The worst theological invention: egalitarian sub-poll
Some folks have been disappointed that certain theological inventions didn’t make it on to the main poll. So just to show how egalitarian we are here at Faith & Theology, you can now vote in this sub-poll for the most eligible runner-up!
Which of these things do you think should have made it on to the main poll?
Results (from 223 votes):
Penal substitution (24%)
The denial of penal substitution (15%)
Original sin (12%)
God as a male (21%)
Theologians who deny biblical inerrancy (10%)
Theology blogs (especially this one) (4%)
Polls about the worst theological invention (15%)
Thanks for voting!
Now thats funny.
I'm surprised Docetism didn't make your list. I think I would've voted for that. To me, the danger of Arianism is more straightforward. You either believe it or you don't. But I think Docetism is a bit more insidious and lingers in many modern Christian brains without us even realizing we aren't taking Jesus humanity seriously enough. I'd really like to see how well this would've competed on a poll.
who ever claimed that God was a male?
Sadly and ironically, I suspect God's 'maleness' was either invented or popularized by feminist theologians trying to do right by both women and God.
"Rapture" theology implies docetism, because it's a necessary prerequisite.
Biblical inerrancy and Papal infallibility are subtypes of Christendom as empire - all examples of lust for power over others. Your poll is a serious question in need of refinement - not humour.
God's maleness is, like the Trinity in the NT, implied.
Is penal substitution God as a female? I'm just a bit confused here.
;-)
I think I have to agree with the problem of docetism - in fact it's really a much more prevalent issue in the church than Arianism - and yes, more insidious. But it's so attractive -- you just have that perfect divine Jesus wandering around and then you don't have to consider trying to live like him.
Post a Comment