Report a comment
Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.
Comment in question
 |
02-13-2007 19:54
|
 |
|
|
That Credal Thing
Marshall,
I see creeds as formalizing heresy at the same time they formalize what doctrine is acceptable. I speak, admittedly, with only a general knowledge of the Hicksite and Gurneyite controversy. Although I have attended at Quaker meetings since the 70's and been a member for about 13 years, my religious training was with Southern Baptists. I attended seminary at Southern Seminary in Louisville before moving away from that tradition to the Quaker tradition. I am not clear how a doctrine is determined to be acceptable to a tradition or not without a creed. That is, how do you determine that heresy is heresy without a creed or something that substitutes for a creed? Otherwise, it is just another doctrine or another person's understanding. Are you viewing heresy as being a personal judgement as opposed to a judgement of a larger body? Or are you saying that there is a kind of "common-law" (my apologies) doctrine that can be used to identify heresy without having it formalized by a creed? I admit that people seem to use the term in that way. Maybe my concept of heresy and orthodoxy is too narrow. Gerald IP: 151.213.107.242
Registered
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
