Wright, Borg and the Resurrection

[studyhound]

"I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection," he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg, co-author with Wright of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. "But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.

"Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18798068-28737,00.html


This is a very interesting turn, I wonder how much of Wrights charity here is a reult from both the working realtionship they have and the friendship/mutal respect they have for one another.

Thoughts?

[Aletheia]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18798068-28737,00.html


This is a very interesting turn, I wonder how much of Wrights charity here is a reult from both the working realtionship they have and the friendship/mutal respect they have for one another.

Thoughts?

I think that is a fair assesment. They both admit as much.

It's funny, when I first bought that book, I agreed with Borg. Now I'm closer to agreeing with Wright.

Wright does word things carefully. Some don't like that, but I do. An "in your face" confrontational attitude isn't always called for, especially when you're trying to reach those who aren't Christian.

And you never know what the future might hold when it comes to the beliefs of a Christian. I've certainly changed since I left the JW's.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18798068-28737,00.html


This is a very interesting turn, I wonder how much of Wrights charity here is a reult from both the working realtionship they have and the friendship/mutal respect they have for one another.

Thoughts?

I think the end is near because I think Wright is wrong!!!!!

:outtie:



But seriously, I think that this is an fair assesment. Much in the same way that DeMar will not condemn pantelism as heresy as he has friends in that camp. (And much the same way many orthodox Christians dismiss the dangers of the modalism of PCD because they like thier music.)

[Hitch]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18798068-28737,00.html


This is a very interesting turn, I wonder how much of Wrights charity here is a reult from both the working realtionship they have and the friendship/mutal respect they have for one another.

Thoughts?Some 'friend'.


Hmmm oh gee well thats the edge of the Grad Canyon youre standing on,,,,but I wont hurt your feelings by saying anth,,,, oppps

How deep is this hole Mr Ranger Sir???

[Hitch]

BTw just incase some one doesnt know,,, there are no christians who dont believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ it is a contradiction in terms.

[Ryokan]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18798068-28737,00.html


This is a very interesting turn, I wonder how much of Wrights charity here is a reult from both the working realtionship they have and the friendship/mutal respect they have for one another.

Thoughts?
Well, I agree with him. I don't think Borg is right on alot of things, but he is honestly wrong, does honestly seem to try his best, and accepts the trinity and the Nicene Creed, or so he says. I don't personally think men like Borg are evil, damned to hell, or anything like that.

[dizzle]

It seems that Paul had a different opinion about those who deny the resurrection. I'll stick with Paul. The power of God to bring those to a knowledge of Christ and His essential work is not hindered by our cultural. What a reduction of the perspecuity of Scripture and the work of the Spirit.

Hitch has it spot on. One is no friend if one won't stand for the truth with one's friend.

I have noted this about Wright already and because I don't really care who I alienate since Wright is the sacred cow in some circles, and put a disclaimer in my praise of his historical work.

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenwright.html

Ironically the more conservative hyperpreterists will NOT listen to Wright's research on the resurrection because they see crap like that as a sell-out. So much for soft-peddling as effective for "reaching the unbeliever." Those fallen in heresy that have a desire to be biblical see through that as man-pleasing nonsense.

This is from the article above:

The Resurrection of the Son of God is a book that I am going through thoroughly now. I had read sections before in my research for "Grave" Heresy: Hyperpreterism and the Response of the Church and found it's dagger into the heart of hyperpreterism (which itself is a vampiric assault upon the heart of Christian faith) to be quite useful and edifying. Now since the time of my blog entries, I have had some inquiries regarding Wright's personal theology and have read some information from James White's blog dated 4/12/06 commenting on this article. If that article is accurate, and Wright is claiming that one can reject the bodily resurrection of Christ and still be considering a Christian - he is in that areaa, royally and utterly screwed up. I have no issue with saying that and still supporting his historical research - the personal theology he draws out of it or out of thin air is not particularly relevant to the information I am citing. James White pegged it, "In any case, I think an ancient writer saw it much more clearly than Wright does: "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor. 15:14)." Before I had heard of this, I had already expressed some reservations about some statement of Wright, specifically he would not forthrightly say "Isaiah" when referring to the human author of the Biblical book bearing that name, but rather said "the author of Isaiah" as if there were some doubt it was Isaiah, despite the fact that Jesus unequivocably affirmed that it was. Second, there are statements that seem to indicate that he entertains the concept that Biblical writers changed their views which undercuts not only an inerrantist view, but even a meaningfully "inspired" view at all.

[dizzle]

and the Nicene Creed, or so he says

If he says he accepts the Nicene Creed he is lying. The Nicene Creed says:

He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.

Now unless we decide that authorial intent means nothing and that, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean what we say they mean, the authors of the Nicene Creed are here referring to Christ's physical resurrection. One is not free to redefine those words for a vacuous acceptance.

And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Ditto to this.

[dizzle]

BTw just incase some one doesnt know,,, there are no christians who dont believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ it is a contradiction in terms.

Amen.

[technomage]

BTw just incase some one doesnt know,,, there are no christians who dont believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ it is a contradiction in terms.
Nice to know Hitch thinks I'm going to hell. :ahem:

I don't know one way from another about the resurrection. Was it physical? Was it spiritual? I don't know.

That's part of the reason I would refuse to be a moderator here, if it were ever offered. I don't know if I'm "off the path," but I don't want to take the chance on leading anyone else off the path if I am.

