The mentality that Rauschenbusch deployed to seduce his readers — the turn away from troubling
debates about doctrine, the shift from personal salvation to social reform, and the reassurance that progressive disdain for traditional religion was in fact a sign of a more authentic and scientific faith — provided a way to remain Christian while setting aside whatever seems incompatible with modern life.
Theology is important — we need to strive to understand God, but we must strive to do so with the purpose of knowing Him more and loving Him more, not so that we can participate in
debates about doctrine.
Not exact matches
The «Old Me» from ten years ago
debates the «New Me» from today
about the traditional
doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture.
there is NO
debate among the Gospels
about ALL the major
doctrines: Jesus lived the life we couldn't, died the death we deserve, and rose up from the grave.
Neither can one short book convey the complexity of the
doctrine of atonement or the centuries of
debate about sin and grace.
In 1966 Paul VI would recall that the Council was
about «voice... style... approach» in the teaching of
doctrine rather than
debate or apologetics (p. 426).
And though they eventually made up, their disagreement has lived on in American evangelicals» waxing and waning
debates about God's sovereignty and the
doctrines of election and free will.
Consider this one: Christians might think that the dynamics of grace and faith in human salvation could only be worked out in Christianity — until they learn, for example,
about the intricate,
debates between the «cat
doctrine» and the «monkey
doctrine» in Bhakti Hinduism.
I believe that America is in the emergency room, and we shouldn't be sidetracked by a
debate about the church
doctrine of one candidate's church.
We can and should
debate theology and
doctrine, but we must never think that we are the infallible interpreters of Scripture and determiners of people's destiny, and should also remember that
doctrine, as important as it is, becomes evil when
debates and discussions
about theology keep us from living out the loving gospel in tangible ways to a hurting and dying world.
The
debates are ongoing (not the least those
about the ecclesiological question of what counts as Church
doctrine), but this does not prevent the Nicene tradition from providing a reliable biblical horizon for biblical interpretation.
Placed in the context of what to do
about Libya the difference between Obama and Cameron (and by inference Cameron and Clegg, who also used the phrase) that air power but not ground troops is acceptable and sufficient is a good indicator of how much muscle the
debate surrounding the
doctrine will allow to be flexed in this case.
: What the Numbers Tell Us
About How State Courts Apply the Unconscionability Doctrine to Arbitration Agreements, 97 MARQUETTE L. REV. 751 (2014); and The Ongoing Debate about Mediation in the Context of Domestic Violence: A Call for Empirical Studies of Mediation Effectiveness, 12 CARDOZO J. CONFLICT R
About How State Courts Apply the Unconscionability
Doctrine to Arbitration Agreements, 97 MARQUETTE L. REV. 751 (2014); and The Ongoing
Debate about Mediation in the Context of Domestic Violence: A Call for Empirical Studies of Mediation Effectiveness, 12 CARDOZO J. CONFLICT R
about Mediation in the Context of Domestic Violence: A Call for Empirical Studies of Mediation Effectiveness, 12 CARDOZO J. CONFLICT RESOL.
Nevertheless, despite the ongoing
debate about the theoretical justifications for punitive damages, nearly all fifty states and federal courts have accepted the
doctrine of punitive damages.10 Indeed, punitive damages have a long historical pedigree dating back to the Hammurabi Code in 2000 B.C. 11