The Anabaptists were unique in holding that the local congregation should control its own affairs, determine its membership, enforce its discipline, and choose its leadership. In their understanding, the body of Christ is composed of self-governing congregations that have fellowship with one another. Freedom of the Will Their view was that saving faith involves conscious, personal repentance from sin and commitment to Christ. The Anabaptists emphatically rejected the concept of individual predestination (unconditional election). Here, they left completely from the other Protestants of their day, particularly Luther and Zwingli.
The Divine Command Theory (DCT) explains which actions are moral based on whether or not God commands it. The theory is difficult to support due to its flaws, arbitration, and even due to the essence of God. While Divine Command Theorists may completely support this theory, I will argue why the theory is impractical and cannot dictate what is morally right or wrong. In understanding if this theory holds ground we must question what God commands. Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws.
For the Christian, the question of the question suffering becomes particularly difficult: why would God allow suffering? Orthodox Christianity recognizes that God is both all-powerful and good. The challenge presented to Christianity, however, is if God is both omnipotent and upright, why would he allow evil and suffering in the world? David Hume succinctly writes,
Mark Jones analyzes Antinomianism with comparing to Reformed Theology. The main theological error of Antinomian’s thinking is that they put too much stress upon the doctrine of justification; furthermore, they interpret the rest of doctrines in Christianity from a biased perspective of justification. They even argue that good works are not significant for Christians because God does not see the sins of His children and does not anger to His children; therefore, the law is not important for Antinomians after the first coming of Christ. Regarding these problematic understanding, Jones suggests a solution for Antinomianism, that is concentrating on the real meaning of Christology; in other words, to rediscover and redefine the person and work
Jaspers also argues that, since life is absurd, it is less absurd to believe in a God which promises eternal life than to believe in nothing at all (“Christian and Theological Existentialism”). Dostoyevsky uses two contrasting chapters to argue against atheistic existentialism. The Grand Inquisitor is a story written by Ivan Karamazov. In the story, Jesus visits the Spanish Inquisition, but the religious leaders do not want Him there. They claim that they already have freedom, and that His return will take the freedom away.
It involves dealing with the nature of life in its totality and death, all in the purview of God. The religious experience must be understood to be, before it is anything else, a solemn and solitary act that requires contemplation and thoughtful study. Yet the exercise described here is one in which all fanatics, extremists, zealots and terrorists fail unequivocally.
Furthermore, in the fourth thesis, which is about Christianity is dangerous, he stated, “That’s my faith and you’re not to question that”. (The God Delusion Debate) This showed and persuaded that religion didn’t provide explanations about how faith exists and what is faith. Religion defines that faith can let people do anything without justification. This is terrible for children who have been taught that faith is a virtue by religion and not to have doubt on it. When they grown up in violent turn of mindset, they will act badly by using faith as a shelter.
He especially reacted against the sacraments of penance and purgatory. Luther built his case based on his studies of Paul’s letters to the Romans and the Galatians. For him, saving grace comes not from the righteousness we perform, but is entirely an alien (foreign) righteousness from Christ credited to our account. He called this the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. While Luther understood faith as the means of justification, he also understood the ground of justification to be nothing more than the grace and mercy of God shown to sinners because of the perfect life and work of Christ.
Allah cannot do this and he cannot do that. Allah cannot lower himself to have a son who will pay for the sins of mankind. Allah will not have other aspects of his Godhead. There is just this dry, emotionless being. The Christian view of their God is very different; theirs is a God of purpose.
In the discussion with the Pharisees about divorce (Cf., Deut 24:1), instead of arguing about what is liable or about the juridical motivations, the Lord places the issue directly at the level of creation. His answer is a fundamental resolution, not a casuistic solution: “what God has joined together, let no one separate” (v. 9). Christ knows very well the pro-divorce praxis of his time and he rejects it. The principle which he refers to is not to be understood as temporal moment in the history of salvation; on the contrary it is to be taken as the original authentic will of the Creator. The unbreakable unity of marriage reflects its genuine meaning which, in fact, calls back to creation itself: a marriage acknowledged in this way becomes a means of salvation for the partners.