Saçmalardan Seçmeler..
In the thirteenth century after Christ there came the Great Drought. From the Wall of China throughout all Central Asia the land was cracked and parched for want of rain, and the tribes were on the move searching for new pastures for their flocks. Among them were the Osmanli Turks, whose chief, Sulyman Shah, carried on his banner the head of the Grey Wolf.
They were cruel and primitive, these Osmanli Turks, animalstrong with slit eyes in flat Mongol faces. They were as brutal and relentless as the grey wolves which hunted over the wide steppes of the fierce countries of Central Asia. Yet they were disciplined, by the dangers and risks of their nomad life, to rigid obedience under their leaders.
For centuries they had pitched their black horse-hair tents in the Plains of Sungaria on the edge of the Gobi Desert. Forced by lack of water and grass, Sulyman Shah led out his people and made westward. Finding the Hordes of Tartars to his north and pressing in behind him, he turned south, and so came, through Armenia into Asia Minor, into Modern History.
Sulyman died and Ertoghrul reigned in his stead, and after him came Emir Othman and Sultan Orchan, and from father to son ten generations of sultans followed each other. Often brutal and vicious, often unjust and bestial, they were rulers, leaders of men, and generals.
They found in front of them a world of dying empires, the decayed Seljuk, the worn-out Arab Empire of Baghdad and of the Caliphs, and the corrupted Byzantine. These they smashed and conquered.
Within three hundred years of the death of Sulyman Shah, his tenth descendant, Sultan Sulyman the Magnificent, the Law Giver, ruled with justice and strength an immense empire which stretched from Albania on the Adriatic coast to the Persian
frontier, from Egypt to the
Pius XI drafted the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (“With Deep Anxiety”). It was the first major church document to criticize Nazism. Smuggled into Germany, it was read on Palm Sunday from every Catholic pulpit—before a single copy had fallen into Nazi hands. As Richard Pierard explains, the encyclical protested the oppression of the church and called on Catholics to resist the idolatrous cult of race and state, to stand against the perversion of Christian doctrines and morality, and to maintain their loyalty to Christ, his church, and Rome. Hitler reacted furiously at first, but then decided to avoid a break with Rome by treating the encyclical with silence. Knowing that he had the support of the German Catholic laypeople, Hitler simply stepped up the pressure on the churches to eliminate the possibility of organized resistance.
Her çiçeğin bir mevsimi, her kitabın bir zamanı vardır. Haziranın tadını yeni hikâyelerle çıkarın.
Many Christians in the nineteenth century followed Jonathan Edwards in the belief that the knowledge of the Lord would fill the earth as the waters cover the sea, and this spread of the gospel was preparation for the coming reign of Christ upon the earth. This belief in a future reign of Christ was called millennialism.
Most of the basic beliefs of these evangelicals could be found in Puritanism: the sinfulness of man, the atoning death of Christ, the unmerited grace of God, the salvation of the true believer. But Puritanism was more concerned with politics and trying to create the holy commonwealth, the true Bible society, in England and America.
The evangelicals were not detached from politics as the Pietists were, but their controlling passion was to convert the lost. They were less concerned about the reform of churches and more intent on the preaching of the gospel to all—nominal Christians, scoffers, and heathen.
These Dissenting Brethren of Westminster articulated the denominational theory of the church in several fundamental truths:
First, since a person is unable to always see all of the truth clearly, differences of opinion about the outward form of the church are inevitable.
Second, even though these differences do not involve fundamentals of the faith, they are not matters of indifference. Every Christian is obligated to practice what he believes the Bible teaches.
Third, since no church has a final and full grasp of divine truth, the true church of Christ can never be fully represented by any single ecclesiastical structure.
Finally, the mere fact of separation does not of itself constitute schism. It is possible to be divided at many points and still be united in Christ.
Denominationalism, as originally designed, is the opposite of sectarianism. A sect claims the authority of Christ for itself alone. It believes that it is the only true body of Christ; all truth belongs to it and to no other religion. So by definition a sect is exclusive.
The word denomination by contrast was an inclusive term. It implied that the Christian group called or “denominated” by a particular name was but one member of a larger group—the church—to which all denominations belong.
The denominational theory of the church, then, insists that the true church cannot be identified with any single ecclesiastical structure. No denomination claims to represent the whole church of Christ. Each simply constitutes a different form—in worship and organization—of the larger life of the church.