Sentences with phrase «christian atonement»

On the other side, the fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals have begun to see that Christian atonement and redemption are not merely for individual appropriation in isolation but also take into account the whole person with his / her involvement in society and culture.

There are many Christian atonement theologies.

Not exact matches

Christians still sin; it's a question as to atonement for that sin.

Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's «magic - man» are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and «magic - man atonement, and infalliable, old, European, white men, and 24/7 body / blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices.

Obviously, today's followers / singers of Paul et al's «magic - man» are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about virgin births and bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and «magic - man atonement, and infallible, old, European, white men, and 24/7 body / blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices.

It has been suggested that satisfaction theories of the Atonement and the correlative understanding of the Christian life as a life of interiority became the rule during the long process we call the Constantinian settlement.

They count themselves as Christian because they accept Jesus Christ as the son of God and believe people are saved through his atonement.

Redemptive Change: Atonement and the Christian Cure of the Soul.

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.

Reading Christian books has not been one of my strong points (hang over from too much study), but in the case of the Atonement of God I couldn't put it down.

A couple years ago, however, I began to find other Christians (throughout church history) who have not held to the substitutionary atonement view of Christ's death.

The Christian church has not consistently understood atonement in cosmic terms.

Much like Townend's «How Deep the Father's Love for Us», which includes the line «The Father turns His face away», this hymn splits Christians on their view of the atonement.

The principal elements in the death and resurrection cluster of the Christian Myth are (A) his death as sacrifice and atonement, and (B) the «magical» elements of the resurrection stories.

Not until the Christian recognizes the Crucifixion as enacting and embodying the self - negation of the sovereign and transcendent Creator can he celebrate an atonement which is the source of the abolition of all confinement and repression.

In 1895, the Conference of Conservative Protestants, meeting in Niagra Falls, issued a statement of five principles necessary to claim true Christian belief: the inerrancy of the Scriptures; the divinity of Jesus Christ; the historicity of the Virgin birth; the substitutionary nature of the Atonement; and the physical, corporeal return of Jesus, the Christ.

Atonement conceived of in this way has no place in Christian Myth or Christian anything else.

A large area of historic Christian theology would have been completely altered if ideas of atonement, especially as related to the blood of Christ, had not been carried over from primitive concepts associated with animal sacrifice.

Some Christians might believe this, but it is not explicitly taught in Scripture, and there are many other views on how the «atonement» worked and what the death of Jesus accomplished.

All these metaphors have been worked into theories of the atonement in Christian history; but it is remarkable that no single doctrine of atonement has ever become the accepted theory to the exclusion of the others.

For example, in 1923 Mullins, the champion of «soul liberty,» outlined various basic Christian beliefs (e.g., biblical inspiration, the miracles of Christ, his vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection, literal ascension, and final return) and declared before the SBC: «We believe that adherence to the above truths and facts is a necessary condition of service for teachers in our Baptist schools.»

I grant that the word «atonement» in some modern Christian contexts might carry some, if not all, of these connotations.

Gerstenberger has subtly shifted the focus away from what the priests of Leviticus were talking about — namely effecting «kapparah» — and toward what is useful for Christian theological speculations, namely «atonement.»

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?

It is amazing, surely, when every textbook of Christian systematics one can think of develops three or more (usually three) historic types of atonement theory, that people in the pews (and many in the pulpits!)

In the light of the atonement we see certain elements essential to a Christian view of the sacraments.

This interpretation of the scriptures and understanding of Christian anthropology gave Christian spirituality a view of God as a harsh judge who wanted the sacrifice of the life of Jesus as expiation and atonement for the sins of humanity.

Let us look again at the atonement as the New Testament witnesses to it, and as the centuries of Christian experience have wrestled with it.

The most recent study, and one of especial insight, is F. W. Dillistone, The Christian Understanding of Atonement (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1968).

