DonatistIt is unknown how long this belief persisted into the Muslim period, but some Christian historians believe the Donatist schism and the discord it caused in the Christian community made the takeover of the region by Islam easier.2
Apo
DonatistIt is unknown how long this belief persisted into the Muslim period, but some Christian historians believe the Donatist schism and the discord it caused in the Christian community made the takeover of the region by Islam easier.2
I agree with your reply; at the same time, there is a whiff of heresy in what you've written! Especially as regards the "One True Church" concept: this semantics and doctrinal game is played by any religion which needs to control its membership and/or take comfort in having a black-and-white set of rules, so that uncomfortable individual thought is never required. Those preaching such doctrines also say it either is or is not true--regardless of its popularity--and posit their entire credibility[sic] upon such foundations. As long as the religion (and for the purposes of this discussion, I would be comfortable including rigid scientific and political cants in this generalization) sticks to its own purview when defining orthodoxy and heresy, it stands a better chance...Of course, the RC and EO persist in their position that there is no salvation outside the (visible) Church, as if one's salvation could be secured (as Luther noted) by some third party intervention on one's behalf.
There are some Protestant Denominations that have the Only True Church Syndrome, but they are rather small in number.
The answer is only easy when someone starts to play around with the essential doctrines that define Christianity, doctrines that have been held an accepted (though perhaps clarified over time) position within the Church. These are not always the most "popular" doctrines. The Nicene Creed is an example of the retention and affirmation of a received doctrine, over an alien doctrine (Arianism).Why the differences? An easy answer is that Group X is correct and all else are heretics--
Heresies do give the chance to clarify and reiterate doctrines, but excluding them as non-orthodox is hardly being "non-inclusive." Either something is something or it is not something.
Yes and No! If the "Zealot" defends the central doctrines of Christianity, he may do so too enthusiastically, but he will still be justified in doing so, but too demand belief in a non-essential doctrine, like for example, "the Rapture," which is not necessary for salvation, you are right, and this is often how cults are created.However, when doctrine-protecting zealots get overenthusiastic and start pronouncing on everything in order to "protect" their faith, they are riding for a fall.
Exactly, whether the people of the bible thought of the entire earth as flat and that the sun traversed the firm earth below is irrevelant! There is no need to take verses that sound this way literally, any more that it is correct to think that modern people think the sun orbits the earth because we say "sunrise" and "sunset" when perhaps we should say something like "earth turn that exposes the sun" or "earth turn that creates night."the earth is flat and is orbited by the sun;
I am not sure that this was really part of the doctrine of the Church, but my last priest in the PEC was a convert from RC and actually went through the whole "sinister" hand thing with his parents. How silly and superstitious!using a table fork indicates either affectation or demonic inclination;
Charms just seem so pagan to an old Protestant like me!prayer and charms are the only possible methods for treating illness; being struck with strips of goatskin will increase human fertility; et cetera.
Of course, I must disagree here, whatever an Apostate Church does in the future, the doctrines of the Nicene Creed cannot be erased or else Christianity becomes void.we don't know which of our treasured doctrines--doctrines upon whose correctness some stake their entire belief system--will be shown to be in error in the future.
I don't think that the "filioque" makes an important distintion. But I don't want to delve too deeply into my personal understanding of this mystery.The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Unlike (macro-)evolution, the theory of gravity is ostentatiously demonstrable. If a theist accepts the theory of evolution, and stays a theist, the theory is changed in its essense from one of random mutation and natural selection, to a theory where a divine hand guides and shapes with an eye to a teleology: Humankind. This is not a theory of evolution that a materialist-naturalist would be able to accept.[Example: I suspect that the theory of evolution will eventually be accepted by most persons without compromising their religious faith, just as the theory of gravity is now accepted by most persons without compromising their religious faith.]
An irritatingly confident and cheerful young man in any case!The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. Rightly or wrongly, the future belongs to ID. There's nothing irreducibly complex about it.
My chemical reactions are saying "Good-bye,"Evolutionism is one of the stories based on naturalism. It is a major tenet of naturalism's church. This is one reason why attempting to harmonize theism with the claims of evolutionism is not very productive. They are at opposite poles on the most basic level. Contrary to what some think, creationists are not opposed to science – true science that is. In fact, it is based upon having an intelligent Creator that makes studying the material universe a valid possibility. How else can we be sure that we can even properly perceive the world? If God didn’t create, and we are the result of mindless chance, what guarantee do we have that we are really able to reason and think logically?
Return to “Good Word Suggestions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests