tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post4713789479519152071..comments2023-10-25T09:45:40.318-04:00Comments on The Politics of the Cross Resurrected: Walter Wink, the Powers and the Mission of the ChurchCraig Carterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-40306511762712227982009-03-26T17:32:00.000-04:002009-03-26T17:32:00.000-04:00Thanks Craig for these clarifications:(1) I would ...Thanks Craig for these clarifications:<BR/><BR/>(1) I would agree that angels don't have bodies like us, but it seems to me that they have a body of some sort: as Paul says, "There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." It seems to me that angels have celestial bodies as we will in the resurrection. I've studied the earliest martyrological tradition in which several texts show the martyr becoming like angels, probably following Jesus (Luke 20.36) who says that we will be ἰσάγγελοι (equal to angels) in the Resurrection. Therefore, I think that angels have spiritual bodies, and that it would be unbiblical to think that they are incorporeal. This is not merely a nitpicky distinction because the gnostics often denied the resurrection of the flesh/body. If we allow that angels are bodiless (e.g., Philo Sacr. Abel 5), we are embracing a Greek notion of the afterlife; wasn't Aquinas heavily influenced by Greek thought?<BR/><BR/>(2)I completely agree. I find for example that monarchy is often less structurally flawed than dictatorship; for the assumption was that the king's powers were not based on the usurpation of power through naked ambition but that they were derived from God. This is far less dangerous because it means that kings were answerable to someone.Peter W. Dunnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07160703257731149376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-5246235775706954192009-03-26T16:48:00.000-04:002009-03-26T16:48:00.000-04:00Peter,(1) This is the view of Thomas Aquinas (ST P...Peter,<BR/>(1) This is the view of Thomas Aquinas (ST Pt. I, Q. 50) and most of the Christian tradition. <BR/><BR/>Angels can temporarily assume a human form (i.e. appear to us as if in a human body) and do so many times in Scripture. However they are not corporeal beings like us in their essential nature.<BR/><BR/>(2) Democracy is indeed not necessarily bad. Whether it is or not depends on whether the people and government acknowledge God, the moral order and the need to base laws on that moral order. Without this acknowledgement democracy itself is utterly worthless; Hitler was democratically elected. Same-sex marriage was democratically enacted in Canada. The underlying issue is the basing of democracy on theoretical liberalism, the doctrine that true freedom is freedom from constraint. Western democracy is secular and based on liberalism and therefore issues in the culture of death. <BR/><BR/>As to whether it is the least bad of all possible systems, I think that is an historical and cultural question. Monarchy may well be a superior system in many times and places. It all depends. <BR/><BR/>A moral and religious people may govern themselves well through democracy, but as morality and religion decline democracy easily becomes demonic.Craig Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-53474688937915881912009-03-26T16:22:00.000-04:002009-03-26T16:22:00.000-04:00Craig:I appreciate your taking the time to express...Craig:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your taking the time to express this summary with your critique of Wink. I am mostly sympathetic and find it helpful. A couple of questions/comments:<BR/><BR/>(1) "An angel is a rational intelligence without a physical body." Is this your view or are you still summarizing Wink? Because I don't think it is biblical to say that angels do not have a physical body.<BR/><BR/>(2) "I view Democracy and Liberalism as a modern rebellion against God and as heresies." Democracy as a form of government is not necessarily rebellion against God, is it? I mean humans must have some form of government, right? If a democracy were to align itself with rule of God (you mention this), how is that any less praiseworthy than when Josiah made similar reforms. Wouldn't it be true that all forms of human government, whether democracy, oligarchy, republican, monarchy, or dictatorship, have the potential for good, and all have the potential for evil? I think it is possible to reform human government, otherwise the prophetic writings of the Old Testament wouldn't praise certain kings of Judah and Israel and denounce others. I believe, however, certain forms of government would seem to have a greater structural tendency towards evil: dictatorship in particular, where a man sets himself as the final arbiter of everything. So do you believe that democracies have a greater structural tendency for rebellion against God than other forms of human government? I have always felt that the separation of powers built into the US constitution tends to lessen evil; take for example today's situation where a president wants to institute unprecedented government spending and assumption of power over the private sector; the people of the US have the power to change that in 2 years by handing the House over to the opposition party. This would greatly reduce the evil that the president alone can do because all appropriations bills must start in the House. All this to say, that some forms of democratic government seem to me to be able slow the forward advance of Satan's agenda (it admittedly has also the inertial effect of slowing any agenda whatsoever).Peter W. Dunnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07160703257731149376noreply@blogger.com