[dizzle]

Nice to know Hitch thinks I'm going to hell. :ahem:

I don't know one way from another about the resurrection. Was it physical? Was it spiritual? I don't know.

That's part of the reason I would refuse to be a moderator here, if it were ever offered. I don't know if I'm "off the path," but I don't want to take the chance on leading anyone else off the path if I am.

I think these things can be discussed in candor and with maturity and I hope you take these comments as such. I leave you wide leeway on things like this as I see you as a baby Christian and there is room for growth. However, in time you must affirm the physical resurrection if you are going to make your calling and election sure. It is simply not optional. If I wouldn't tell you that to your face as it were, I would be no friend of yours.

[technomage]

I think these things can be discussed in candor and with maturity and I hope you take these comments as such.

My biggest problem with the tenor of Hitch's post is that--no matter how concerned he feels in his heart--it's going to come across as condescension. That's no way to persuade someone who has strayed of anything but that the people who oppose his views are arrogant.

One can be forthright without being arrogant, so one does not have to "chide" people into heaven. As a matter of fact, I've yet to see anyone who did so successfully.

I leave you wide leeway on things like this as I see you as a baby Christian and there is room for growth. However, in time you must affirm the physical resurrection if you are going to make your calling and election sure. It is simply not optional.

Dee Dee, I know God lives ... that's utterly beyond question in my mind and heart. I guess my biggest problem is that I have little confidence in the Bible. What makes it worse, the more I study the Bible, the less confidence I have.

[James Peter]

I guess my biggest problem is that I have little confidence in the Bible. What makes it worse, the more I study the Bible, the less confidence I have.

Don't worry you're not the only one. You'd expect the opposite to be true, I want the opposite to be true and yet reality just contradicts my expectations. Actually maybe you should worry, I know I find it very disturbing. I'm just not capable of lying to myself and persuading myself that the problems don't exist.

[dizzle]

ummm guys that is not really appropriate for this section - while we as site do not require inerrancy to post in the Christian areas (or even to be a moderator for that matter) but we do ask for respect of the Biblical authority - there are areas to discuss errantists views, but this really isn't it

Justin as you notice, I said my peace with you and let it be at that. In my understanding, that is the way one handles those still new in the faith - you notice that I don't get in your face often and don't push the issues but merely state the truth as I see it and leave the rest to God. I take the profession of new believers at face value - but I do urge you to understand that the physical resurrection is not a take it or leave it issue but is and has been considered to be a foundational cornerstone of the faith. It is part of the eucemenical creeds and historic confession of the Church.

I will not pursue you further on this issue, I am comfortable that as a friend, and I do consider you a friend, that I have declared the whole counsel of God. Please know that I am not speaking to you in arrogance or conceit, but I care about you. I may show it poorly or express myself poorly by that is my heart towards you.

[Aletheia]

Some 'friend'.


Hmmm oh gee well thats the edge of the Grad Canyon youre standing on,,,,but I wont hurt your feelings by saying anth,,,, oppps

How deep is this hole Mr Ranger Sir???

It's not like Borg doesn't know Wright's view. They wrote a book together. I'm pretty sure he had to know the opposing viewpoint in order to do his part. What is more, Wright himself, in the quote, says that he thinks his friend is muddled.

[technomage]

ummm guys that is not really appropriate for this section - while we as site do not require inerrancy to post in the Christian areas (or even to be a moderator for that matter) but we do ask for respect of the Biblical authority - there are areas to discuss errantists views, but this really isn't it

Justin as you notice, I said my peace with you and let it be at that. In my understanding, that is the way one handles those still new in the faith - you notice that I don't get in your face often and don't push the issues but merely state the truth as I see it and leave the rest to God. I take the profession of new believers at face value - but I do urge you to understand that the physical resurrection is not a take it or leave it issue but is and has been considered to be a foundational cornerstone of the faith. It is part of the eucemenical creeds and historic confession of the Church.

I will not pursue you further on this issue, I am comfortable that as a friend, and I do consider you a friend, that I have declared the whole counsel of God. Please know that I am not speaking to you in arrogance or conceit, but I care about you. I may show it poorly or express myself poorly by that is my heart towards you.
Sorry--I hadn't decided to go off on this tangent at all, much less in this thread. However ... I think this will be my last post in the "Christian only" sections of the forum. At least until I get this sorted out.

[dizzle]

And ummm.... so you coddle foundational heresy?

[dizzle]

Sorry--I hadn't decided to go off on this tangent at all, much less in this thread. However ... I think this will be my last post in the "Christian only" sections of the forum. At least until I get this sorted out.

No problem, and I hope you see my posts for the intent that is behind them and forgive any communication burrs.

I pray you do get it straightened out.

[Alien]

Dee Dee and Cup of Mystery, I cordially invite you to join me in my thread entitled Believe ... but how? in Unorthodox Theology 201.

(All other Christians welcome too.)

[Hitch]

Nice to know Hitch thinks I'm going to hell. :ahem:

I don't know one way from another about the resurrection. Was it physical? Was it spiritual? I don't know.

That's part of the reason I would refuse to be a moderator here, if it were ever offered. I don't know if I'm "off the path," but I don't want to take the chance on leading anyone else off the path if I am.You have read the Scripture that tells us what they found in the Tomb. You know the sory of Thomas. You've read many times our Lord's promise to raise up 'ThisTemple'.

Take a real close look this is very important.


Your friend

Hitch

[James Peter]

All I intended to do was encourage Cup that he wasn't alone in his 'problem'. No intention to sidetrack discussion onto that, simply a "yeah it sucks, if you come up with a good solution let me know..."

[dizzle]

That's fine JP, I was just commenting to have it end there, as other might have picked up that ball and ran with it.

[Ryokan]

It seems that Paul had a different opinion about those who deny the resurrection. I'll stick with Paul. The power of God to bring those to a knowledge of Christ and His essential work is not hindered by our cultural. What a reduction of the perspecuity of Scripture and the work of the Spirit. I think

Hitch has it spot on. One is no friend if one won't stand for the truth with one's friend.

I have noted this about Wright already and because I don't really care who I alienate since Wright is the sacred cow in some circles, and put a disclaimer in my praise of his historical work.

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenwright.html

Ironically the more conservative hyperpreterists will NOT listen to Wright's research on the resurrection because they see crap like that as a sell-out. So much for soft-peddling as effective for "reaching the unbeliever." Those fallen in heresy that have a desire to be biblical see through that as man-pleasing nonsense.

This is from the article above:

The Resurrection of the Son of God is a book that I am going through thoroughly now. I had read sections before in my research for "Grave" Heresy: Hyperpreterism and the Response of the Church and found it's dagger into the heart of hyperpreterism (which itself is a vampiric assault upon the heart of Christian faith) to be quite useful and edifying. Now since the time of my blog entries, I have had some inquiries regarding Wright's personal theology and have read some information from James White's blog dated 4/12/06 commenting on this article. If that article is accurate, and Wright is claiming that one can reject the bodily resurrection of Christ and still be considering a Christian - he is in that areaa, royally and utterly screwed up. I have no issue with saying that and still supporting his historical research - the personal theology he draws out of it or out of thin air is not particularly relevant to the information I am citing. James White pegged it, "In any case, I think an ancient writer saw it much more clearly than Wright does: "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor. 15:14)." Before I had heard of this, I had already expressed some reservations about some statement of Wright, specifically he would not forthrightly say "Isaiah" when referring to the human author of the Biblical book bearing that name, but rather said "the author of Isaiah" as if there were some doubt it was Isaiah, despite the fact that Jesus unequivocably affirmed that it was. Second, there are statements that seem to indicate that he entertains the concept that Biblical writers changed their views which undercuts not only an inerrantist view, but even a meaningfully "inspired" view at all.[/QUOTE]I am unsure. I have no problem condemning the view, but I do not pretend to know where God and Borg stand. Borg is not, i do not think, a herectic, because while he holds a heresy he honestly believes he doesn't, and does do his best to follow Christ. So..... :shrug: I am not wise enough to decide these things.

[dizzle]

The Corinthians honestly believed that there was no resurrection of the dead, and Paul said "if you believe that, you are dead in your sins." Someone who denies the work and role of Christ is not doing his best to follow Christ, in fact he is not following "Christ" at all but a figment of his own machinations.

Alien, I don't have time to do your thread justice I am afraid so I won't even start, it wouldn't be proper.

[Ryokan]

The Corinthians honestly believed that there was no resurrection of the dead, and Paul said "if you believe that, you are dead in your sins." Someone who denies the work and role of Christ is not doing his best to follow Christ, in fact he is not following "Christ" at all but a figment of his own machinations.

Alien, I don't have time to do your thread justice I am afraid so I won't even start, it wouldn't be proper.
Point worth noting, its the nature of the resurrection in question, not the fact itself, in question here.

[dizzle]

Actually I doubt that, the Corinthians didn't believe in a rez of believers at all. However, I do think it is applicable to the a nature issue, and that simply strengthens the case in that Paul roundly condemned an error as to a nature. That comment doesn't deal with the issue that Paul did make the belief about the resurrection salvational, it is inextricably bound up on a belief about Christ.

[Jezz]

If he says he accepts the Nicene Creed he is lying. The Nicene Creed says:

He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.

Now unless we decide that authorial intent means nothing and that, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean what we say they mean, the authors of the Nicene Creed are here referring to Christ's physical resurrection. One is not free to redefine those words for a vacuous acceptance.

And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Ditto to this.
And likewise, the Creed also says: "And we trust one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". Unless you decide that authorial intent means nothing and that, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean what we say they mean, the authors of the Nicene Creed are here referring to the Holy Catholic Church. Once is not free to redefine those words for a vacuous acceptance.

The fact is that almost all Protestants engage in the ecclesiological equivalent of docetism/gnosticism/hyperpreterism - they de-incarnate and intellecutalise the Church in the same way that the gnostics de-incarnate and intellectualise Christ's incarnation. The heresy is no less serious, because the Church is the body of Christ.

So, let's be very careful about who we go around condeming for <heresy X>... lest we be judged for our own heresies in the same way that we have judged others for theirs...

That being said, I of course agree that denial of the bodily resurrection is a heresy... but I refuse to condemn everyone that denies it.

[Ryokan]

That being said, I of course agree that denial of the bodily resurrection is a heresy... but I refuse to condemn everyone that denies it.
This seems to be the pivotal point. What is the appropriate response to heresy? Maybe it would be a new and better thread.

[Ryokan]

Actually I doubt that, the Corinthians didn't believe in a rez of believers at all. However, I do think it is applicable to the a nature issue, and that simply strengthens the case in that Paul roundly condemned an error as to a nature. That comment doesn't deal with the issue that Paul did make the belief about the resurrection salvational, it is inextricably bound up on a belief about Christ.I was talking now. The Corinthians were even more mixed up.

