tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2879905711187687222..comments2024-03-29T06:58:28.383+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Romans debate to datePeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18873785860003503282013-02-22T08:40:36.333+13:002013-02-22T08:40:36.333+13:00"charisms of the Holy Spirit - Whose very nat..."charisms of the Holy Spirit - Whose very nature is bypassing institutional resistance to God's 'New Things'""<br /><br />The charisms of the Holy Spirit are largely practiced and received in Evangelical Charismatic churches, and within any responsible church, are practiced under and with the authority of Scripture, Scripture itself being a creation of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />The "New Things" Ron is referring to is Liberal theology, which does not come from any "charism" of the Holy Spirit, and is a truly subjective theology that has no objective grounding in Scripture.<br /><br />The issue of the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church is not relevant to us. What IS relevant to us is that the Anglican Communion is a Reformed (of the Reformation)catholic communion which does have the central and supreme authority of Scripture as it's guide and anchor, one that is necessary to guard against false teachings and political ideologies that pretend to be "of the Spirit."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26077683035661900432013-02-21T21:07:35.264+13:002013-02-21T21:07:35.264+13:00Fr Ron,
I note that before you were asking a que...Fr Ron, <br /><br />I note that before you were asking a question, which has now quietly shifted to become assertions. Fair enough, let's look at them:<br /><br />1. "...Roman Catholic Church tobe singular in it's [sic] insistence on being the sole arbiter of 'The Truth'" - Sorry, I have no idea what the relevance of this may be. Neither of us is Roman Catholic. <br /><br />2. "We Anglicans ... have witnessed many changes in subjective theology in our time" - <br /><br />I don't know what you mean by "subjective theology". Your original question referred to "Christian Teaching". Anyway, if you want to believe this "subjective theology", go right ahead. But of course you have no basis for asking anyone else to believe it. <br /><br />3. "...charisms of the Holy Spirit - Whose very nature is bypassing institutional resistance to God's 'New Things'"<br /><br />Not according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit's very nature is to witness to God's truth. But, if your 'subjective theology' says something different, then by all means believe it. Again you can't expect anyone else to necessarily agree with you. <br /><br />4. 'semper refotmanda'<br /><br />Ah now we are getting somewhere - "semper reformanda" is a teaching of the Reformed Churches, which essentially holds that it is always necessary to reform the church in order to bring it back to Christ's revealed truth in Scripture, i.e. "the Faith once delivered". I couldn't agree more!MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10770931412637182642013-02-20T17:45:11.463+13:002013-02-20T17:45:11.463+13:00Theologicallanguage can be so imprecise. And there...Theologicallanguage can be so imprecise. And therein lies an ever-present danger -for any budding 'theologian'. When Carl says (17 Feb.) that 'in His death is my death'; what does that actually mean in terms of Carl's physical state at this point in time. Is it not, in fact, a 'spiritual state of being' that he is referring to?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75032300545439295542013-02-20T17:15:06.462+13:002013-02-20T17:15:06.462+13:00Re MICHAELA's question as to whether I conside...Re MICHAELA's question as to whether I consider that there might be a difference between teaching and the Institution (of the Church), I would suggest he recall the fact that it is the prerogative of the Roman Catholic Church tobe singular in it's insistence on being the sole arbiter of 'The Truth'.<br /><br />We Anglicans who have been active in our branch of the Church Catholic & Apostolic for longer than a dog-watch, have witnessed many changes in subjective theology in our time, and our spiritual lives have mostly been renewed because of the changes made - this is what i mean when I speak of accessing th charisms of the Holy Spirit - Whose very nature is bypassing institutional resistance to God's 'New Things'. 'semper refotmanda'.nta<br /><br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43634615980882902342013-02-19T19:08:46.450+13:002013-02-19T19:08:46.450+13:00Sorry, I missed this response to my original post:...Sorry, I missed this response to my original post:<br /><br />"This statement begs the question of whether, or not, 'Christian Teaching' has actually dramatically changed on any other biblically-supported issues - like, for instance, slavery, usury, and the subjugation of women."