Firstly, on ii, Jesus himself says it’s not everyone who calls him Lord who is saved, but those who pursue the Father’s will. I agree that all this ‘personal’ language is an import from Modern philosophy, and profoundly unScriptural.

On iii, I’m pretty sure that St Paul would also say no (1 Cor 15) – the whole point is that Christ has passed through death, not that death is an illusion (“exact same body”). Dear oh dear.

And oh yes, the easy way to think about Donatism is to describe it as the ‘pure church heresy’ – ie one where the wheat and the tares have been separated, contrary to Scripture (Mt 13.29-30).

Seems to me that the root problem in all this is around authority, ie the widespread acceptance of the cultural idol of personal autonomy – no sense that obedience is something mandated from Scripture, and that God might just be big enough to cope with the errors that might follow from that.

Loved Tom Wright’s response BTW.

There is a divide so wide between liberal/revisionists and conservative/traditionalists that I think it cannot be united.

It is, good, then, that there is to be a split – recognising that what we have here are two utterly different world views.

If you and people like you insist others can’t be part of the Church unless they agree with your beliefs then you are the ones pushing the church apart.

Also, the third point (about the “exact same body”) has nothing to do with traditional Christianity. Indeed, the orthodox position has always been that the resurrection body was not exactly the same as His previous one. Yes, it was the same body that rose as was killed, but it was changed into something more glorious. It was the same, but not exactly the same. An insistence on an exact correspondence is mistaken. (This is similar to the odd insertion of the language of percentages into the discussion of hypostatic union, because the mathematical language makes it nonsensical. How can one entity be 200% of anything? The normal formulations are better by far than this. “Fully God and fully Man” doesn’t mean the same thing as “100% divine and 100% human” by a long chalk.)

pax et bonum

In response to 14, yes I’ve read Andrew’s lecture notes this morning (the handout on Donatism is really rather good), but crucially the issue at hand here is not one of Donatism. If we were arguing about whether when Susan Russell baptises people that was a valid baptism, and if I argued that it wasn’t, then you could scream “Donatist” at my as loudly as humanly possible and you’d be right. But the issue at hand is to do with doctrine and creedal authority. The traditores came back into the fold of creedal orthodoxy and that was the crucial issue that Augustine fought the Donatists on.

It is blatantly ridiculous to argue that it does not matter what bishops and priests believe. It matters crucially for the health of the church that it’s clergy teach what is true. The problem at the moment is that some in the US Church aren’t just socially liberal, they deny key catholic teachings. While the average punter in the pew doesn’t worry about the hypostatic union, if the person stood in front of them denies it then they (in the pews) are in serious trouble.

Yes the church is going to split over this and yes it is to be mourned. But it cannot be right to continue to allow some clergy and bishops to teach and promote viewpoints that are entirely contrary to that which the church has always known to be true. And it’s not a case of Peter thinking “he is right and everybody else is wrong”. For example on sexuality, I stand with the majority of the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches who have ALL come out and reaffirmed the traditional understanding of chastity. If I am accused of arrogance then by implication you are also accusing the leadership of the Anglican Provinces, the Roman Church and the Eastern Church of exactly the same thing.

She mourns the split in the church caused by those who insist their understanding is right and everyone else is wrong.

Peter’s post just makes it clear he is one of those who thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong. Life, and least of all Christianity, just isn’t that black and white, Peter. I try to follow Jesus, the rest is optional as far as I and many others are concerned.

Insisting we agree with his exact way of understanding who Jesus is/was and what exactly happened at the resurrection is just Peter Ould trying to control what we think, which wasn’t Jesus’ way at all.

Rhys. A cartoon? I… er… it… well… you see… I’ll… hmmm.

I find I slip up a the first ones, being poor of spirit, mourning and being meek…

It is important what we do as we will be judged by that. However the only way to get in to God’s family in the first place is by meekly mourning over our poor sinful spirit and relying on the garce of God.