[dizzle]

And likewise, the Creed also says: "And we trust one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". Unless you decide that authorial intent means nothing and that, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean what we say they mean, the authors of the Nicene Creed are here referring to the Holy Catholic Church. Once is not free to redefine those words for a vacuous acceptance.

The fact is that almost all Protestants engage in the ecclesiological equivalent of docetism/gnosticism/hyperpreterism - they de-incarnate and intellecutalise the Church in the same way that the gnostics de-incarnate and intellectualise Christ's incarnation. The heresy is no less serious, because the Church is the body of Christ.

And I understnad that is your position, and I would state that the Reformers heartily disagreed - however that would be a different point, and I would agree with you that if you are correct, that would be a very serious heresy no doubt. I don't deny that.


So, let's be very careful about who we go around condeming for <heresy X>... lest we be judged for our own heresies in the same way that we have judged others for theirs...

Actually I think we need to both condemn and examine. I don't shy away from condeming obvious heresy for in so doing I examine myself for same. We don't wink at sin because we are sinners.

I will say, however, that I will qualify my statement at this point to say that I am speaking from a Protestant background and presuming protestantism in my readers. IOW, I really don't care to turn this, as nonProtestants are wont to do at many opportunities, to a debate about the validity of Protestantism. I readily concede to you the heretical nature of Protestantism if your above point is correct and from the perspective of the Orthodox (IOW coming from your paradigm it would be tantamount to a denial of Christ - no argument from me there - I understand that, and don't try to wiggle out of it or expect you to water down your view and paradigm) On that note, I doubt that this thread was intended to go in that direction, and you get no debate from me as from your perspective you are perfectly legitimate in equating the two. However, I think there is a good argument to be made that you are not particularly correct on that point. The Reformers, who didn't abandon the Creeds, certainly thought so, and there is a tremendous category here in that the denial of bodily resurrection was specifically already dealt with and anticipated in the Creedal statements.


That being said, I of course agree that denial of the bodily resurrection is a heresy... but I refuse to condemn everyone that denies it.

And you would part company with Paul as stated above. Not all heresies are condemnable in the light that I am. In fact, there are multiple "heresies" in this forum that I refuse to "condemn" and they exist even in staff. There has to be strong Biblical warrant to do so, and there really are just a few for which such a case can be made. I am articulating Biblical warrant for it. And BTW (though the Orthodox do not accept the Athanasian Creeed) - Protestants do, and there is express Creedal warrant for it.

PS: Ironically in refusing to condemn same, I would say you are parting company as well with the Church and the Fathers for which your tradition places a greater weight than I do. They didn't hesitate to condemn gnostic views of the resurrection. Shrug. Coming from your perspective and tradition, I think I am more justified in evaluating your reticence in the light the lack of reticence of the Fathers.

For example Justin Martyr:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this (truth), and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians

Irenaues:

The Church, through scattered through the whole world to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their diciples the faith in one God... and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation;... and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily assumption into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His appearing fromn heaven in the glory of the Father, to comprehend all things under one head, and to raise up all flesh of all mankind."

And the examples could be multiplied.

So let's grant for sake of argument that you are correct on the issue of the Church - it means a hill of beans to the correctness of my point. I could be vacuously (which I deny) redefining every single thing BUT the resurrection and still have my POINT correct that Borg and the like are doing so with the resurrection. I could be hopelessly embroiled in vile heresy and STILL be right that Borg is as well. Attacking an alleged inconsistency that you think I have merely proves (or attempts to prove) that I am inconsistent. It says nothing about the point of this thread. And I grant your point - if you are correct, I am a heretic, I don't carve out special exemptions for myself.

[dizzle]

I was talking now. The Corinthians were even more mixed up.

Actually they weren't - they even confessed the bodily resurrection of Christ which Paul said wasn't even. They were LESS messed up. Borg follows through with the denial that Paul said was the logical outcome of the Corinthians' lesser denial.

[dizzle]

This seems to be the pivotal point. What is the appropriate response to heresy? Maybe it would be a new and better thread.

It depends on the heresy. The Bible gives specific warrant for the handling of certain ones both explicitly and implicitly.

[Jezz]

This seems to be the pivotal point. What is the appropriate response to heresy? Maybe it would be a new and better thread.
A new thread might be good for an in-depth analysis. In summary, I think the rough answer to your question is:

1. Correct them once, twice, three times - but after that, "anathema" (which means "don't touch them with a 40 foot pole", rather than "you are condemned").
2. Let God judge those who are outside the Church. If St Paul didn't think that he had and business judging someone outside the Church then I certainly don't (1 Cor 5:12-13).

[dizzle]

A new thread might be good for an in-depth analysis. In summary, I think the rough answer to your question is:

1. Correct them once, twice, three times - but after that, "anathema" (which means "don't touch them with a 40 foot pole", rather than "you are condemned").

and I think we are operating on differing uses in this thread and even from the same persons on the meaning of "condemned" which has been taken in this thread to be equivalent of "not a Christian"


2. Let God judge those who are outside the Church. If St Paul didn't think that he had and business judging someone outside the Church then I certainly don't (1 Cor 5:12-13).