<br /><br />No, why would it? Of course, some Christians have always disagreed about such issues (and every other issue under the sun) - but that is a different matter. <br /><br />"Would you agree that The Spirit of God is still teaching us, today, about what sin is, and what sin is not?"<br /><br />Of course. Why would he stop teaching God's truth?<br /><br />"Or do you think the Holy Spirit is no longer needed - to teach us anything?"<br /><br />Only if we humans have suddenly somehow attained perfection!<br /><br />"Institutional stasis was never one of the charisms of the Holy Spirit."<br /><br />Sure, but since we weren't discussing "institutional stasis", what is the relevance of that? Somehow you seem to have juxtaposed "institution" and "teaching" - do you perhaps see them as the same thing?MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23585424973817176562013-02-18T06:59:00.255+13:002013-02-18T06:59:00.255+13:00Hi Peter,
like you I am taking a leave of absence...Hi Peter,<br /><br />like you I am taking a leave of absence for a week or so from posting here. I think this kind of internet debate is fine, but the lack of personal face to face contact makes it too easy to forget that we are dealing with real human beings with real, and often complex and difficult lives, and I certainly have been guilty of that. And especially when we go round and round in circles over the same issues, the spiritual atmosphere (can you have an atmosphere on a blog?) can become toxic. We have done SSM to death, and frankly at this point I don't think any of us regulars are going to change our minds on that front, so I have to question what is being achieved with the constant to and fro, except a lot of hurt feelings and anger, or "heat" as Bosco would say.<br /><br /> I apologize for my last post, which thankfully you did not publish. It was woefully unfair. I have been reminded about the amount of work you are doing and the responsibilities you have, and so for me to insist on theological preciseness and correctness on every point when you post is unrealistic, and frankly childish of me to expect.<br /><br />I have had doubts and concerns, sometimes even alarm, with some of the ways you approach scripture, especially recently, but I do not question your orthodoxy. <br /><br />I am sorry I missed your email about coffee, but as soon as you have more time I would like to get together.<br /><br />Blessings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-972953953214160692013-02-18T04:15:26.815+13:002013-02-18T04:15:26.815+13:00Hi Ron,
I appreciate your comment in your latest (...Hi Ron,<br />I appreciate your comment in your latest (which I don't publish because it is too directive). The comment I published, to which you refer, was published because it expressed a view that a widely held view is abroad in our church that if it makes a poor decision re SSP, let alone SSM then there will be a great deal of trouble. I think our church (to the extent that it reads here) needs to understand that view and understand that potential for future troubles.<br /><br />It goes without saying that I myself encourage our church to act wisely and for all its members to act considerately for the sake of Christ and his kingdom.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18459431322876415582013-02-17T20:38:16.478+13:002013-02-17T20:38:16.478+13:00Hi Shawn,
If you do start your own blog, I will re...Hi Shawn,<br />If you do start your own blog, I will read it.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10354558599136184602013-02-17T20:36:49.310+13:002013-02-17T20:36:49.310+13:00Hi Martin (and Carl, Shawn, Ron et al)
I gladly a...Hi Martin (and Carl, Shawn, Ron et al)<br /><br />I gladly admit I am wrong. John 20:17 is a verse I neglected in my assertion that no verse tells us of an actual touching. I think it is the only verse ... not even Thomas is recorded as taking up his Lord's offer.<br /><br />I would part company with Carnley on his estimation of this passage.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87434331532206273802013-02-17T20:30:35.253+13:002013-02-17T20:30:35.253+13:00Hi Ron
I appreciate your comment which is supporti...Hi Ron<br />I appreciate your comment which is supportive of me and what I am trying to achieve here. Nevertheless it contains some assumptions that are wrong so I cannot publish it. There are more trained people in theology commenting here than you are reckoning with. <br /><br />To all commenters here: could we perhaps reckon that the nature of the resurrection body is more complicated than we might like it to be; that the greatest of theologians have, in the eyes of other theologians, gotten bogged down in these matters.<br /><br />I am clear on one thing myself: I cannot read 1 Corinthians and derive any clarity about the specificity of our resurrection bodies. The splendour of what lies before us is to wondrous to describe in our finite language.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26827683205186302332013-02-17T20:22:18.274+13:002013-02-17T20:22:18.274+13:00Hi Carl
(a) Please see my 8.19 pm comment above.