There are four affirmations about Jesus Christ that historically have been stressed in Christian faith: (1) Jesus is truly human, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, living a human life under the same human conditions any one of us faces — thus Christology, statement of the significance of Jesus, must start «from below,» as many contemporary theologians are insisting; (2) Jesus is that one in whom God energizes in a supreme degree, with a decisive intensity; in traditional language he has been styled «the Incarnate Word of God»; (3) for our sake, to secure human wholeness of life as it moves onward toward fulfillment, Jesus not only lived among us but also was crucified for us — this is the point of talk about atonement wrought in and by him; (4) death was not the end for him, so it is not as if he never existed at all; in some way he triumphed over death, or was given victory over it, so that now and forever he is a reality in the life of God and effective among humankind.

In the Christian faith it is the atonement which discloses the ultimate resource of God's love.

The Christian affirmation that Jesus was crucified «for our sake» is often stated by the use of the word atonement, a word that will serve if we remember that etymologically it means «at - one - ment.»

, the negative side of a Christian anthropology (sin and atonement), and finally Jesus Christ.

The concept of atonement of sins by beleiving Jesus died for One's sins was developed later to justify the crucifixion which many christians believe it happened.

1) that eternal life given on the basis of faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from works; 2) that eternal security is part of the gift of eternal life; 3) that assurance of salvation is through faith in Christ's promise of eternal life, and not by looking at one's own works 4) Christians can apostatize in this life, and are still eternally secure 5) eternal rewards are earned by faithful works, and lost by unfaithfulness 6) unlimited atonement 7) free - will to respond to God's drawing or not

Christian thinkers through the ages have attempted to spell out in the various theories of the atonement what they thought actually happened in the death of Jesus in order to make it instrumental for men's salvation.

5:19) In the incarnation and the act of atonement, according to Christian confession, reconciliation has taken place and the possibility of forgiveness is offered to humankind.

The whole point of the Christian doctrine of Atonement is that God can not be merciful without fulfilling within himself, and on man's behalf, the requirements of divine justice.

I have never known Peale to grapple with atonement, grace and justification, and anyone who has completed, even in his student days, a 300 - page topical index to Calvin's four - volume Institutes of Christian Religion — as Schuller did — is scarcely ignorant of the issues in Reformed theology.

Obviously, today's followers (i.e. BO and MR et al) of Paul et al's «magic - man» are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and «magic - man atonement, and infallible, old, white men, and 24/7 body / blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices.

The Crucifixion as the supreme atonement for mankind's sins is central to the Christian religion, but not because the authors of the New Testament didn't foresee the wonders that modern medicine would achieve.

The doctrinal foundations of the Christian faith — the Trinity, the incarnation and the atonement — become so many knickknacks gathering dust on the shelf, perhaps needing to be put out in a yard sale.

Niebuhr maintained that the Christian doctrine of the Atonement is the final key to this interpretation.

In 2:1, sin is seen as a possibility for the Christian and the writer encourages the certainty, again, of divine forgiveness on the ground of Jesus» atonement.

One central element in the Christian gospel is the affirmation that in a very real way God deals with that situation — this is the meaning of what we call redemption or salvation or atonement.

We may compare to some extent the therapeutic value in the traditional celebration of Good Friday by the Christian and of the Day of Atonement by the Jew.

Isn't it a paradox that some of the most controversial words in Christian theology — «Trinity» and «atonement,» for example — are not to be found in the New Testament?

Obviously, today's two billion followers of Paul et al's (e.g. G. Beck) «magic - man» are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and «magic - man atonement, and infallible, old, European / Utah white men, and 24/7 body / blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices.

There are many theological interpretations of the atonement, but Christian sources consistently affirm the centrality of the death of Jesus on the cross.

In other words, the teaching that the death of Christ was (a) for sin and (b) in accordance with the scriptures was derived by both Mark and Paul from the primitive church; the doctrine of the Atonement is not Paul's unique and distinctive contribution to Christian thought, for it is really pre-Pauline; further, it is not at all the central, cardinal doctrine in «Paulinism,» but a subsidiary one; (Indeed, it is a component one — it forms part of the doctrine of the new creation in Christ) finally, the conception of the way in which Christ's death becomes effective, as Paul conceived it, is peculiar to Paul and finds no trace in Mark or indeed elsewhere in the New Testament (Save in passages demonstrable dependent on Paul)-- Paul thinks of it as a conquest of the demonic powers in the very hour of their greatest aggression and apparent triumph.