You must first judge them outside the Church. And that is pretty much the meaning of condemned that is being used in this thread (the context of the OP was that Wright considered Borg a "Christian" - now you might state that a person can be a Christian and not be in the Church - I find that nonsensical and I don't think most people who would be participating in this particular thread would share that). I have no problem however for the sake of discussion to say that one cannot deny the physical resurrection and be in the Church. You might say I cannot deny the Orthodox authority and be in the Church - that is fine, I concede that is perfectly consistent in your paradigm. That doesn't deal with the questoin of denying the physical resurrection which is the issue.

[Jezz]

And I understnad that is your position, and I would state that the Reformers heartily disagreed - however that would be a different point, and I would agree with you that if you are correct, that could be a very serious heresy no doubt. I don't deny that.
Of course the Reformers heartily disagreed. So did Hymenaeus! So does Borg!

Actually I think we need to both condemn and examine. I don't shy away from condeming obvious heresy for in so doing I examine myself for same. We don't wink at sin because we are sinners.

I will say, however, that I will qualify my statement at this point to say that I am speaking from a Protestant background and presuming protestantism in my readers. IOW, I really don't care to turn this, as nonProtestants are wont to do at many opportunities, to a debate about the validity of Protestantism. I readily concede to you the heretical nature of Protestantism if your above point is correct and from the perspective of the Orthodox (IOW coming from your paradigm it would be tantamount to a denial of Christ - no argument from me there - I understand that, and don't try to wiggle out of it or expect you to water down your view and paradigm) On that note, I doubt that this thread was intended to go in that direction, and you get no debate from me as from your perspective you are perfectly legitimate in equating the two. However, I think there is a good argument to be made that you are not particularly correct on that point. The Reformers, who didn't abandon the Creeds, certainly thought so, and there is a tremendous category here in that the denial of bodily resurrection was specifically already dealt with and anticipated in the Creedal statements.
Just two brief points, because I realise that this is off-topic.

Denial of the authority of the Church was also anticipated and dealt with in the Creed of Constantinople. Why do you think they added the clause? Between the time of Arius and the 2nd Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople, dozens of new heretical groups had sprung up, starting their own "Christian" churches and parallel hierarchies. Those that the 2nd Synod named include: Pneumatomachoi, Semiarians, Arians, Anomeans, Eunomians, Eudoxians, Apollinarians, Marcellians, Sabellians and Photinians. The addition of the phrase "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" was a direct rebuttal to all of these numerous breakaway groups.

And for my other point: like the Reformers, Marcus Borg hasn't abandonded the Creed (at least, I don't think he has). He has simply reinterpreted certain bits of it.

And you would part company with Paul as stated above.
No. St Paul condemned their heresy, excommunicated them, and told the faithful not to follow them. But he explicitly stated that it was not his role to judge those outside the Church.

Not all heresies are condemnable in the light that I am. In fact, there are multiple "heresies" in this forum that I refuse to "condemn" and they exist even in staff. There has to be strong Biblical warrant to do so, and there really are just a few for which such a case can be made. I am articulating Biblical warrant for it. And BTW (though the Orthodox do not accept the Athanasian Creeed) - Protestants do, and there is express Creedal warrant for it.
We would only expect to see explicit Biblical warrant for heresies that arose during Biblical times. I find it unlikely that the worst heresies could have arisen in this time only. If we take your criteria as a guideline, it would lead to the odd situation where even worse heresies draw no condemnation because there is no Biblical warrant.

PS: Ironically in refusing to condemn same, I would say you are parting company as well with the Church and the Fathers for which your tradition places a greater weight than I do. They didn't hesitate to condemn gnostic views of the resurrection. Shrug.
I do condemn the heresy, as the Fathers did. But I don't condemn people. If St Paul were alive today, what would he say? "Do not follow Marcus, because his vain babblings spread like cancer." He would condemn what Borg was teaching - he wouldn't condemn Borg.

Coming from your perspective and tradition, I think I am more justified in evaluating your reticence in the light the lack of reticence of the Fathers.

For example Justin Martyr:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this (truth), and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians

Irenaues:

The Church, through scattered through the whole world to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their diciples the faith in one God... and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation;... and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily assumption into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His appearing fromn heaven in the glory of the Father, to comprehend all things under one head, and to raise up all flesh of all mankind."
Both of whom condemn the heresies, not the people.

And the examples could be multiplied.
And they would, like the examples you gave, condemn the heresy more so than the heretic.

So let's grant for sake of argument that you are correct on the issue of the Church - it means a hill of beans to the correctness of my point. I could be vacuously (which I deny) redefining every single thing BUT the resurrection and still have my POINT correct that Borg and the like are doing so with the resurrection. I could be hopelessly embroiled in vile heresy and STILL be right that Borg is as well. Attacking an alleged inconsistency that you think I have merely proves (or attempts to prove) that I am inconsistent. It says nothing about the point of this thread.
Yes, I agree.

[dizzle]

Of course the Reformers heartily disagreed. So did Hymenaeus! So does Borg!

Kind of hard for Hymenaeas to disagree with a Creed that didn't exist yet... anyhows.... I bet that Borg admits he denies the resurrectoin mentioned in the creed. Most hyperpreterists admit it. Interesting that you would support a redefinition as not being a denial.


Just two brief points, because I realise that this is off-topic.

