Sentences with phrase «biblical support for»

In light of our conversation about Anne Frank yesterday, I thought I'd re-post this rather lengthy piece from 2008 (back when I thought people liked to read 1,000 - word blog posts) that details some of the biblical support for a more inclusive view of salvation.

That's proof - texting and if you go that route you can just as easily find biblical support for genocide.

For those who are so committed, it reenforces the importance of what they are doing and gives them further theological and biblical support for their work.

There's no biblical support for a lot of what we believe and do.

Implicit biblical support for democracy does not come from happy idealism about every man's worth or his capacity for sound judgment, rather, it flows from sober realism about every man's tendency to sin against his neighbor if he can get away with it.

P.S.. For some biblical support for this position, check out theologian Greg Boyd's articles on control, on Romans 9, and specifically Romans 9:18.

For centuries, there were Christians who argued that the New Testament household codes provided biblical support for preserving the institution of slavery.

Discovering Biblical Equality, edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis: If you want to take your understanding of the biblical support for Christian egalitarianism to a new level, this is the book for you.

So yes, we do have biblical support for the idea that God sometimes uses relics of his Saints to convey His healing power.

There is simply no biblical support for proof obviating faith, or the faith that God desires requires a lack of proof as to His reality.

And they found much Biblical support for the view that God's will is justice and social righteousness.

I don't see any biblical support for the idea that our sins will be displayed for the whole world.

A great deal of very solid biblical support for the rapture.

The question is, how do you view the concept of confession, and is there any Biblical support for that view?

They find biblical support for the traditional roles of women and say it not oppressive but God's order, which those liberals are looking to destroy.

I am going to DEMAND that you specify WHICH scripture I have perverted even though I have provided ZERO scriptural claims to back up my claims of biblical support for my view in the first place.

But the biblical support for entire sanctification is less than that for predestination.

The best biblical support for this argument is the story of Job.

Not exact matches

To ignore or excuse the Daniels saga, some evangelical Christians are even using a biblical comparison to explain their continued support for Donald Trump: the story of King David.

They search for vague biblical references to support their own guilty feelings towards masturbation.

I'm impressed by the ability of some of these so - called Christian leaders» attempts to rationalize their support for Obama and / or his positions despite Biblical teachings.

It continues, «I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.

Support for Israel has become a key issue for American evangelicals, some of whom believe the country plays a key role in end times and others who believe there's a biblical mandate to honor the Jewish state.

On a side note, it is not only biblical for the USA to support Israel, but it is just plain common sense.

About the latter, for example, they imply that Christian support for Israel relies on particular beliefs about biblical prophecies while they ignore more prudential arguments in Israel's favor.

Modification is to bury Biblical ideas - Obama's support for gay and lesbian marriage, abortion even after advanced pregnancy etc., Obama attending church may be for political support.

But as you mentioned with # 2 and # 4, there are biblical passages that offer support for loving, redemptive, discipline and for controlled anger against sin.

Loki, his «church» was quite literally FOUNDED on the principle that Southern slavery was Biblical and just; further, that «church» has NEVER issued a binding, formal apology for its support of slavery, racial etiquette, and Jim Crow; in fact, they were their most ardent supporters.

Who would be interested in a book supporting and trying to gain acceptance for the doctrine based on biblical and historical evidence that Jesus died on March 25, 31 CE, at 15.00 hours, on a TUESDAY and was resurrected by His Father, Yahweh God, at about 18.00 hours, on a FRIDAY, thus fulfilling His own prophecy contained in Mat 12:40, whereas He would be three days and three nights in the tomb?

Walker turns to Hartshornean and biblical theism for evidence to support his claim.

Falwell spoke for a large number of Christian Zionists in the U.S., Christians who believe that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and so deserves unconditional political, financial and religious support.

Second, in response to both the biblical concern for justice and the problems of resources and energy, actively support international, national and local initiatives to conserve energy and resources and to reduce poverty and injustice.

And biblical scholars on both sides of the debate point to scripture for support.

The group also bought newspaper ads in November encouraging Christians to vote for candidates who oppose same - sex marriage, support Israel and «base their decisions on biblical principles.»

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles of Peter and Paul, about the meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really mean when we talk about «biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.

This person had no idea how much hell I've taken from people in my evangelical community for writing about my doubts, my questions related to heaven and hell, my views on biblical interpretation and theology, and my support for women in ministry and other marginalized people in the Church.

The presence of biblical support was not the reason for the teaching.

«In particular, those who saw in Scripture a sanction for slavery were both more insistent on pointing to the passages that seemed so transparently to support their position and more confident in decrying the wanton disregard for divine revelation that seemed so willfully to dismiss biblical truths.»

It is questionable whether either theory has the biblical support that is claimed for it.

Disheartened by the amount of support Griffin had received from the community, I considered showing up at the courthouse with a sign that included Exodus 22:21, «Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt» — mainly because June prides herself on being a strict biblical literalist.

First, Wickman claims that this discovery «has significant implications for the Judeo - Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs» because «this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe», and according to Wickman, any such beginning «sounds a lot like» Genesis 1:1's claim that God did it.

I am, of course, aware of a host of objections to my continuing to lean for support upon biblical infallibility.

Steve... I think we're floggin» a dead horse here, but for what it's worth, understand that I'm not trying to convince you to think like I do, rather I wd hope that room wd be made for many theological differences.To think discuss and debate theology is well supported by the New Testament and history, and is perfectly within the bounds of what it means to engage our minds with the subject at hand.Theologians and biblical scholars have done this very thing for centuries, revealing a plethora of opinion on the evolving world of biblical studies.Many capable authors have written and debated the common themes as well as the differences between Paul, John, Jesus, the synoptics, etc..

She later says «The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo - Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

he new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo - Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

However, there is no biblical or theological support for this idea.

(Incidentally, this is one of the main reasons for America's support of Israel, since Israel's control of the «biblical lands» is a first step toward the «Rapture» and the end of the world which is so much desired by these Christians!)

We definitely need to show our support for them and any other openly Christian business willing to take a stand for biblical truths.

For open dialogue will show that each position has Biblical support and value while remaining incomplete as formulated.