Sentences with phrase «biblical the meaning of»

God intimately chose His people, and this foreknowing is the foundation of His predestination, so if we were to translate the Biblical meaning of foreknowledge into Romans 8:29 it would read like this, «For those whom God intimately set His affection upon beforehand, He also predestined...» And this meaning is in sync with the rest of the Bible.

Since Christian mission directly concerns the world beyond the bounds of Christianity, or the interaction with those beyond the frontier line, any definition of mission — including deductive works on the biblical meanings of mission — has to take the world beyond the bounds of Christianity seriously.

The franchises only exist because of the originating business.He only stated that he believes in the biblical meaning of marriage, one man one woman.

«To be separate» is the biblical meaning of «holy.»

In fact, what he described concerning justice was a fruit of salvation, not salvation itself — for he isolated the biblical meaning of justice in the same way that he asserts «Christians» isolate the usage of salvation!

It underlines that Liberation Theology is necessary to respond to the aspirations of liberation and reflects the biblical meaning of liberation which is an essential theme of the Old Testament and the New Testament.5

But the biblical meaning of faith can not be reduced to individualistic voluntarism.

Do you know the prebilical and biblical meaning of the word «god»?

I have in my life time attended many churches and I do know tyhe biblical meaning of the word, but in the «christian» world there are so many factions and every one of them believing that they hold a corner on the truth!

In Biblical the meaning of the name Elias is, «God the Lord; the strong Lord»

In Biblical the meaning of the name Canaan is, «Merchant, trader, or that humbles and subdues»

Not exact matches

Biblical law offers a means for limiting the ravages of the disease of avarice, and as a result it is the Church, not economists, that must lead in offering the corrective.

I spent a lot of time ostracized by fellow churchgoers because I dared question meanings and interpretations of biblical passages.

Never - the-less, I am fascinated by biblical scholarship, the history of the early church, and at any rate think people should have the correct facts about what was written and what the original authors meant it to mean.

Jews believe that they are the chosen people and the rest of us some sort of second class humanoids (Note: biblical jews I mean)

The masses of people during Biblical times had no formal education and no means of employment.

For at least a decade and a half before the appointment of Tietjen to the presidency of Concordia Seminary, some of its faculty had begun to turn away from such understandings — though without claiming that this turn meant giving up biblical inerrancy.

This is what is funny about christianity, Christians change the meaning of the bible so that it makes every satam act as biblical, one day everything will be biblical even walking naked in the streets.

CNN: Name of Israel's anti-Hamas operation has biblical meaning To English speakers, the name of Israel's anti-Hamas campaign sounds pretty straightforward: «Operation Pillar of Defense.»

-- there is no «price» (again American Christian reference, not biblical); «his agents»: if you mean the Holy Spirit and / or Christ then since those are God then it's just the worship of God because you DESIRE to worship Him not as if there was anything any of us could offer that would be reciprocal for Christ's sacrifice.

But the task of preserving even our moral floor is complicated by the determination of many that «we» should have free and full access to the remissive power of Christian forgiveness without any of the interdictory authority of biblical faith — even if this means that this power can only be «pried from God's clutches» by corrupting it, on at least some important occasions, into nihlistic nonjudgmentalism.

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

Biblical prophets practice it which means God approves of it.

Like biblical Hebrew, Atwood's witty prose is thick with double entendre and allusion, including hidden puns whose meanings dawn on us only later, and outrageous jokes that don't so much dawn as «bomb» (one of the book's metaphors and an effect of Atwood's powerfully laconic style)

Two comments.One, the atheist / materialist claims that he / she... «Did «nt believe in free will»... O.K.Should we take that to mean some mindless, heretofore unknown force apllied those words in your behalf?Did someone put the proverbial «gun to your head «and force you to post your comments?we await you presumably forced answer with bated breath.Two.As for Mr.Gingrich, beware.Politics aside, the one question yet remains for Calista: How did you, a professed «devout «Roman Catholic, carry on a 6 - year affair with a man you knew was married?How does that square with the Biblical prohibition against committing adultery?Oh wait!I know!As a «devout «Roman Catholic you can sin with impunity; just go to your priest, say a couple of «hail Marys and Our Fathers», ask the priest to bless your sinning, and resume.Of course!I had forgetton how easily Catholics excuse their trangressions (ex opere operato, anyone).