Denial of the authority of the Church was also anticipated and dealt with in the Creed of Constantinople. Why do you think they added the clause? Between the time of Arius and the 2nd Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople, dozens of new heretical groups had sprung up, starting their own "Christian" churches and parallel hierarchies. Those that the 2nd Synod named include: Pneumatomachoi, Semiarians, Arians, Anomeans, Eunomians, Eudoxians, Apollinarians, Marcellians, Sabellians and Photinians. The addition of the phrase "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" was a direct rebuttal to all of these numerous breakaway groups.

You may have the last word on that - it is irrelevant to the point of this thread. I disagree with your position on that (and I wasn't referring to that particular Creed) but I am not dragging this thread further off topic. Let's grant your point as true for the sake of argument - irrelevant to the point here unless you have a purpose to show I am inconsistent. Shrug. Irrelevant to whether I am right here.


And for my other point: like the Reformers, Marcus Borg hasn't abandonded the Creed (at least, I don't think he has). He has simply reinterpreted certain bits of it.

Then if I say my doberman is Christ I haven't denied Christ. Merely reinterpreted bits of Him. That is an untenable position and I bet that Borg admits he has abandoned that portion of the Creed. The hyperpreterists admit it.


No. St Paul condemned their heresy, excommunicated them, and told the faithful not to follow them. But he explicitly stated that it was not his role to judge those outside the Church.

He judged THEM outside the Church Jezz, give me a break. If he didn't he could say he wasn't judging those outside the church (further I am stating on the record I disagree with your interpretation of that verse, but it doesn't matter because I can grant your interpreation for the sake of argument and the point remains).


We would only expect to see explicit Biblical warrant for heresies that arose during Biblical times. I find it unlikely that the worst heresies could have arisen in this time only. If we take your criteria as a guideline, it would lead to the odd situation where even worse heresies draw no condemnation because there is no Biblical warrant.

I think the parameters for the worst heresies are found implicitly in those texts in the Bible. So I stand by the fact of having Biblical warrant. And of course irrelevant here since there is Biblical warrant.


I do condemn the heresy, as the Fathers did. But I don't condemn people. If St Paul were alive today, what would he say? "Do not follow Marcus, because his vain babblings spread like cancer." He would condemn what Borg was teaching - he wouldn't condemn Borg.

He would judge him outside the church. HIM. But I think you are splitting a hair that doesn't exist in this thread. I am not saying anything different than you ultimately though I think your radical disjunction between a person and his beliefs is unbiblical (as a man thinks so he is). I find that a peculariarly modern distinction (and Justin judged the people in the exact way that Wright should judge Borg - not a Christian - Justin did not say, not a Christian doctrine)


Both of whom condemn the heresies, not the people.

As do I (Biblically qualified)


And they would, like the examples you gave, condemn the heresy more so than the heretic.

As do I. If I was unclear before, hopefully I have clear that up.

[Jeannot]

It seems that Paul had a different opinion about those who deny the resurrection. I'll stick with Paul. The power of God to bring those to a knowledge of Christ and His essential work is not hindered by our cultural. What a reduction of the perspecuity of Scripture and the work of the Spirit.

Hitch has it spot on. One is no friend if one won't stand for the truth with one's friend.

I have noted this about Wright already and because I don't really care who I alienate since Wright is the sacred cow in some circles, and put a disclaimer in my praise of his historical work.

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenwright.html

Ironically the more conservative hyperpreterists will NOT listen to Wright's research on the resurrection because they see crap like that as a sell-out. So much for soft-peddling as effective for "reaching the unbeliever." Those fallen in heresy that have a desire to be biblical see through that as man-pleasing nonsense.

This is from the article above:

The Resurrection of the Son of God is a book that I am going through thoroughly now. I had read sections before in my research for "Grave" Heresy: Hyperpreterism and the Response of the Church and found it's dagger into the heart of hyperpreterism (which itself is a vampiric assault upon the heart of Christian faith) to be quite useful and edifying. Now since the time of my blog entries, I have had some inquiries regarding Wright's personal theology and have read some information from James White's blog dated 4/12/06 commenting on this article. If that article is accurate, and Wright is claiming that one can reject the bodily resurrection of Christ and still be considering a Christian - he is in that areaa, royally and utterly screwed up. I have no issue with saying that and still supporting his historical research - the personal theology he draws out of it or out of thin air is not particularly relevant to the information I am citing. James White pegged it, "In any case, I think an ancient writer saw it much more clearly than Wright does: "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor. 15:14)." Before I had heard of this, I had already expressed some reservations about some statement of Wright, specifically he would not forthrightly say "Isaiah" when referring to the human author of the Biblical book bearing that name, but rather said "the author of Isaiah" as if there were some doubt it was Isaiah, despite the fact that Jesus unequivocably affirmed that it was. Second, there are statements that seem to indicate that he entertains the concept that Biblical writers changed their views which undercuts not only an inerrantist view, but even a meaningfully "inspired" view at all.
Certainly, Paul believed in the Resurrection, not only that of Jesus, but our own as well. Of course, as a Pharisee, he had already believe in the resurrection of the dead. But now he sees Jesus as the "first born of the dead," that is, beginning and warranting our own resurrection. This, in fact, is the keystone of his faith.

However, we're on some shaky ground when we ask, What did Paul mean by the Resurrection? His experience on the road to Damascus would not seem to warrant a bodily resurrection, since he says repeatedly that all he saw was a (literally) blinding light, which those with him did not see. And of course, he heard a voice, and he knew it was the voice of Jesus.

