Biblical teaching requires perfection and truth and so does science.
Not exact matches
But the biggest problem, as I saw it, was that those
teaching this view of «
biblical womanhood» refused to acknowledge that their interpretation — like all interpretations — involved a certain degree of selectivity and
required a certain set of presuppositions.
Obama went on to frame decisions as disparate as ending tax breaks for the wealthy and defending foreign aid as examples of
biblical principles in action, quoting Jesus»
teaching that «for unto whom much is given, much shall be
required» and invoking the «
biblical call to care for the least of these.»
Seriously, my only problem is that under your guidelines Christian schools would be
required to
teach practices against their core
biblical beliefs, like Gay behavior, etc..
Jenson's ambitious enterprise
requires familiarity with the sources of Christian
teaching through the centuries as well as with the
biblical roots, and he displays an intimate knowledge of the Eastern Fathers as well as of Western figures such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Half - way houses, therefore, must be deemed faulty when they approve women ruling men in secular affairs (because Scripture nowhere forbids it and sometimes exemplifies it) but not in the church or home (because Scripture
requires male leadership in both), or when they approve women ruling in today's church (because Paul's restriction on this seems to be culturally determined) but not in the family (because
biblical teaching on this seems to be transcultural and timeless).
There are other important ways in which Mormon
teaching does not match
biblical teaching on Christ's atonement, but most significantly the Mormon Jesus
teaches that membership in the LDS Church is
required for eternal life.
Hence with His own statements, so far as they are His own, such a «proportionate interpretation», in a fine phrase from Bishop Westcott, is
required quite as much as it is
required for other pieces of
biblical teaching.