[boatbums]

On the other hand there HAS been a gnostic-ish denial of the good of creation by some opposed to us.

Not sure what you consider is "gnostic-ish". Can you be a little more specific?

[Mad Dawg]

Opposition of created or physical things to spiritual things. That's the aspect of gnosticism that I'm thinking of in this case.

The flesh is good. Genesis says God thought so.

The problem with the FALLEN flesh is it has a tendency to death, while Spirit vivifies. So Paul's opposition between flesh and spirit can be best understood ( I think, this is MY deal) as an opposition between the dying aspect of us and the coming to life aspect.

The way Paul talks about Baptism is that it is dying and being buried (which is why when I'm pope we're going back to full immersion) AND resurrection. Thereafter the 'tension' is between the old me that died and the new me (yet not I, but Christ lives in me) that is coming to life.

As that comrehensible? IF it is, then it is gnostic to overstress the opposition, to think that the flesh is icky or bad.

That kind of thing.

[smvoice]

I'm beginning to believe that anything that is not Roman Catholic is either an "ism", an "ish", or an "ant". It's the way of pidgeon-holing us into something they can "oh,yesyesyes..she is one of THOSE..."

I am a saved believer in the finished work of Christ. I don't care if Paul uses the wording, Ananaisis, or Ruford Welthorpe. God's word is my guide, I believe in the literal return of Christ, and I believe that we in this present age of grace, are members of the Church the Body of Christ. You can call it smvoice's creed if you wish. I don't care. I DO care about the Gospel of the Grace of God. If this commission was given to Paul to give to this present age, then that's the way it is. Don't like it? Take it up with God. He chose.