But the point is--no body.

[Alien]

Alien, I don't have time to do your thread justice I am afraid so I won't even start, it wouldn't be proper.

OK, thanks anyway.

[A Cup of No]

Certainly, Paul believed in the Resurrection, not only that of Jesus, but our own as well. Of course, as a Pharisee, he had already believe in the resurrection of the dead. But now he sees Jesus as the "first born of the dead," that is, beginning and warranting our own resurrection. This, in fact, is the keystone of his faith.

However, we're on some shaky ground when we ask, What did Paul mean by the Resurrection? His experience on the road to Damascus would not seem to warrant a bodily resurrection, since he says repeatedly that all he saw was a (literally) blinding light, which those with him did not see. And of course, he heard a voice, and he knew it was the voice of Jesus.

But the point is--no body.

Jeannot, I noticed you mention something similar to this in another thread, and I decided to address it in this one. Just a few points:

1) A "resurrection" without a body is a contradiction of terms in Second Temple Jewish thought, especially Pharisaic thought! You admit that Paul was a Pharisee. Such believed in the end-time resurrection of all Israel, and perhaps the entire world for judgment. If Christ was the "first-born of the dead" for Paul, then he is the firstborn of a resurrection which involved human bodies. On this Paul is easy to plot on the Jewish thought board.

2) The fact that Christ himself did not appear to Saul on the Damascus Road cannot prove what you are trying to make it prove - that to Paul Jesus was certainly alive, but with no body. Because he chose to reveal himself in this way does not preclude that he did not have a body which he revealed to the other disicples (John 21).

3) Remember Paul's preaching on Aeropagus (Acts 17) - he told them of the resurrection and they scoffed! If he were preaching what you say he believed, a "resurrection" with no body, they would not have scoffed, for their belief spectrum on the afterlife was incredibly wide, and a disembodied savior would fit right in. But the idea of a re-embodied dead person would certainly not fit on the Greco-Roman spectrum of afterlife beliefs, at least not from any evidence we currently have. The idea of re-embodiment was a Jewish curiosity and anomaly, and you must keep that in mind when reading Paul's statements about God's raising Jesus from the dead.

[Berean Todd]

I seriously disagree with both NT Wright and any of those defending his position that Borg can be considered a Christian. One can like the moral teachings of Christ, and can claim the title of Christian of themselves all that they want, but Christianity is allready clearly defined. Let's look at a passage of Scripture.

1 Cor 15: 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

Ok, so we are about to hear Paul's view of the gospel, he is goign to 'declare it' to us again. Let's pay attention to what he, with apostolic authority, and led by the Holy Spirit in writting this letter, has to say.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received:

Moreover, this is the Gospel that He himself received ...

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

So now, the message of the apostles (notice vs 11 - the message of not just Paul but the other apostles and witnesses) is of the bodily ressurrection of Christ. Notice also that he is claiming specific people, who remained alive to that day, so that someone reading this letter could go seek them out for confirmation. The ressurrection was the core of the apostolic teaching.

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.

Again Paul stresses the truth of the resurrection, but pay attention to the point he is about to go into ...

14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

If Christ is not risen, then our faith, is in vain, we have no hope, and we are more pitiable than anyone. That is the teaching of Paul. Now you can, like Borg, try and espouse morals, and try to claim to love Jesus, but if you deny the clear statements of Christ and the apostles, then you are not a Christian. Just look back at Romans:

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Borg denies the all important second part of that statement, and if he truly does not believe and is not trusting in the raised Jesus Christ then the man is plain and simply not a Christian, and nor is anyone else who denies the resurrection.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Point worth noting, its the nature of the resurrection in question, not the fact itself, in question here.

uh, hmmmm.. er...

If a "resurrection" is not physical, it isn't a resurrection, is it?

"Spiritual resurrection" is an oxymoron. If you die and become a spirit, then that is just what we Christians call everyday normal "dead" - to be "resurrected" you have to be brought back to life, in a physical BODY.

Anything less is just being dead.

[Ryokan]

It really depends on how Borg concieves of it. But I am not Borg or his acolyte. Nor am I the arbiter of the somewhat vague phrase "Christian".

[Jeannot]

Jeannot, I noticed you mention something similar to this in another thread, and I decided to address it in this one. Just a few points:

1) A "resurrection" without a body is a contradiction of terms in Second Temple Jewish thought, especially Pharisaic thought! You admit that Paul was a Pharisee. Such believed in the end-time resurrection of all Israel, and perhaps the entire world for judgment. If Christ was the "first-born of the dead" for Paul, then he is the firstborn of a resurrection which involved human bodies. On this Paul is easy to plot on the Jewish thought board.

2) The fact that Christ himself did not appear to Saul on the Damascus Road cannot prove what you are trying to make it prove - that to Paul Jesus was certainly alive, but with no body. Because he chose to reveal himself in this way does not preclude that he did not have a body which he revealed to the other disicples (John 21).

3) Remember Paul's preaching on Aeropagus (Acts 17) - he told them of the resurrection and they scoffed! If he were preaching what you say he believed, a "resurrection" with no body, they would not have scoffed, for their belief spectrum on the afterlife was incredibly wide, and a disembodied savior would fit right in. But the idea of a re-embodied dead person would certainly not fit on the Greco-Roman spectrum of afterlife beliefs, at least not from any evidence we currently have. The idea of re-embodiment was a Jewish curiosity and anomaly, and you must keep that in mind when reading Paul's statements about God's raising Jesus from the dead.
You make some good points. I would just add that when Paul describes the resurrection body, he speaks of it being unlike our present bodies, as a flower is different from the seed.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

You make some good points. I would just add that when Paul describes the resurrection body, he speaks of it being unlike our present bodies, as a flower is different from the seed.