We are called to live holy lives that honour Christ and sometimes doing so may mean we get put in jail / persecuted (like Joseph, Daniel and a host of other biblical examples, including Jesus himself.

Biblical criticism means nothing but applying to the biblical documents the rational or scientific methods of scholarship which are applied in other fields oBiblical criticism means nothing but applying to the biblical documents the rational or scientific methods of scholarship which are applied in other fields obiblical documents the rational or scientific methods of scholarship which are applied in other fields of study.

Certainly Equiano became an eloquent critic of slavery; nevertheless, for him, Noll writes, biblical religion meant «the nearly total application of Scripture to the liberating effect of the Christian gospel for the individual person.»

Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text, and the term «Biblical exegesis» is used for greater specificity.

Many of our found!ng fathers were deist, who, while they often mentioned «God», did not mean it in the + radi + ion @l Biblical sense.

Does Piper's response not «reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts» and rely on a bit of «technical ingenuity»?

In the complementarian manifesto, the Danvers Statement, egalitarians are accused of «accepting hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuitybiblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuityBiblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity.»

Historical events — a bloody Civil War — forced us to look more closely at how exactly the Bible talks not only about slavery but the biblical meaning and value of a human being.

Only Biblical scholars «know» the true «meaning» of the Book?

But I also meant the continuing work of our great high priest, helping to provide meaning to this altered world from the depths of our faith and the biblical drama.

So Grudem claims that any selectivity whatsoever represents an arbitrary «pick - and - choose» approach to Scripture and a threat to biblical authority, and that those who support functional gender equality in the home and church are simply bending the «plain meaning of Scripture.»

They are also concerned that I presented and explored a variety of divergent perspectives on what «biblical womanhood» means (from Jewish, Catholic, Amish, feminist, polygamist, Christian fundamentalist and complementarian viewpoints, to name a few), including some viewpoints with which they do not agree.

In the biblical history we are to find a revelation of God that can be understood as to give meaning to history in our own time.

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.

But the Biblical concept of prayer, as practiced by Christ Himself as a model for us, is to seek and obtain God's will, and they pray for God's will to be done (even if that means going to the cross).

Not only is this not a faithful approach, but it also means that Biblical literalism denies the very literal truth of the Bible which it purports to defend.

my answer is either «Yes» or «What do you mean by» salvation» and is that the Biblical use of that term?»

Yet the early Church itself, when it departed from biblical idiom at the Council of Nicea and used for theological purposes a non-biblical word, homo - ousion, as the guarantor of true biblical meaning, gave Christians in later days a charter for translation — provided always that it is the gospel, its setting and its significance, that we are translating, and not some bright and novel ideas of our own.

And in a way meditation on biblical material is just that: after all the other «senses» have been exhausted, there is the imaginative approach that will make it possible for the reader to grasp the big meaning of what he is reading.

This is significant not only because it is a biblical text, but because it seems for her to sum up in a decisive way the meaning of her self - discovery.

But Richard A. Shenk points out in his new book, The Virgin Birth of Christ: The Rich Meaning of a Biblical Truth, that in Evangelical churches, the why of the virgin birth receives less attention than the fact of it.

The story makes innumerable references to the Bible, from the opening parody of biblical language in the description of Astor, to the parody of Pilate's questioning of Christ in the lawyer's interview with a mute Bartleby, to the seriously meant quotation from Job.

One might call this the soteriological captivity of creation, because it succeeds in emptying the world of its own meaning as a realm of divine governance and human involvement prior to and apart from the biblical story of salvation culminating in Christ.

Brooke reminds us that «two quite different meanings could... be attached to Darwin's Origin [of Species]-- that it was consistent with a biblical religion (as long as one did not take Genesis literally) and, conversely, that it undermined it.

Session 2: «My Year of Biblical Womanhood» (Thursday, 7 - 8 p.m.) How the Bible is meant to be a conversation - starter, not a conversation - ender