Discuss Theology

I have been re-reading Luther on Galatians.  I read this the other day as he comments on 2:20:

“Faith also must be purely taught:namely, that you are so entirely joined to Christ, that he and you are made as it were one person; so that you may boldly say, I am now one with Christ, that is to say, Christ’s righteousness victory and life are mine.  And again Christ may say, I am that sinner, that is his sins and his death are Mine, because he is united and joined unto Me, and I to him.”

A good friend sent me this link.  This reminds me of my undergrad days studying under post-bultmannians.

Resurrection not essential? (More of Those Wacky Academics!)

by Dan Phillips

Remember the lively discussion we had about whether being able to wave around a doctoral sheepskin entitles one to a “pass” from the First and Second great commandments? (I argued for the “No” position.)

Today, I’m really wondering how those leaning in the opposite direction will, mm, “explain” the latest emulation from everyone’s favorite oil-and-water man, the Bishop of Durham, the Right Hon. Rev. Dr. Nicholas T. Wright.

Offered yet another opportunity to sound the trumpet with a clear and hard-hitting witness to the waiting world, here’s what Wright told The Australian (h-t James White), emphases and bracketed comments added:

“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. [My advice: don't even try to make sense of those two statements. That way lies madness.] The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection. [In other words, Jesus and Paul were both wrong: some folks really do have a legitimate pretext for unbelief (John 9:41; 15:22-24; Romans 1:20; 3:19).]

“I actually think that’s a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don’t want to say he isn’t a Christian. [Well, I guess if you don't want to say something, and you're an academic, you don't have to... is that it?]

“I do think, however, that churches that lose their grip on the bodily resurrection are in deep trouble and that for healthy Christian life individually and corporately, belief in the bodily resurrection is foundational.” [But they can still love Jesus and believe passionately in Him... while calling Him a liar about arguably the central vindicating event of His earthly ministry.]

With our other recent discussion of Dynamic Equivalent versions fresh in my mind, I guess I have to allow that perhaps the good Bishop is reading out of a DE version of 1 Corinthians 15:14 that reads, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is not as helpful as it might be, but still healthy and foundational; and your faith is in deep trouble, though you can still love Jesus and believe in Him passionately.” Perhaps it also re-envisions verse 17 as really meaning, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith may still be passionate, and you can stop worrying about your sins.”

One must seriously ask the question: if Wright has a view of Christianity that pencils in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an optional add-on, and embraces Marcus Borg as a “passionate” lover of Jesus… can there possibly be any doctrine that isn’t optional?

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/04/resurrection-not-essential-more-of.html

barak, barak obama, christian, church, fair and balanced, fox news, hannity, hannity and colmes, muslim, obama, Religion, United StatesVideo of Hannity and Colmes trying to assert that Obamas church is part of a black separatist movement.
Result? Hannity simply doesn’t understand liberation theology.

Barack Obama thanked God when he announced for president. Last night we learned that his God is the Black Theologian, James Cone’s “god”. He is the “god of the oppressed” be that latin, asian, indian or black. There is a distinct racist overtone in this theology, for which, Obama will publicly need to respond. That is informative and troubling. Informative because we know where Obama and his church stand on issues of historic Christian orthodoxy, troubling because he is so persuasive and charismatic in his demeanor. Watch as evangelicaldom in its short-sightedness relative to history of theology issues evaluates [and probably patronizes] him. I personally heard Cone in the ’70′s and read his stuff–Martin Luther, John Wesley and John Calvin–he ain’t.