The eucharistic prayer, the central
Christian doctrinal statement, must be rediscovered as prayerful proclamation.
Not exact matches
All
Christians ever since, whether they are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, or Free Church, have agreed on the central
doctrinal statements expressed in this particular
statement of faith.
I hope you will be able to see that this isn't one of the dumbest things I have ever said, but it might actually be those who demand and require
doctrinal statements who are missing some pretty key points of the basic
Christian walk.
For example, if a denomination declared in their
doctrinal statement that the Bible teaches that all good
Christians must wear pink hats and only those people who wear pink hats can indeed be true followers of Jesus, we would conclude upon reading this
statement that we would never be accepted by those folks because we don't agree with this bit of ridiculous theology.
If we believe that the Holy Spirit has helped guide
Christians of the past to know and understand the truth of Scripture, then
doctrinal statements can help us in our own understanding and interpretation of Scripture.
Similarly, other points from
doctrinal statements often represent key teachings from Scripture and can help guide our own study into Scripture, keeping us within the
doctrinal boundaries of
Christians from the past (See The Shape of Sola Scriptura for more on this idea).
In some ways,
doctrinal statements are a summary of the
doctrinal conclusions that
Christians of the past have drawn from Scripture.
The history of the development of
doctrinal statements and
Christian creeds is a bloody mess, full of killing and war.
It calls us to recognize the limited nature of all
Christian theology, all church structures, all theological imagery, all
doctrinal statements.
While the Tribunal accepted that
Christian Horizons sincerely and honestly believed the requirement to adhere to the
Doctrinal and Lifestyle
Statements was necessary for the performance of employment, it did not accept that the qualification was objectively appropriate or reasonably necessary to the performance of a support worker position.
The Tribunal held that, while
Christian Horizons was a religious organization, it could not claim the exemption offered by s. 24 (1)(a) because it was not primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons who are «similarly identified — i.e. persons who are adherents to its
Doctrinal and Lifestyle and Morality
Statements, or indeed, in serving the interests of
Christians more generally.