(...Hi Carl<br />(a) Please see my 8.19 pm comment above.<br />(b) I stand by 'body-in-a-new-dimension' as derivable from Scripture as we make sense of the gospel witnesses, 1 Corinthians 15, the ascension, and Revelation.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21002356929693857612013-02-17T20:19:44.953+13:002013-02-17T20:19:44.953+13:00In the end, Shawn, it would need to be someone els...In the end, Shawn, it would need to be someone else who pushed the matter further. Having tried to point out the carefulness we need when reading what Scripture actually says, I am nevertheless with you and not against you on the matter of the physicality of Jesus' resurrection body: if touch had occurred I think contact would have been made.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43527622609495972582013-02-17T19:37:25.493+13:002013-02-17T19:37:25.493+13:00"- there is no verse recording that any disci..."- there is no verse recording that any disciple actually touched Jesus, let alone described what the new body 'felt' like."<br /><br />I am constrained to break my silence.<br /><br />Yes there is. 'me mou haptou' (Jn 20.17) is present imperative (not aorist). It means 'Stop holding on to me', and denotes an action which has already begun. Latin ('noli me tangere'), not being an aspectual language, lacks the nuances of Greek. In English we have to express it periphrastically. The NIV reasonably renders it 'Don't hold on to me.'<br />Of course, that great Anglican Archbishop Peter Carnley said this account is totally fictional. Who do you believe?<br /><br />Martin<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90220695777828138582013-02-17T19:17:43.171+13:002013-02-17T19:17:43.171+13:00"God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him m..."God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in Truth" - John 4:24 -<br /><br />These are the words of Jesus.<br /><br />n.b. The Body and Blood of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are a spiritual guarantee of the incarnate Jesus. Their form is quite different from the human body of Jesus - but they are a spiritual way of discerning (as Paul reminds us) the Body of Christ - which is the membership of the Church.<br /><br />Does this not presage the distinct possibility that our resurrection body may be somewhat different from our earthly physical body? After all, in at least some of his post-resurrection appearances, even His closest disciples (including Mary of Magdala) did not recognise Him - "She, supposing him to be the gardener..."<br /><br />I'm quite prepared to be surprised at the life-after-death experience.<br />My faith leads me to the real possibility of being further perfected by God - together with the "Faithful Departed" (like the penitent thief) in Paradise. This is a very Pauline understanding.<br /><br />Before He ascended to the Father, the only mention made by Jesus about life after death was to the penitent thief: "Today, you will be with me in Paradise" - not Heaven, obviously, because Jesus spent three days in 'Paradise' (the place of Departed Spirits) before being raised from the dead & subsequently Ascending to the Father.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58737003723045570412013-02-17T17:55:08.019+13:002013-02-17T17:55:08.019+13:00"Its life Jim, but not as we know it.""Its life Jim, but not as we know it."mike greensladenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75448582759824619482013-02-17T15:54:41.375+13:002013-02-17T15:54:41.375+13:00Peter
there is no verse recording that any discip...Peter<br /><br /><i>there is no verse recording that any disciple actually touched Jesus, let alone described what the new body 'felt' like.</i><br /><br />This is exegetical nonsense, Peter. Justify your assertion from the appearance of Christ before Thomas. The Lord Jesus <i>tells</i> Thomas to touch the wounds so that Thomas would know and understand that He was not a ghost but flesh and bone. That necessarily implies that Thomas would recognize what flesh and bone feels like. Otherwise, it wouldn't be proof of what Jesus is saying. You are really reaching, here. <br /><br />This "body-in-a-new-dimension" is not an exegetical derivation of Scripture. It is a device you have created to achieve the objective of reconciling mutually-exclusive positions. As I said before, you cannot use what we don't know to deny what we do know.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38664534153394422032013-02-17T15:52:07.269+13:002013-02-17T15:52:07.269+13:00"there is no verse recording that any discipl..."there is no verse recording that any disciple actually touched Jesus"<br /><br />Jesus invited them to. Was he lying? Fooling them? Playing a game? For goodness sake Peter, Jesus said he was flesh and bone!!!!!!<br /><br />So yes, hersy IS involved. To deny the clear witness of Scripture when Jesus says "touch me, I am flesh", to deny the repeated teaching of the Church Fathers stating clearly that the resurrected Jesus is physical, is heresy, plain and simple.<br /><br />And no amount of the Liberal rhetorical tactics about "being careful" changes that.<br /><br />Liberals always want to "be careful" with Scripture about two seconds before they contradict it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69327520942904622072013-02-17T15:46:38.989+13:002013-02-17T15:46:38.989+13:00here is a growing sense of anger and even rage tha...here is a growing sense of anger and even rage that I have come across from many evangelicals in the pews who believe that our leaders are compromising the Faith in the name of an unBiblical unity and a desire to just get along. A growing sense that we are being sidelined and ignored by General Synod and the various commissions which have been set up for the sole purpose of pushing the Liberal agenda no matter what we think.<br /><br />Sooner or later, this will come to a crunch, and the anger will explode.<br /><br />Any attempt to create an institutional system that allows for the blessing of same-sex marriage will bring on civil war. Any attempt by those leaders claiming to be evangelicals who support this will lead to revolt by the laity.<br /><br />Our "leaders" have become so isolated from the opinion of many in the pews that they have no idea about the level of feelings of anger, frustration and betrayal.<br /><br />From the three Tikanga model, to social justice commissioners pushing Labour/Green policies and attacking those on the Right, to the ongoing circus of St Matthews opposing the Bible in schools and putting up vile and disgusting billboards while the leadership in Auckland does nothing, people are FED UP.<br /><br />This is not just my view. I come across these feeling almost everyday.<br /><br />And it will come to a head. And when it does, if nothing changes, it will destroy the Anglican church in NZ in it's current form, and likely lead to exodus and schism. <br /><br />If Liberal elites continue to push the issue of same-sex marriage there will be a backlash that will leave the Anglican church in NZ in tatters.<br /><br />No more compromise. No more glossing over heresy. No more pretense that pro-same sex marriage advocates are orthodox Christians whom we can happily fellowship with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61558387949970897522013-02-17T15:42:39.693+13:002013-02-17T15:42:39.693+13:00Hi Shawn/Carl
In a bit of a rush but:
- there is n...Hi Shawn/Carl<br />In a bit of a rush but:<br />- there is no verse recording that any disciple actually touched Jesus, let alone described what the new body 'felt' like.<br />- my point, and I am confident it is Ron's also, is that this carefulness about describing the new body-in-a-new-dimension has nothing to do with arguing that Jesus was a mere spirit or ghost (in the sense that we understand such things a la Hollywood, haunted houses and what have you).<br /><br />So no, I don't think heresy is involved!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56625042608193965622013-02-17T15:26:03.035+13:002013-02-17T15:26:03.035+13:00""Physical resurrection" is our phr...""Physical resurrection" is our phrase, not that of the creeds or the gospels or 1 Corinthians. So we need to be clear about what 'physical' means."<br /><br />Bodily/physical resurrection is clear in the creeds, the Fathers, and the Gospels.<br /><br />Physical means physical. It has no other meaning. Read the quotes from the Fathers on the RC site I linked to. They were in no doubt about the fact that bodily/physical resurrection means exactly that.<br /><br />"But if it be unorthodox to treat Paul's words here plainly, then unorthodox I am!"<br /><br />But you haven't treated them plainly. You have treated them, as you have with Romans 14-15 in isolation from the rest of Paul and from the rest of the Biblical witness.<br /><br />"Could the new resurrection body of Jesus be touched in the way that I can touch a part of my physical body or touch another's physical body? There is no actual verse of Scripture which says that ever happened."<br /><br />What????? Seriously????<br /><br />""And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, FOR A SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH AND BONE AS YOU SEE THAT I HAVE," (Luke 24:38-39).<br /><br />"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."<br /><br />Thats pretty clear.<br /><br />And in his statements above, Ron has clearly denied the truth of Scripture.<br /><br />I suggest less haste in trying to gloss over heresy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87345131119088536082013-02-17T14:44:34.725+13:002013-02-17T14:44:34.725+13:00Peter
I suggest less haste in jumping to conclusi...Peter<br /><br /><i>I suggest less haste in jumping to conclusions.</i><br /><br />I jumped to no conclusion. I simply reacted to what he wrote. What he wrote is clear and unambiguous. What the Gospel accounts say is also clear and unambiguous. The two cannot be reconciled. The Lord Jesus was not spirit. He was flesh and blood. The tomb was empty because His body wasn't there. It had been raised from the dead just like He said it would. Whatever we <i>don't know</i> about the resurrected Christ, we <i>do know</i> that He was flesh and blood. He said so. He demonstrated to Thomas that he was no ghost.<br /> <br />And, yes, it is very important to be very literal about these things. As it is written <i>Though worms destroy this body, yet in <b>my flesh</b> will I see God."</i> His death is my death. His resurrection is my resurrection. If Christ is not raised, then were are still in our sins. And Paul wasn't talking about some vague spiritual resurrection. We will not be called forth as ghosts on the Last Day.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49435207511538799932013-02-17T14:23:15.804+13:002013-02-17T14:23:15.804+13:00Hi Carl,
