It was a shift away from the language of
orthodox theology which offended the intellectual community.
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).
In spite of the theological permissiveness of AA (
which is real and important) there is, implied in the literature, a rather
orthodox theology — viz., a personal God, with whom one can communicate, who is interested in individuals and will help those who are obedient to his will.
The link made in Edward Holloway's synthesis of science and
theology, involving the co-relativity of all material being in a metaphysical system that is faithful both to modern scientific thought and to
orthodox Christian
theology, gives a more solid basis on
which to develop a dialogue with science.
The result of this opposing of pure being to becoming was the doctrine of the divine impassibility,
which has had throughout the centuries the approval of
orthodox theology, both Catholic and Protestant.
Curran that a dissenting theologian can not instruct in Catholic
theology, Rice urged a reassessment by universities
which promote themselves as Catholic to determine whether they are, in fact, providing their paying students an education steeped in
orthodox Catholic faith.
I'm in the odd and awkward place of holding a
theology that is both
orthodox and classical, but the church in
which I learned it has decided to be something else and leave its
theology behind.
The argument against this modern position,
which is often taught in even Catholic colleges to the students of
theology, consists first in the stark coherence of St. John, and the spare, intense build - up to a confrontation with the official Jewish mind, or even the expectation of the people themselves,
which could never have been the natural development of the mind of any
orthodox Jew.
In the Faith synthesis, the «Unity - Law of control and direction» is the key philosophical framework in
which to develop an
orthodox, dynamic
theology that can have an invigorating and enriching relationship with the natural and medical sciences.
In our Road to Regensburg column, we continue to follow Pope Benedict as he responds to John Paul II's «urgent» appeal for an
orthodox development in philosophy and
theology; we also note the work of the Cardinal Van Thuan Institute in exposing the ignorance surrounding the Pope's important anthropological developments,
which were central to his encyclical Caritas in Veritate.
«The Tablet», wrote Damian Thompson for the Telegraph early in July «has welcomed Archbishop Vincent Nichols to Westminster with a snide and mean - spirited profile
which suggests that he has become more
orthodox in his
theology in order to achieve promotion in the Church.
Paul van Buren was a disciple of Karl Barth, under whom he wrote his excellent doctoral dissertation on Calvin's teaching about Christ as the true life of men; Hamilton was an opponent of natural
theology in all its forms, even if he studied at St Andrews under Donald Baillie — but it was the so - called «rico -
orthodox» line
which had attracted him, theologically; Altizer is a slightly different case.
It's actually one small dimension of a much wider, though less well publicized, set of movements in
theology, associated with places like Yale and Duke, and the universities of Virginia and Cambridge,
which are
orthodox and radical but not necessarily Radical
Orthodox.
The important thing is to make the necessary developments in both philosophy and
theology which will allow us to present the Catholic faith to the modern world again in an
orthodox and intellectually convincing way — not least to defend the realistic concept of «human nature», as did St Thomas, and does our current editorial.
I must not undertake to give you a course in
theology, but just to relieve your mind of any suspicion that there is one
orthodox doctrine of the atonement,
which a Christian is expected to accept, let me give you a sample or two.
At no other point is there a deeper continuity between the modern world and an original Christianity, even if this is a continuity
which is alien to our
theology, and above all alien to all non-apocalyptic
theology,
which is to say to every
theology which we have known as either an
orthodox or a liberal
theology.