But a flower is still as physical as the seed it came from. When Paul speaks of the resurrection body being 'spiritual' he is speaking as to the character not substance of the body. If I say, "Billy Graham is a spiritual man and Hugh Hefner is a carnal man," you will get the idea. I am not saying Billy Graham is a ghost.

Jesus himself wanted to make it very clear that his body was physical and not a spirit. He had them touch him and even ate in their presence.

Luke 24:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=24&verse=39&version=31&context=verse)
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."

[A Cup of No]

You make some good points. I would just add that when Paul describes the resurrection body, he speaks of it being unlike our present bodies, as a flower is different from the seed.

Yes, Paul in that passage is stressing both the continuity and discontinuity between our current mortal bodies and the resurrection bodies.

[Hitch]

uh, hmmmm.. er...

If a "resurrection" is not physical, it isn't a resurrection, is it?

"Spiritual resurrection" is an oxymoron. If you die and become a spirit, then that is just what we Christians call everyday normal "dead" - to be "resurrected" you have to be brought back to life, in a physical BODY.

Anything less is just being dead.Jesus spoke of both spiritual and physical resurrection;


24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.



This passage may be the reason John takes pains to qualifiy the 'First Resurrection' in R20. To make 24 a physical reality seriously strains the wording. No such trouble is found in 28.

Take care

H

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Jesus spoke of both spiritual and physical resurrection;


24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.


That's not a spiritual resurrection but a spiritual rebirth. When we become Christians we are reborn, not resurrected. We are born again.

26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.



That is speaking of the physical resurrection.


This passage may be the reason John takes pains to qualifiy the 'First Resurrection' in R20. To make 24 a physical reality seriously strains the wording. No such trouble is found in 28.


The first resurrection is the resurrection of the saved until eternal life. It is a physical resurrection.

You seem to be mixing different parts all up together here.

Basically Jesus is saying that when we believe we get eternal life. Even though we may experience a physical death, we will still have eternal life and will be PHYSICALLY resurrected one day. There is no spiritual "resurrection."

[A Cup of No]

Basically Jesus is saying that when we believe we get eternal life. Even though we may experience a physical death, we will still have eternal life and will be PHYSICALLY resurrected one day. There is no spiritual "resurrection."

I know Hitch agrees that we will be physically resurrected one day. I think he was just trying to show Jeannot that Jesus definitely taught a physical resurrection, but also taught that through his work people were being spiritually resurrected in the present (call this rebirth, regeneration, whatever you'd like). This is why Jesus says that whoever believes in him has passed from *death to life.* He is using resurrection imagery for the initial act of salvation. It's just a metaphor, just like the rebirth. Obviously Jesus taught more than a spiritual resurrection occuring within those who believed in his message and work. He taught in a future bodily resurrection.

He did this by showing the contrast between the resurrection Jesus called "now is" (spiritual), and the resurrection that Jesus said was "to come" (physical). So I think hitch is definitely right on this point.

I think we've succeeded in derailing this thread.

[Hitch]

The first resurrection is the resurrection of the saved until eternal life. It is a physical resurrection.

You seem to be mixing different parts all up together here.

Basically Jesus is saying that when we believe we get eternal life. Even though we may experience a physical death, we will still have eternal life and will be PHYSICALLY resurrected one day. There is no spiritual "resurrection."



24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. As O 13 has pointed out and you agreee,Jesus is speaking here of spiritual regeneration,,, the born-gain experience, and He chose the imagery of passing from death unto life. All believers must take part in this. This is our entry into the royal priesthood and our security from the Second Death. Paul too speaks of us as being formerly dead and now alive in Christ. Every believer must be raised spiritually yet not every believer will be raised physically and this makes a great deal of difference. The spiritual is first in order and importance.

In the second part of the quote Jesus tells of an 'hour' when all who are in the graves, the good and the evil , will respond to His call. This is a single event and closes history as Jesus says in chapter 6 the resurrection comes at the last day.Just as we are not frre to dedny the resurrection of the body we are niether free to add resurrections to the Scriptures.


Take care

H

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. As O 13 has pointed out and you agreee,Jesus is speaking here of spiritual regeneration,,, the born-gain experience, and He chose the imagery of passing from death unto life. All believers must take part in this. This is our entry into the royal priesthood and our security from the Second Death. Paul too speaks of us as being formerly dead and now alive in Christ. Every believer must be raised spiritually yet not every believer will be raised physically and this makes a great deal of difference. The spiritual is first in order and importance.

In the second part of the quote Jesus tells of an 'hour' when all who are in the graves, the good and the evil , will respond to His call. This is a single event and closes history as Jesus says in chapter 6 the resurrection comes at the last day.Just as we are not frre to dedny the resurrection of the body we are niether free to add resurrections to the Scriptures.


Take care

H

Ah sorry, I thought you were arguing that there really WAS a spiritual resurrection. my bad.

[dizzle]

It is funny considering this that Wright made the claim in my signature line:

You may be allowed to eat meat offered to idols, but you cannot deny the future bodily resurrection and claim that denial as an allowable Christian option.