According to the Times, there were posts on Cenedella's blog about a «new holiday for men» that involved women providing steaks and oral sex, and a separate entry that endorsed a link to
a Biblical justification of polygamy.
As if I'd give ANY credence to a mouthpiece for a so - called «church» which was LITERALLY founded for the purpose of providing
Biblical justification of slavery.
Not exact matches
«While I applaud and agree with many
of Glenn Beck's conservative and constitutional views, that does not give me or any other Bible - believing Christian
justification to compromise
Biblical truth by spiritually joining Beck.»
I can not wait to hear the
justification for how the Twilight series is a dramatic retelling
of some heretofore unpopular
Biblical allegory.
It is my contention that a
biblical understanding
of the cross leads necessarily to a nonviolent stance and, conversely, that only a fully
biblical view
of the cross and
justification can provide an adequate foundation for nonviolence.
I prefer to apply lessons learned from a wider range
of human experience and condemn those
biblical passages as the product
of an ignorant, arrogant, bloodthirsty tribe
of self - centered nomadic shepherds whose primary characteristics were a raging persecution complex and an unending quest for
justification for their major case
of the hots for the little girls in the naboring tribes.
Many
of the slides in the 43 page presentation use a Christian
justification for war, displaying pictures
of saints like Saint Augustine and using
biblical references.
My disagreements with the five points
of both Calvinism and Arminianism iare not exactly with their theology or understanding
of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, et
Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition
of certain
biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, et
biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement,
justification, eternal life, forgiveness
of sins, etc, etc..
It believes, no doubt with some
justification, that the quest for such truth has undercut its commitment to the distinctive
biblical and traditional forms
of Christianity.
But to claim some
biblical justification for something so directly contrary to the teaching
of Christ is (I think I have said this before) a perversion
of the text.
The
biblical justification for the doctrine is sometimes found in Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 1:2 and Isaiah 6:3, but none
of these passages speak
of a God who is eternally three in one.
These «conservative» Christians think they represent all Christian, but their school
of Christianity is the same one that claimed a
biblical justification for black slavery.
If it is so easy to ignore a major and substantial religious practice repeatedly uplifted, enshrined and required by the Torah and by all the scripture that follows, why is it so hard to let go
of two verses that have substantially less
biblical mention and support and no contemporary
justification?
Of course, if you did find
biblical justification for meeting on Sunday (as you might), you can still ask «What if we didn't meet on Sunday?»
It is clear that only an outline can be offered, and its detailed
justification would exceed the limits
of what is possible here.4 The problem
of the content
of that account, the problem, that is,
of what is actually asserted and what is mode or manner
of making the assertion, can in principle only be solved if the literary character, genre or form
of the
biblical account has been clearly determined in accordance with sound principle.
Yet another «
biblical» «
justification» about the current state
of affairs where so many churches silently hate on gay sex and call that hate under different names.
It is seldom noticed (at least in discussions
of the City
of God) that the Latin terms for justice and
justification come from the same Latin root (lost in English when the
biblical term «justice» is translated as «righteousness»).
Citing a
biblical scholar, he says: «In the light
of the conclusions drawn earlier that there is no explicit Old Testament
justification for assuming that wine drinking is ever appropriate for the saint, even in moderation, it is important to indicate briefly that the New Testament evidence concurs with, or at least is not contrary to, this conclusion» (p. 137).
It opens the way for reconciliation, one
of the most important and beautiful
of all
biblical words.18 Theologians have often preferred to speak
of «
justification,» and it is a precise, courtroom word.
In these terms, we intended to affirm nothing less than «
justification by grace alone because
of Christ alone through faith alone,» which is the
biblical Gospel.
Our discussion was also informed by the superb
biblical scholarship
of Father Joseph Fitzmyer, whose recent Commentary on Romans illuminates the Pauline meaning
of justification:
For my Evangelicals brothers who remain unconvinced and still believe adultery is a
biblical justification for divorce, pastoral integrity seems to demand you either inform those you marry that you will not hold them to their vows in cases
of unfaithfulness, or you instruct the couple to use conditional wording in their vows.
As Evangelicals, we saw this teaching as implicit in the doctrine
of justification by faith alone and tried to express it in
biblical terms.
That sojourn at divinity school also contributed to Lewis's masterful examination, in The Lure
of God (LG)
of the
biblical grounding
of, and
justification for, many
of the otherwise presumably nonclassical, neo-classical, or anti-traditional formulations
of theism offered by Whitehead, Hartshorne, and other process philosophers.1
And since
biblical revelation always has the character
of unpredictability, in that its arrival transcends our anticipations, its
justification would strain critical thinking beyond its usual limits.
I Timothy 5:8 is a favorite
of anti-SAHD pastors to toss out and use as
biblical justification for why men MUST be the breadwinner and leave the responsibilities
of full time child - rearing and running a household to their wives.
Was this author equally appalled about the prayer breakfast earlier this month, when President Obama tried to use
biblical phrases like «for unto whom much is given, much shall be required» and «love thy neighbor as thyself» out
of context as
justification for his tax and economic policies?
In fact, 1Timothy 2 appear in a list
of «key texts» on the CBMW site and is commonly cited as
biblical justification for limiting the roles
of women in church leadership.
Since
biblical sanction can be claimed for the view that learning is intrinsically good, the test
of a university's Christian adequacy, as well as the
justification of its purpose, lies in its standards
of learning, not in its conversion rate.
I especially love how she says the following as if it's meant to be a
justification of her position: «
Biblical patriarchs and kings violate nearly every one
of these commandments.»
Brandon D. Smith, another leader
of the Center, has called the Lord's Supper «more than a memory» and set forth a careful
biblical justification for its weekly celebration in worship.
We are well used to such Evangelicals, sharing with them the doctrinal and moral essentials
of classical Christianity, a commitment to the Augustinian patrimony
of the West, recent remarkable joint statements on
justification, and much common work for the sanctity
of life,
Biblical standards
of sexual morality, social justice, environmental responsibility and world peace.