Archive for July, 2007
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING
CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH (highlight mine though it impacts little with what Protestants believe anyway)
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in church, current affairs | Comments (3)
Evolution is a funny word that gets bandied about. Saying it in different context evokes different responses, sometimes laughter and sometimes justified anger. In fact, I’ve been in conversations where a person is using evolution in one sense and me in a completely different sense and both of us have gotten riled up until we pinned down our terms.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in apologetics, genesis, history, human, rey's a point, text/language | Comments (2)
This measure of our object of faith finds its power in the fact of the gospel. Christ became a servant in that Gospel so now, as a new humanity with new life, we can be proper God honoring servants. On behalf of God’s truth, Christ become a servant to those of the circumcision to authenticate and make real all of the promises given to the Jewish forefathers so therefore a Gentile believer can be a servant to those of the circumcision on behalf of God’s truth as well. Here’s how.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in acts, church, dispensationalism, israel, romans, salvation | Comments (0)
So continuing this thought of using our measure of faith with those believers who are “weak in faith” we must carefully note how Paul carries out his discussion for there we see how Paul himself defines weakness in faith.
Remember, we’re not saying that the person has less appreciation for their object of Faith (which is God) or that they are unsure of where they stand (which is God’s mercy). This is not a black or white concern where the person is doubting something that is foundational (like the fact that we are justified by God through faith). Rather this weakness is on the person’s own stance (not the ground on which they stand). In other words, it’s on the actions or thought-constructs which they see as God honoring.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in acts, church | Comments (0)
The Measure of Faith comes to work in this concept of the “weaker in faith” and the “stronger in faith”. Now here I’ll have to do some preliminary defense of my previous (and continued) position on the measure of faith. For in the sense that some people take it (this person has more God-give-faith-power and this person has less God-given-faith-power thus I have more God-given-faith-power then X or less then Y) it starts bolstering ourselves in an area that Paul says to think soberly about. But the fact is we really don’t know the faith in another person: that’s an impossibility. All we know is the actions of another person.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in acts, church, romans | Comments (0)
Justin over at Politics and Religion has begun a series on
Christianity’s Downfall by starting off and highlighting fundamentalism. In hopes of education rather than attacking he points out that fundamentalism (in general and in Christianity particularly) is (1) dangerous (2) intolerant (3) rigid (4) illogical and (5) surface-reading which he equates with literalism. Of course, he doesn’t delineate his points as such and is careful to point out what the fundamentalist is rigidly adhering to (and thus obviously dangerous) are the specific doctrines that make Christians who they are: but he does point out that “in many cases, the fundamentalist Christian believes what he…does because it was told to him” and he adheres to a strict literalism. I’ll deal with both these points below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in apologetics, brethren, text/language | Comments (0)
