To whom is that appeal made? To the “world” in the preceding verse.
Paul continues with his thought in v20 on the right side of the semi-colon, by stating the appeal made by God through the believer to the world, i.e.,
*we *[the believer] beg you [the world], on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
The antecedent of the pronoun you is the noun in the preceding verse, world.
For the pronoun “you” in v20 to refer to the Corinthians, Paul would have to state the second clause differently.
IOW:
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; Corinthians, we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
Which as you state, makes no sense, as the Corinthians are referred to as believers.
In order for “you” to mean the Corinthians, you [Fiat] would have to prove that it “you” in v20] has a different antecedent.
I say you can’t.
Unless you completely ignore the grammar, in which case you are a relativist, and the clause will mean to you anything you want it to mean.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The pronoun “you” is not referring to the world. In verse 19, Paul refers to the world as “them.” Then in verse 20, he says “you.” If Paul is referring to the same people with “you” as with “them,” then he doesn’t know how to use proper grammar. Verse 19 is speaking in the third person, and voice 20 in the 2nd. THey cannot be reffering to the same people. The “you” is referring to Paul’s readers. He writes in this way throughout the entirety of his letters. If you wish to make the statement you are making, I can find numerous examples where this same rule of interpreting grammar would result in absolutely ridiculous statements.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The Corinthians were an incredibly sinful group of people. Paul was having all sorts of trouble with them. If Paul is talking about the Sacrament of confession, then putting the word Corinthians there makes perfect sense, because Paul would be begging a sinful people to confess.
The grammar, however, simply does not support what you want it to. You cant just go swapping persons in the middle of a conversation like that.
V
Veritas41
Guest
You are quibbling, Joan; do you recognize Paul as an apostle, or not?Not quibbling, just pointing out your criteria aren’t complete 
Yes, I do believe Paul was an apostle
Joan, many think that “the perfect” spoken of in v10 is Jesus. Many others, including me, think that the perfect is the finishing of revelation and the compilation of the canon of scripture. Sorry, but that’s not indicated in the text. Paul says, “*then *we shall see *face to face. *Now I know in part, then I shall know *fully.” *We don’t see “face to face” with Scripture and we still don’t know *fully, *even having Scripture.
If you care to offer some support for your claim that “the perfect” is Jesus, I will read it. How about “then we shall see face to face.” Does the Bible have a face? I don’t think so. But Jesus sure does!
Yes Joan, they were preaching to unconverted people. Read 2 Cor 5:16-21, therein you will read of the Ministry of Reconciliation—the pleading of the evangelist with the unconverted—the Gospel of Christ in which is found the forgiveness of sins.You really need to check your context. Read the first verse of 2 Corinthians “To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia” Paul isn’t writing to the unconverted, but to baptized, believing Christians.
. With repentance comes the remission of sin. Baptism is an outerward symbol of inward change that has already taken place; it is the picture of the believer’s union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:4-6 No, remission of sin does not come only with repentance. In Acts 2:38, Peter says “repent and be baptized” for the forgiveness of sins. He doesn’t say just “repent.” Ananias, speaking to already-converted Paul says, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away.” Ananias says Saul has to be baptized to have his sins washed away. He doesn’t say, “Saul, *repent *and wash your sins away” or “Saul, your sins have already been forgiven now that you’ve repented.” 1 Peter 3:21, “and this water symbolizes *baptism that now saves you.” *According to your theology, that verse should read, “repentance now saves you.” It really doesn’t get any plainer than that.
Yes, I do believe Paul was an apostleJoan, many think that “the perfect” spoken of in v10 is Jesus. Many others, including me, think that the perfect is the finishing of revelation and the compilation of the canon of scripture. Sorry, but that’s not indicated in the text. Paul says, “*then *we shall see *face to face. *Now I know in part, then I shall know *fully.” *We don’t see “face to face” with Scripture and we still don’t know *fully, *even having Scripture.
If you care to offer some support for your claim that “the perfect” is Jesus, I will read it. How about “then we shall see face to face.” Does the Bible have a face? I don’t think so. But Jesus sure does!
