Sentences with phrase «true early church»

For this all the pope is responsible, who has access to the records of the ecu - menical councils and the epistles of the fathers of the true Early Church and of course the Holy Bible.

Not exact matches

Nor was it true of the Church's accommodation of Renaissance opulence or early modern ideologies about the divine right of kings.

I find it interesting how mega-church prosperity teachers want to talk about the very early days of the church of mega-crowds — without talking about their scattering — and how the persecuted church grew in people's homes and catacombs (I like the rhyme) for the next 300 years — until Constantine — the true father of many mega-church ministries.

Yet the early Church itself, when it departed from biblical idiom at the Council of Nicea and used for theological purposes a non-biblical word, homo - ousion, as the guarantor of true biblical meaning, gave Christians in later days a charter for translation — provided always that it is the gospel, its setting and its significance, that we are translating, and not some bright and novel ideas of our own.

The factors of chief importance in the development of this theology were: (a) the Old Testament — and Judaism --(b) the tradition of religious thought in the Hellenistic world, (c) the earliest Christian experience of Christ and conviction about his person, mission, and nature — this soon became the tradition of the faith or the «true doctrine» — and (d) the living, continuous, ongoing experience of Christ — only in theory to be distinguished from the preceding — in worship, in preaching, in teaching, in open proclamation and confession, as the manifestation of the present Spiritual Christ within his church.

Among the criteria that scholars use, one of the most problematic is, paradoxically, also one of the best» the principle of embarrassment, which claims that those traditions about Jesus that would have been most embarrassing to the early Church have the greatest possibility of being true.

Our knowledge of the early church prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 is fragmentary, but the fragments reveal many of the concerns African churches have today, from distinguishing between true and false prophets to deciding what should happen to church members who behave badly.

A builder in the truest form and a man dedicated to education, from his earliest days he led the rebuilding of badly damaged churches and schools and drove the creation of a strong Catholic school system throughout the Archdiocese.»

Such communities would recall, McNamara believes, the true, pure Christian communities of the earliest Church before women were denied equal leadership.

This is immediately followed by the assertion that the Church's position «is grounded in a proper view of economics, true to the etymology of the term, which emerged in ancient civilizations and in early Christian history to describe the arrangement of a household — God's household, which is ordered and open to those who long to sit at the table which they helped set.»

Jeremy, some of the posts have simply confirmed what I was reading half an hour earlier in a book by a well - known Christian historian: «It is true, unfortunately, that the church is often the worst witness to Jesus and the early Christian movement».

To deny the true and full humanity of Jesus was the earliest heresy the church had to confront, and it has persisted to the present.

Perhaps most poignantly, one reader who read the book in light of the pedophilia scandals and the church's early secrecy about them says, tentatively but tellingly: «With all that is going on in the Catholic Church today, it makes you wonder if some of the fiction is actually true.&church's early secrecy about them says, tentatively but tellingly: «With all that is going on in the Catholic Church today, it makes you wonder if some of the fiction is actually true.&Church today, it makes you wonder if some of the fiction is actually true.»

It is undoubtedly true, as we shall frequently have occasion to observe in these lectures, that the Gospels reflect the interests and are addressed to the felt needs of Gentile churches in the late first and early second centuries.

This is true not only because of its intrinsic importance, but also because it is involved in the question of how Jesus came to be interpreted in the early church, a matter with which we shall later be concerned.

This is true, but it is also true that we can not understand the life of the early church if we neglect its dogma, or the meaning of Christ for it if we dismiss its Christology.

Now one might expect that this pattern of interpretation would have been retained by Paul, if historical — that is, if set forth by Jesus himself or found in the earliest tradition of his sayings or expounded in the early church — or one might even think it possible that Mark derived from Paul some hint of this system of exegesis of the Old Testament and of interpretation of the career of Jesus as a heavenly being appearing upon earth prior to his exaltation and his dying (as a heavenly being) upon the cross, though unrecognized in his true nature until the Resurrection.

Just read the fathers of the church like Athanasius and you will see that the Early Church preached the true gospel and here leaders were not greedy for honor, power and riches, but wanted to save church like Athanasius and you will see that the Early Church preached the true gospel and here leaders were not greedy for honor, power and riches, but wanted to save Church preached the true gospel and here leaders were not greedy for honor, power and riches, but wanted to save souls.

The early Church sticks true to the rebellious, radical edge of Jesus and millions are captivated.

Brown has made it clear, however, that he regards the book as a serious contribution to a revisionist history of early and medieval Christianity, a history that offers insights into the nature of real faith and the identity of the true church.

Yet if it were true, the meaning of the eschatological message would still be fundamentally the same, and the question would still remain whether and how this message and the preaching of the will of God were combined into a unity in the early church.

I think contemporary «church» can be somewhat different to the representation of Jesus that true early followers had.

It is certainly true that Vatican II's teaching on the «collegial union» of the bishops balances the earlier assertions of Vatican I. Moreover Lumen Gentium also teaches that «the individual bishops... are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches» and as such individual bishops enjoy their own proper authority in their diocese.

When Newman was studying the history of the early Church he noticed that «the true faith never could come into contact with the heathen philosophies, without exercising its right to arbitrate between them» (Arians p. 101).

In his early years, Luther viewed such a visible community as the true church.

We would have two criticisms of this view: (1) form criticism is bursting the bounds here set to it, and is showing that gospel narratives and sayings can be purely and entirely products of the early Church; and (2) the view involves an unnecessary capitulation to the very view of history it sets out to controvert, since it seems to agree that there must be a «something actually happened» quality to the gospel myths for them to be «true».

It is true that he still speaks of the «prophets,» but he seems to place them in the same bracket with the apostles, thus relegating them to the early period of the church's beginnings.

Adjacent to the location guests will find the ever impressive Dutch Reform Church dating back to the early 1800's, some stunning old buildings with true Cape Dutch and Victorian architecture as well as the Drostdy Museum that is just a stone's throw away.