In truth, I think it is a gross
theological error of epic proportions and therefore it invalidates everything you've said.
After all, the charge made against Luther is not that he
made theological errors that led his followers astray in their private religious lives.
And if so, how do you go about
correcting theological error in a community that is already so wounded and vulnerable because they have grown up battered by «biblical» teaching?
Our failure to do this over the last several decades has been a major contributory factor in the triumph of
theological error in so many catechetical centres of the Church and the devastating lapsation of the faithful across the developed world.
It really irritates me when there is
real theological error going on and could be meaningfully discussed, but all these people hype about is the word «naked» or «nudes».
I don't think there has been a
single theological error that has marred the image of God more than the belief in a place where people where burn and be tormented for eternity.
Jesus did not write a letter to the editor, make a plan to help others with similar problems, start a task force, raise support, begin a non-profit organization to raise awareness for people with withered hands, address the cultural, sociological, and
theological errors which had created the problem, or any of the other things He could have done.
Jesus was always verbally correcting
the theological errors of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and even the churches in Revelation.
This is part of the approach abolitionists and first wave feminists propose as they developed a method of interpreting Scripture that exposed both
theological errors and the self - interest of slave - owner.
But
the theological error that underlies this idealization of violence leads them into a new, a sociopolitical Manicheanism which (like the earlier, metaphysical Manicheanism) is also an idealism, a simplifying resource to help people participate in a complicated world where, they know, they had better do what the powers that be recommend and take sides.
«I also believe that God is very forgiving of
our theological errors as long as they do not stray too far from orthodox christianity.»
The church decided they had made
some theological error, and that all they had to do to overcome their dwindling numbers and eroding finances was to believe right and enough, and everything would be hunky - dory.
Instead, they determined that they had made
a theological error, having bought into the Primitive Baptist Movement, and that all they needed to do was to return to a more evangelical and evangelistic way of being Baptist, which they did by affiliating with the Southern Baptist Convention.
The Declaration on Religious Freedom provided the basis to move beyond the older Catholic approach of thesis / hypothesis, built as it was on the thesis that «error has no rights,» including
the theological errors of Protestantism.
That is, does the book under consideration contain factual or
theological errors?
The point is that, historically, both the Roman Catholic tradition and the Reformed tradition have understood that not
all theological errors are equally serious.
The theological error is that political partisanship is now counted among the notae ecclesiae.
They consider the rapture
a theological error.
Often, you'll have to bite your tongue on
the theological error and focus on building relationships.