Yes Joan, they were preaching to unconverted people. Read 2 Cor 5:16-21, therein you will read of the Ministry of Reconciliation—the pleading of the evangelist with the unconverted—the Gospel of Christ in which is found the forgiveness of sins.You really need to check your context. Read the first verse of 2 Corinthians “To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia” Paul isn’t writing to the unconverted, but to baptized, believing Christians.
. With repentance comes the remission of sin. Baptism is an outerward symbol of inward change that has already taken place; it is the picture of the believer’s union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:4-6 No, remission of sin does not come only with repentance. In Acts 2:38, Peter says “repent and be baptized” for the forgiveness of sins. He doesn’t say just “repent.” Ananias, speaking to already-converted Paul says, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away.” Ananias says Saul has to be baptized to have his sins washed away. He doesn’t say, “Saul, *repent *and wash your sins away” or “Saul, your sins have already been forgiven now that you’ve repented.” 1 Peter 3:21, “and this water symbolizes *baptism that now saves you.” *According to your theology, that verse should read, “repentance now saves you.” It really doesn’t get any plainer than that.
F
Fiat
Guest
Sandusky:
I don’t mean to be impolite, but I have to confess that I got a chuckle out of your grammar lesson. St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is addressed to all who are in the Church at Corinthian. Read the first verse of the first chapter. St. Paul addresses ALL of these people as members of the “Church of God,” and he describes ALL of these people as “SAINTS.” This is the “you” and the “you” is the audience of his entire letter.
You would have us believe that suddenly, without explanation, St. Paul in the middle of his letter, switches audiences and is no longer addressing the “saints” and the “members of the Church of God” at Corinthian, but is instead addressing a “you” who is not the recipient of his letter! That’s an interesting epistomological trick!
Your theology forces you into this bizarre interpretation though, because if you cannot convince us that the “you” is no longer the people at the Church of Corinthian, then you have to conclude that St. Paul’s ministry of “reconciliation” is much more than what you have previously stated is simply the proclamation of the gospel. To say that the proclamation of the gospel was not entrusted to the Church at Corinth is particularly odd unless you believe that St. Paul was delusional when he wrote his first few lines.
Peace be with you,
Fiat
I don’t mean to be impolite, but I have to confess that I got a chuckle out of your grammar lesson. St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is addressed to all who are in the Church at Corinthian. Read the first verse of the first chapter. St. Paul addresses ALL of these people as members of the “Church of God,” and he describes ALL of these people as “SAINTS.” This is the “you” and the “you” is the audience of his entire letter.
You would have us believe that suddenly, without explanation, St. Paul in the middle of his letter, switches audiences and is no longer addressing the “saints” and the “members of the Church of God” at Corinthian, but is instead addressing a “you” who is not the recipient of his letter! That’s an interesting epistomological trick!
Your theology forces you into this bizarre interpretation though, because if you cannot convince us that the “you” is no longer the people at the Church of Corinthian, then you have to conclude that St. Paul’s ministry of “reconciliation” is much more than what you have previously stated is simply the proclamation of the gospel. To say that the proclamation of the gospel was not entrusted to the Church at Corinth is particularly odd unless you believe that St. Paul was delusional when he wrote his first few lines.
Peace be with you,
Fiat
M
Mickey
Guest
St Basil the Great
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles”
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles”
F
Fiat
Guest
Sandusky:
In addition to my post in #71, I will add that it is not a problem for me as a Catholic to believe that the same “you” in Corinthians to whom St. Paul is writing are referring to people who are both believers and sinners. Unlike once-saved-always-saved folks, we Catholics do not sit in Church polishing our crowns, nor do we view the Church as a cruiseship for the self-righteous. Instead, we as Catholic Christians carry our cross and board the ark of the Church designed to save sinners. It is not hard for us Catholics as born-again Christians to know that we also must be reconciled to Christ once we sin.