"Physical resurrection" is our ...Hi Carl,<br />"Physical resurrection" is our phrase, not that of the creeds or the gospels or 1 Corinthians. So we need to be clear about what 'physical' means.<br /><br />If it means (a) the tomb was empty of Jesus decaying body; (b) Jesus decaying body was transformed into a new mode of being; (c) that new mode of being was both physical (e.g. eating fish) and non-physical (e.g. able to enter rooms otherwise secure at will; able to vanish upwards against the force of gravity in the ascension), then I am with you. But something like outlining those steps in explanation is important if we are to guard a phrase like 'physical resurrection' from use that implies that the resurrection was essentially a resuscitation of the physical body of Jesus of Nazareth.<br /><br />Could the new resurrection body of Jesus be touched in the way that I can touch a part of my physical body or touch another's physical body? There is no actual verse of Scripture which says that ever happened. Thus I do not jump from Ron's remark to a conclusion that he denies the physical resurrection. Rather, his remark is consistent with attempts by us, within the confines of our own physicality, to understand the new reality of Christ's resurrection body in the light of what Scripture says about that new reality.<br /><br />I suggest less haste in jumping to conclusions. Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34260085089096654852013-02-17T14:14:55.935+13:002013-02-17T14:14:55.935+13:00It may be my blog and all that, Shawn, but we are ...It may be my blog and all that, Shawn, but we are talking about the meaning of Scripture. When Paul in 1C15 talks about the present body being like a seed sown in the ground, I take seriously his further words on the matter which open a vision of something splendid but not clearly defined. But if it be unorthodox to treat Paul's words here plainly, then unorthodox I am!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45669065531234644492013-02-17T13:46:48.159+13:002013-02-17T13:46:48.159+13:00Peter
I have no reason to think that Ron (or anyo...Peter<br /><br /><i>I have no reason to think that Ron (or anyone else here for that matter) is anything but orthodox in their understanding of the resurrection body of Jesus.</i><br /><br />Well, I certainly have such reason having just read what FRS wrote. <br /><br />A few threads back, you stated this as basis of Christian unity as: <br /><br /><i>baptised (in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to Christian custom) ...<br />believer in Jesus Christ (that is, the Christ made know to us in the Christian Scriptures and defined for us in the Apostolic, Nicene and Athanasian creeds).</i><br /><br />Well, the statement of the Resurrection just made by FRS ...<br /><br /><i>Do you not think it possible that if she had reached out to touch Jesus at that moment, her hands may have countered nothing physical?<br /><br />Just a thought! But then, I'm sure some people are wiser than I - and that the Gospel writer.<br /><br />Granted, there are other Gospel resurrection accounts where Jesus 'ate fish', and was therefore seen to be a physical being. But it behoves us not to become too literal about these things.</i><br /><br />... is not even Christian theology, let alone Anglican theology. If the Creeds can be made to support unity with such a position, then the Creeds are being used to unite the Christian world with the non-Christian world. This is exactly what I said you were attempting to do. You were attempting to use Romans 14 in order to justify a level of unity with non-Christian belief. You are no longer talking about believers and brothers. You cannot be. In the first place, the Creeds as originally constructed do not countenance such a position, so it denies your own standard. But there is a more important consideration. <b>A believer would never deny the physical resurrection of Christ.</b> It is an essential of the Faith. To deny it is to deny one's own testimony. This is why I keep telling you to draw sharp lines. This is why you keep resisting. You don't want to face this situation. You want to cover it up as a disagreement between brothers. It isn't. It is like Solomon bringing the idols of his pagan wives into his house. Only corruption can come from it.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36413476837744963232013-02-17T13:33:49.028+13:002013-02-17T13:33:49.028+13:00"I have no reason to think that Ron (or anyon..."I have no reason to think that Ron (or anyone else here for that matter) is anything but orthodox in their understanding of the resurrection body of Jesus."<br /><br />Yes you do. His own words on your blog betray that he denies the orthodox view. That is clear. <br /><br />"The point is quite clear in 1 Corinthians 15: we do not know what our resurrection bodies will be like; "<br /><br />Wrong. The Bible as a whole, along with the tradition of the Church, and the witness of the Fathers is clear that our resurrected bodies are physical.<br /><br />It is shocking that I have to explain basic orthodoxy to people wearing collars. No wonder the Roman Catholics and Orthodox no longer take the Anglican Church seriously!<br /><br />This willingness to gloss over heresy and unBiblical views, views that are not up for debate, all in the name of a false unity at the expense of truth, is exactly why Liberals have been able to steamroll right over Anglican evangelicals.<br /><br />All of these issues are interelated. Failure to obey Scripture in one place leads to a willingness to disobey it elsewhere. Pro-homosexual heretics are always heretical in other places. There is no such thing as a pro-ssm "christian" who is creedally orthodox, or orthodox at all.<br /><br />But it's your blog, and I have made my point, so I will move on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com