Some interesting posts in the blogworld

Peter Kirk (Gentle Wisdom) has an interesting series of posts on What Anglicans have not always held about Communion, parts 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5.  He blogs about what the Anglican Church has held concerning Holy Communion and in light of the Thirty-Nine Articles.  He poses a scenario I never thought of:

if some consecrated bread and wine by accident find their way out of the church building and are eaten by an unbelieving beggar who doesn’t know where they came from, is the beggar in any sense receiving the body and blood of Christ? Roman Catholics would certainly answer “yes”, because for them the elements have objectively become the body and blood, and I think most Anglicans today would do as well. But my answer would be “no”, and that was clearly the answer of the author of Article 29 of the Thirty-Nine, based on no less an authority than Augustine of Hippo…

CD-Host (Church Discipline) is starting a series of posts on a King James Onlyist Interview.  It should be an interesting discussion.  I wonder how this debate will end up when the truth comes out.

TC Robinson (New Leaven) can finally get some rest after a long conversation on the complementarian vs egalitarian debate on the post  Complementarianism is Christian Too! Debates and conversations like that can really drain a person. I tend to avoid them.

Advertisements

Author: Kevin S.

A follower of Jesus, a husband and a father. Hobbies include biking, keeping fish if they don't die on me, blogging when I can, theologizing and ministry, and pondering about world affairs.

5 thoughts on “Some interesting posts in the blogworld”

  1. Kevin, thanks for the mention. Yeah, after 212 comments I was spent. It was one of those debates.

    I never thought I would have enjoyed a debate of such controversial nature. But it really helped me to refine my position and at the same time understand a bit more the opposing view.

    Like

  2. Thanks for the mention.

    I’m still posting the results. But if you want spoilers.

    The interviewe was happy, they felt they went over the case pretty clearly. I think it was a successful interview in that sense. But honestly I didn’t walk away feeling like I learned as much as I would have liked. I still can’t answer my core question which is why the arguments for the KJV don’t apply equally or moreso to the Vulgate. Hopefully when I post the Vulgate part someone will jump in on this. For me this is the big break I can’t get my head around. All the rest of the case seems in some sense presuppositional if you accept preservation… it makes sense. You can make a good case the KJV is the 5th most important translation in Christian history, maybe 4th or 3rd and thus I can get how someone who believes there is direct divine intervention in the translation process believes it is very special. What I can’t see is how that doesn’t apply to the even more important translations.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s