What does Neo-Scholastic Thomism say about the Charismatic Renewal movement? Contemporary Thomist philosopher Dr. Ed Feser, in The Thomistic Tradition (part 1) , defines "Neo-Scholastic Thomism" as follows: >_1\. Neo-Scholastic Thomism_: The dominant tendency within Thomism in the first decades after the revival sparked by Leo’s encyclical [Æterni Patris ], this approach is reflected in many of the manuals and textbooks widely in use in Roman Catholic colleges and seminaries before Vatican II. Due to its emphasis on following the interpretative tradition of the great commentators on Aquinas (such as Capreolus, Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas) and associated suspicion of attempts to synthesize Thomism with non-Thomistic categories and assumptions, it has also sometimes been labeled “Strict Observance Thomism.” Still, its focus was less on exegesis of the historical Aquinas’s own texts than on carrying out the program of deploying a rigorously worked out system of Thomistic metaphysics in a wholesale critique of modern philosophy. Its core philosophical commitments are summarized in the famous “Twenty-Four Thomistic Theses ” approved by Pope Pius X. [Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange[, O.P.]][5] (1877-1964) is perhaps its greatest representative.

I grew up raised in an Apostolic(Oneness-)Pentecostal church that affirmed O.S.A.S., I was always told our denomination was Pentecostal, but I see some refer to Pentecost as a movement, and U.P.C. as a denomination. What is the difference? Is one an umbrella term for all who affirm a particular title in the name of their doctrinal beliefs group? e.g. Would a Southern Baptist Church and a Calvary Baptist both be called: baptist in movement, but Southern Baptist for the denomination and Calvary Baptist for the denomination?

I've only seen 4 links so far to posts from http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com on this site, but all it appears to be is a blog by a priest with a [very staunch detractor](http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com) who comes up with explanations to things that otherwise aren't answered explicitly in the Catechism like [does Jesus know what God knows](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2711/4) . So, is the priest who blogs there (Fr. Ryan Erlenbush) a priest in good standing in his diocese and does he have any credentials as a Theologigian. Like Chesterton, I am rather of an older fashion and usually skeptical of anything that has the words "new" and "theology" that close together. So, if someone could shed some light on this "movement", it would be much appreciated.

I saw this in a user profile, and would just like a description of what the movement is. Beliefs, how it varies from "the norm" (if it does) history, etc. So, simply, what is the Light-Life Movement?

The original languages of the Bible itself and, to my knowledge, most of Christian history, are replete with the filial language of God being known as a “Father” and Jesus being known as his “Son”. However there are certainly enclaves of folks professing Christianity that claim that this is either given unnecessary focus or is outright misleading. Books have been written that intentionally substitute “mother” and translations are being made that remove the family relationship language altogether. This is a multi-part question and I’m looking for a broad overview of how these pieces fit together in history, not an argument for or against any position. * When in Christian history is God first introduced as a male “father” figure? Have there been any turning points or changes in this imagery through different ages, regions or languages? Have any church fathers or theologians seen this a core issue to the faith? * Historically, which groups professing Christianity have attempted to deviate from this filial imagery? Have any notable church fathers or theologians advocated for alternate renditions? If so what works did they write and approximately what size following did they attract? * What is the overall (worldwide) view or trend on this issue today? What percentage of translations continue to use the language of father/son to translate the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and what translations use something else? * What modern day movements advocate deviating from this tradition and which (or what kind of) denominations support them? Are there any direct parallels between these groups/translations and historical groups/translations?

**What sources could one appeal to if trying to argue if a doctrine was or was not consistent with fundamentalism?** The question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7944/30 identifies the historical source and some of the main characteristics of fundamentalism. I am more interested in the current usage of the word an identifying when to label something as fundamentalist and when to use a different label. There seems to be a lot of overlap beftween the scope of fundamentalist and that of other labels. The media these days bandies the word around* in a way that is generally derogitory, but it isn't exactly clear why. Sometimes it seem to refer to a very specific group as if it were a denomination. Other times it seems to mean just a general theological bent. One minute it is used to pigeon hole far out groups like Westboro Baptist Church, other times it seems to encompass most of mainstream Christianity. Hoes does this wide ranging usage affect how Christians use the word for themselves? Particularly among those who take this label on themselves, do they refer to any authority or standard in order to do so? Is there an official authority on when one is a fundamentalist and not just somebody who holds most of the same beliefs? For example, in the Reformed tradition there are specific creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and identifying yourself as Reformed is commonly understood to that place you somewhere close to to these creeds. What sources would a fundamentalist turn to to show that their beliefs were or were not consistent with the way they label themselves? \* "Evangelical" and "conservative" are viable contenders in the race for meaningless labels.