A concrete «act» of God in history can be discerned only by faith — and faith, as even
the most orthodox theology maintains, is the gift of the Holy Spirit; the physical, objective «miracle» or act of God is only an outward indication.
This, of course, he considered could be linked up with
the most orthodox theology of the holy Eucharist.»
Not exact matches
But even the
most orthodox of Jews will admit that GeHenna (named after the dump outside Jerusalem that existed in the Valley of Hinnom and whilch was considered the
most unclean of places, where the «fires never went out» and the «worm never died»... a reference seen in Isaiah...) was an idea adapted from Babylonian
theology (taken from Zoasterism), not an idea originally developed in the Tanach (thus you will find references to «the world to come» and «tikkun Olam» only in the Talmud, not in the Tanach... which for Jews is not a problem since our view of «scripture» is not the same as a Christians).
Borg also does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the basis for
most orthodox (small o)
theology.
Insofar as the logic of Hartshorne's neoclassical theism requires us to affirm the priority of G - of - O over any wholly abstract vision of God, neoclassical theism is to this considerable extent more in accord with black
theology than are
most Western
orthodox and neo-
orthodox theologies.
It is worth bearing in mind that the
most orthodox Christian
theology has always recognized, in one sense, that its assertions have this provisional and partial character.
Such a contention was a great blow to
orthodox theology for the
most popular method in those days of defending the truth of the Christian faith was to appeal to prophecy and the record of the miracles.