Fiat
In addition to my post in #71, I will add that it is not a problem for me as a Catholic to believe that the same “you” in Corinthians to whom St. Paul is writing are referring to people who are both believers and sinners. Unlike once-saved-always-saved folks, we Catholics do not sit in Church polishing our crowns, nor do we view the Church as a cruiseship for the self-righteous. Instead, we as Catholic Christians carry our cross and board the ark of the Church designed to save sinners. It is not hard for us Catholics as born-again Christians to know that we also must be reconciled to Christ once we sin.
Fiat
E
exoflare
Guest
That reminds me of how they try to say Jesus is talking about two different things for “rock” in “You are ROCK and upon this ROCK I will build my church.” The difference in that case is they say that without explanation, Jesus suddenly changes the subject of a single sentence halfway through the sentence! Anything to squeeze your own interpretation out of something, I guess…
S
sandusky
Guest
Lazerlike42 said:
That is what I thought was being said, but I wasn’t sure as I have never heard that offered as an interpretation of this passage. If my snipping is wrong, correct me, but I will continue as though it were correct.
You are right; none of those three agree in number.
Good point, and as we can’t swap persons in the middle of a conversation, neither can we swap context.
You are very gracious Fiat, but why must I conclude that Paul’s ministry of “reconciliation” is much more than the proclamation of the Gospel?
Paul states the purpose of his ministry in 1 Cor 1:17, in which he says, Christ sent him to preach the Gospel, not with clever words, so that the Cross would not be made void. Paul believes that his ministry of reconciliation is preaching the Gospel (cf Rom 1:1; Acts 9:15; 13:2; Gal 1:15).
If we stick to the points that Lazerlike42 made—that we cannot swap persons, or context—then the burden is on you to show that the Paul is talking about the RCC sacrament of confession in 2 Cor 5. So far, you have only asserted that.
I told you in my previous post that I would show that the “you” in v20 was the world, and I did that. Both of you seized the weaker argument, and ignored the stronger argument.
I said that in v19, Paul compared his function, and the function of all believers to that of ambassadors for Christ, and that as ambassadors for Christ, we make an appeal to the lost, and that appeal is, “we beg you, be reconciled to God.”
As you have already asked Fiat, does it make sense for Paul to be evangelizing those who are already saved? You said that Paul refers to the church of Corinth as believers and saints right from the beginning of the epistle, so it makes no sense for him to be evangelizing them; that is why I say the appeal that Paul offers is not to the Corinthians, but is instead, that of an ambassador for Christ appealing to the lost.
Our immediate context is v18:
18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation
That was accomplished on the cross, and it was accomplished for all who would believe. If one doesn’t believe, one doesn’t get reconciled.
V21 further supports that the context of the ambassadors’ message is the Gospel, by succinctly stating the Gospel.
And the theme of salvation carries into chapter 6, with Paul telling the Corinthians (certainly not all of them) that they are acting like children, instead of acting like mature believers. Paul is calling them to repent of their sins, by calling them to remember the Gospel through which they had already been reconciled to God.
You cannot make the case in either chapter that Paul’s ministry of reconciliation is the RCC sacrament of confession because the context doesn’t allow it, but the case has been made that Paul’s ministry is preaching the Gospel.
As you said Fiat, “Your theology forces you into this bizarre interpretation,” and so far you have only made an assertion, and you have given no support for that assertion, or for that interpretation.
I have again given support that the ministry of reconciliation Paul speaks of in 2 Cor 5, is the reconciliation found in the cross, and not that of the RCC confessional.
S
sandusky
Guest
You are indeed gracious Fiat.
F
Fiat
Guest
Dear Sandusky:
You said:
You said:
You said:
You said:
You said:
You said:
You said:
You said:
Peace,
Fiat
You said:
I believe you have to conclude that the “ministry of reconciliation” is more than just a proclamation of the gospel because St. Paul already addresses those at Corinth as “saints” and as members of “the church of God.” Your interpretation forces us to conclude that a group of people can exist as a church where there is knowledge of the Christian faith.
You said:
St. Paul also believes that he is a fellow worker with Christ and that he labors to bring salvation to the elect and that he makes up for what is lacking the suffering of Christ. How do the verses you quote deny my Catholic understanding of Reconciliation?
