Sentences with phrase «atonement does»

Atonement doesn't take that into consideration, either, turning the mordant, devastatingly understated trauma of McEwan's prose into one of screenwriter Christopher Hampton's period «bad sex» dramas reliant on extravagant turns of phrase and delightful chamber misunderstandings.

Not exact matches

«The deity of Christ, His death, the atonement of sin, the resurrection, my standing with God the Father because of what Christ has done — it's just not a question,» he said.

At least all we have to do to avoid the ultimate penalty is to accept Christ and believe in his sacrificial atonement, however, we still have to suffer on earth for humanity crime in the garden of eden.

(By the way, we believe in pre-mortal existence where we were born as spirit children, which we also believe in every living thing having a soul two but anyways thats not revelant...) Which was when they were at the «drawing board» of the plan of Earth and everything and how they were going to do everything i.e. who was going to be the savior (because every body needs an atonement so we can go back and repent).

But it does not mean God does everything for us — we are responsible for our participation and 2 acts of atonement — reprentance and charity — we are now priests according to Hebrew of this sanctuary — we need to learn what that means and how to be a «priest».

Director Joe Wright (Atonement) is hard at work on a new origin story - ish movie for Captain James Hook, one that aims to do for the good Captain what Wicked did for Oz's witch.

I think Paul is hinting the Spirit of God will lead people into the ideas of God (from the whole Tanakh) and they don't need mind themselves with Jewish rituals (ie: circumcision — then I would also say — for that matter atonement — which is a Torah ritual).

It is appalling that the word «atonement» is used, but they do NOT believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY son of God and the ONLY WAY that one can obtain salvation - through His blood that was shed on the cross on Calvary!

If I believe the Fall, Atonement and the Resurrection to be either myth, metaphor, or legend, it doesn't matter if the result is a geuine Faith in God?

If by God is meant the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, who redeems his children by the atonement and sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ according to the predestined plan of salvation revealed in the Bible and ascribed to by the Christian churches, then the answer obviously is No — Schweitzer does not believe in God.

But sincere remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification demand that the wrong one has done be acknowledged and repented.

But to do that is to express disbelief about the atonement itself.

God does not accept anyone outside of Jesus» atonement.

Leave a little room on the edges, don't fill it all up, Church, with consumerism and light show performances or with hermeneutical gymnastics and atonement theories: leave a little room for the Love and the breathing, for the remembering and suffering, for the grieving and the longing, and the Holy stirring of an interruption.

The basic idea of a Non-Violent view of the atonement is that God did not want or need the death of Jesus in order to offer grace or forgiveness of sins.

Rollie, I too have issues with atonement theory but I don't see the link you are making with Jesus» teaching on salvation with that.

I do not hold to a judicial form of the atonement... though this change is a fairly recent development in my theology, and maybe it has not filtered down enough into other areas of my theology, such as my thinking on forgiveness....

Believing in angels, satans, bodily resurrections, atonement, and heavens of all kinds as does Osteen is irrational.

If a person does have to believe in substitutionary atonement, what if that person holds the ransom to Satan view?

Did God intend for Adam and Eve to learn about substitutionary atonement?

Joshua, the «law» you speak of that has been done away with is the sacrificial system of killing animals as an atonement for our sins.

If a person must believe in the death of resurrection of Jesus, is it sufficient to believe in the historical facts of these events, or does a person also have to believe in substitutionary atonement?

But modern ideas of justice to the individual were not in the background of the Old Testament's thought, and nowhere in the Bible does «atonement» mean what modern theologies, presupposing modern legal systems, have made it mean.

It has to do with mistaken theories of the Atonement.

28And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.

We simply do not know what the doctrines of atonement, incarnation and redemption mean until we understand what they mean for persons shaped by this historical milieu.

Do your books Atonement of God and Nothing but the Blood lay out your full views on this issue?

One's view of the atonement will reflect one's understanding of the plight of humanity and what needs to be done to effect human salvation.

You'd do well to look into the old ways of the «two» priests it required for the atonement of sin of the people — one for the inner court and one for the outer court, and the two animals — the spotless sacrificial lamb, and the scapegoat of whom the blood of that sacrificial lamb was placed and sent into the wilderness.

The Levitical law's sacrificial system didn't pertain to atonement and forgiveness though, it was a means of maintaining ritual purity within sacred space.

And remember father god does not forgive — first he needs blood for Atonement!!

We will look at this verse in more detail when we discuss the Calvinistic idea of Limited Atonement, but for now, it is enough to note that even if the whole world lies under the control of the wicked one, Jesus has done what is necessary to liberate the whole world from the evil one so that they can respond to the gospel and believe in Jesus for eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:7 - 13).

Nevertheless, such sin did not keep God from promising to remember His covenant with the people of Israel and provide atonement for them (Ezek 16:60 - 63).

I have been reading with much interest all the posts here concerning Hebrews, and the person who treads underfoot Yahshua and sinning that there is no longer any atonement for doing this.

Same as He became a high priest, perfect and sinless so that He doesn't have to make an atonement for his sins and once again, he is forever alive so that there is no need for another priest.

The Hebrew word «kapparah,» although usually translated as «atonement,» does not occupy exactly the same linguistic field as the English noun «atonement» — a word that has its own long theological history.

Lately something has puzzled and astonished me consciously that had been festering in my mind for many years: How did it happen that one particular theory of the atonement, the so - called Latin or Anselmic or substitutionary or satisfaction theory, came to dominate the entire Christian religion in its Western expression?

Jesus» prayer, «Father forgive them for they know not what they do», not a legalist substitutionary theory of the Atonement, is the biblical Revelation.

When we say that these patterns of experience have been used in doctirines of atonement, we do not mean that the theologians have tried, to reduce the meaning of God's saving work to forms of human experience.

The interpretation of the atonement which makes most sense to me is a combination of Abelard's position, of God's exhibiting in act unfailing love for humanity, with what might be styled an ontological grounding, in the very structure and dynamic of the cosmos, for what was done in Christ.

Shailer Matthews once accurately described most theories of atonement as «transcendentalized politics».3 It is God who redeenns man, and what God does can not be identified with any human experience or form, though it penetrates human understanding.

Our clue is that if the atonement means God doing what needs to be done to reconcile the world to himself, then the human experiences which may reflect this work of God must be those of personal reconciliation.

When I write in my book The Atonement of God that God was not angry about sin, and did not need Jesus to die so that we could be forgiven, people get upset that I am presenting a God who looks and acts just like Jesus Christ instead of like a Hitlerian Zeus.

It has to do with the christus victor theory of the atonement which I find myself moving towards.

It was not His fault that the world was made like this, and, unlike God the Father, He is friendly to man and did His best to reconcile man to God (see Atonement).

But in interpreting the «how» of redemption, the question has too rarely been asked, «What is the meaning of atonement as love doing its distinctive work in dealing with guilt and self - destruction?»

Here's where, when you're finally done killing all gay folks, you should maybe take a week off then get right to killing anyone who works on the Sabbath, or day of atonement.

For a bishop of the church to say that Jesus didn't bodily rise from the dead and that the atonement is child abuse...» For her the lack of theological oversight was obvious.

But Christianity, which is the first discoverer of the paradoxes, is in this case also as paradoxical as possible; it works directly against itself when it establishes sin so securely as a position that it seems a perfect impossibility to do away with it again — and then it is precisely Christianity which, by the atonement, would do away with it so completely that it is as though drowned in the sea.

I thought that adopting a more or less Pauline Christianity did not require that one adopt an atonement theory, certainly not that of Anselm.