Home Forums Church History I Week #2 Class Response Kurt Eichenwald’s Definition of “Church,” “Orthodoxy,” and “Heresies”

  • This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 months ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #14305
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I would say that Kurt Eichenwald has a very loose definition of church, orthodoxy, and heresies. Of groups that had a different set of beliefs – such as the Gnostics, Marcionites, and Arianists(?) – Eichenwald would see them as Christians, only they were different sects of Christianity. Because of this it would seem that Eichenwald thinks that all of these beliefs are a part of the Church and that the Church as a whole is not unified in it’s core beliefs and it doesn’t know that there are too many contradictions in the Bible to get true Christian theology from it. It would almost seem that Eichenwald doesn’t have a sense of what orthodoxy or heresy is since he simply accepts that people who believe different things are simply different sects of Christianity. What parts of the Bible he agrees with, I don’t know, but it sounds like he would agree with Arius in that Paul’s writings tell us that Jesus was just the human son of God and therefore there was a time when Jesus did not exist. He might also say that the Trinity is not true to what the Bible says. I believe that Eichenwald thinks of orthodoxy as simply something that comes about when the people with the most power make a decision about something and force others to believe it as well. His definition of heresy might be all of Christian beliefs that are based on the parts of the Bible that he sees as contradictions.

    #14309
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    This was such an interesting response to read!This article is such an interesting example of different peoples perceptions and views of events in history! Where we see sinful fallen people in need of a savior and a value in worship a Godhead three in one, Kurt sees all sorts of discrepancies and horrible people from history that are not worth learning from or following in the faith of. The article talks about Christians not being familiar enough with their bible ( which is true) and Kurt says that it causes misery for others. He is blaming the scriptures and Christians for something is much more of a historical sin problem and again points to our need for a savior!

    I find it so intriguing though, that from his perspective and research that I can see why he would wonder why on Earth anyone would want to serve the God of the Bible. And with that, I suppose I thank the Lord for the faith and insight he has given me ( us).

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.