You said:
Not really. I don’t need to proof text scripture to know that reconciliation is necessary. I have the living, breathing, Holy-Spirit protected Church for that. Because scripture is written to supplement the faith of the Church whose faith is already presupposed by those authors of sacred scripture, I think the burden is on you to prove that “reconciliation” in 2nd Corinthians is limited to simply a proclamation of Christ’s salvific work.
You said:
You’re right. I’m totally missing your alleged “stronger” argument.
You said:
Yes it makes sense that St. Paul is doing this. As I indicated before, we Catholics don’t go to mass in order to polish our crowns. We go as sinners and saints, ready to receive forgiveness and to worship.
You said:
No arguments here.
You said:
The theme of salvation carries through our entire walk with Christ, and it is a child-like walk that we are supposed to have, at least according to Jesus. St. Paul calls each of them to repent, just as we all surely should do when we commit sins every day of our life.
You said:
Again, I don’t think the context allows you to conclude that a group of people to whom St. Paul refers to as “saints” and “members of the Church of God” did not already have the message of the gospel.
Peace,
Fiat
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
1 Corinthians 1:17 shows that Paul is speaking to Christians already converted. These Christians have already accepted the gospel. He himself did not baptize them; this was done before by others. His mission to the Corinthians is not one of converting them to the faith. Rather, it seems to be that his mission is to preach to those already converted to the faith.
In verse 18, Paul writes that God gave to him the ministry of reconciliation. He then in verse 19 explains that God reconciled himself to the world, and gave to him the message of reconciliation. But then in verse 20, he begs the Corinthians to be reconciled to God. Remember, we know from 1 Corinthians 17 that Paul’s ministry is not to convert the Corinithians, because they already have been. Your belief is that the ministry of reconcilliation is to preach about the sacrifice so that men may be saved. However, if the ministry of reconcilliation were only that of preaching so that men may be converted, come to faith, and be saved, then Paul would not be preaching to those whom have already been converted. These people would already be saved, and Paul would not only be preaching needlessly, but he would also be wasting his time on the Corinthians when he could be preaching to those still in need of salvation.
However, Paul is exercising this ministry to these already converted Corinthians. In fact, he is preaching specifically about repentance. As you pointed out, immediately after this section, Paul writes in chapter 6 how the Corinthians are like children and need to repent. This all makes perfect sense if Paul’s ministry involved confession. Here is the evidence, logically stated:
P1 The Corinthians are already converted (1 Cor 1:13-17)
P2 Paul’s mission does not involve converting them (1 Cor 1:17)
P3 Paul’s mission is one of reconcilliation (2 Cor 5:18)
C1 The reconcilliation Paul speaks of does not involve converting anyone
The Sacrament of Reconcilliation does not involve converting anybody. It is a Sacrament with a prerequisite of repentance. It fits in perfectly with what is described in 2 Corinthians 5.
S
sandusky
Guest
I would agree that the ministry of reconciliation carries with it other duties for the apostles, and for the believer as well, but the pinnacle of that ministry is the proclamation of the gospel for the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ. I agree as well, that a church can exist where there is knowledge of the faith, though I find that definition a bit broad, and that just as the ministry of reconciliation includes additional tasks, so too true Christianity is more than just belonging to a church where there is knowledge of the faith.
From that response, I have a question: it would seem to me that because of your understanding of baptism, that there would be no one within your church who was not saved, at least presently, and excluding those who were in a state of mortal sin. Is that a correct understanding?
I said:
You responded:
I had to think your response to my statement for awhile as it didn’t make sense to me. But I think the pieces are coming together. When you see reconciliation mentioned in scripture, for the most part, it is concerned with the mass and confession. Is that correct?
I get it now, your last response cleared that up for me.
The pieces have fallen into place; you are right, as you understand reconciliation, there is no way those verses could deny your understanding.
That is very nice Fiat, but Paul is not talking to them about a “child-like” walk, but about being childish and immature in their behavior, and he is exhorting them to maturity by reminding them of the grace that they have already received through God’s reconciliation of them to Himself, through the cross of Christ.
S
sandusky
Guest
Lazerlike42 said:
Yes, thanks to you and Fiat, I see that now.
- Status