Sentences with phrase «god depends upon him»

He assumes the life pleasing to God and likely to be rewarded by God depends upon one's behavior.

If comprehension of the nature of God depends upon him evidencing himself to me, I would like to know what has counted as revelation for you.

Our fellowship with God depends upon our unity, as does our witness to the world — we are to be one «so that the world may believe» that Jesus is from God and that God loves us (John 17:21,23).

At present, I am a student writing a doctoral thesis on a theology of mutual relation, believing as I do that the future of both humanity and God depends upon human beings» willingness to relate as equals.

There is or is not proof for the existence of God depending upon what epistemelogical standard you are using.

Not exact matches

It is tempting to define the categories philosophically, rather than historically, around the recognition that knowledge depends upon the existence of God.

They fail to distinguish two types of religious persons who may be part of this group: the first, who depend completely upon the literal interpretation of Scripture and tradition by an authoritarian pastor, and second, those who undertake rescue activity as the command of God, based upon a thoughtful and self - ratified interpretation of the ethical imperatives of the gospel.

Not only does reality depend on God for its initial existence, but it is dependent upon him for its continued existence: «No being is there, whether moving or unmoving, that exists or could exist apart from Me» (X. 39; cf. IX.

Where people in Britain can depend on the NHS for healing, people in many parts of the globe can often only depend upon God.

The distinction between the two natures of God does not depend upon any of the intricacies of Whitehead's metaphysics as developed in Process and Reality and may well antedate it.

We depend upon Christ to see God's eyes, to know what makes them sad, to know what makes them glad and to pray so that God listens.

4 The answer to this question will depend (as Deleuze clearly recognizes), not simply upon an analysis of the nature of monadic units, but on confronting the issue at its most sensitive point, namely, with respect to the difference between the Leibnizian God who «compares and chooses,» and the Whiteheadian God who «affirms incompossibles and passes them through.»

Sherburne, in contrast to other Whiteheadians and in agreement with the «existentialists,» denies that the value of life depends upon a God who either provides men with a general confidence about the final worth of life (Ogden) or with a sense of the worthwhileness of the present moment whatever its final outcome (Cobb).

The Christian Faith is sometimes criticized because it depends entirely upon an old - fashioned conception of God and upon the assumption that this little planet is the center of the whole universe.

Jesus condenses the Old Testament prophetic ethic (quoting from Deuteronomy and Leviticus) when he declares that «all the law and the prophets» depend upon love of God and love of neighbor (Matt.

Reinforcing in advance the claim I have put forth at the end of Part Two, Hartshorne went on to point out: «Just as the Stoics said the ideal was to have good will toward all but not in such fashion as to depend in any [221] degree for happiness upon their fortunes or misfortunes, so Christian theologians, who scarcely accepted this idea in their ethics, nevertheless adhered to it in characterizing God.»

Further, what did, for instance, the late Dom Gregory Dix, in the last and most permanently valuable chapter of his Shape of the Liturgy, (Dacre Press [1945]-RRB- mean when he said that «we depend upon God for our very dependence»?

and these interpretations will depend in part upon some other knowledge of God than that given in the experience itself.

Just as the Stoics said the ideal was to have good will toward all but not in such fashion as to depend in any degree for happiness upon their fortunes or misfortunes, so Christian theologians, who scarcely accepted this idea in their ethics, nevertheless adhered to it in characterizing God.8

Ogden mentions that every creature is to some extent God's act,» and that each creature has a certain freedom; 46 but he does not make use of this notion to point out that different creatures will be acts of God to different degrees depending upon how they actualize their freedom.

In fact, due to our widespread dependence upon buildings, it could be argued that our worship of God is weaker because we depend on buildings.

He argued (in his third way) that even a universe with an infinite past would need to depend upon God for its existence.

It is questionable whether theodicy depends upon a God who suffers.

Ultimately, however, the question of whether Israel can see in the church a sign that is fundamentally congruent with God's plan of salvation for the world depends upon the church's attitude toward the Jewish people.

That is to say, salvation depends finally upon right human action in response to God's gracious Torah, and Jesus» function is simply to re-present that Law as it exists primordially in the mind of God — not to create a new possibility for human existence.

But, thanks be to God, my salvation is not depending upon my works.

That insight is nothing other than the understanding that while in one sense God is indeed unalterable in his faithfulness, his love, and his welcome to his human children, in another sense the opportunities offered to him to express just such an attitude depend to a very considerable degree upon the way in which what has taken place in the world provides for God precisely such an opening on the human side; and it is used by him to deepen his relationship and thereby enrich both himself and the life of those children.

It certainly depends upon trusting the true God and not any sort of chimera of the divine; that we entrust ourselves to the God who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and nowhere else as our true, real God, and not simply to a product of our fantasy.

The sociologist of religion will have to examine the character of this twofold relationship in the case of each individual group because the nature, intensity, duration, and organization of a religious group depends upon the way in which its members experience God, conceive of, and communicate with Him, and upon the way they experience fellowship, conceive of, and practice it.

For it is quite stunning that the four documents in question depend for their intelligibility and their credibility upon a distinctively Jewish and Christian view of man's relation to God.

Its coming depends upon God.

But it depends upon their giving up both their uncritical acceptance of the present ideology of modernization identifying it with Christianity and any revival of primalism in a militant and fundamentalist way in the name of their self - identity, and evaluating both modernity and tradition in the light of Christian personalism i.e. the idea of human beings as persons in community, and all natural and social functions as sacramental means of communion in the purpose of God.

(Ephesians 4:32) Such precepts clearly depend for their full meaning upon the «proclamation» of what God has done for men through Christ.

The independence of those vehicles in turn depends upon whether church personnel are willing and able to relinquish their monopoly on God talk about the nation and whether other persons (in nonreligious roles) are willing and able to adopt such theological rhetoric.

Our destiny is to be in God but whether this is negative or positive will depend upon the openness of the human person to the divine Love and the expression of that Love in and through the affairs of our daily living.

We are saying that the genuinely whole community of faithful people knows that it depends upon God's healing power, and also knows that healing is never to be treated as its possession, or as a completed work.

So long as he operates as theologian at all, whether his work is dogmatic or eristic, it all depends upon and serves God's revelation of himself in Jesus Christ.

O when one beholds a man who protests that he has entirely understood how Christ went about in the form of a lowly servant, poor, despised, and, as the Scripture says, spat upon — when I see the same man so careful to betake himself thither where in a worldly sense it is good to be, and accommodate himself there in the utmost security, when I see him apprehensive of every puff of wind from right or left, as though his life depended upon it, and so blissful, so utterly blissful, so awfully glad — yes, to make the thing complete, so awfully glad that he is able to thank God for it — glad that he is held in honor by all men — then I have often said to myself and by myself, «Socrates, Socrates, Socrates, can it be possible that this man has understood what he says he has understood?»

It depends upon the insight that the value of life is conserved by an enduring and healing fact, the fact of God.

The ultimate reality upon which our hope depends is therefore the eternal truth and power of God, breaking into the flow of historical events, qualifying it, transforming it, yet always to be understood as giving meaning to life through its relation to that which is beyond the time form of the world process.

It is possible to speak of such a life only because we acknowledge that it depends wholly upon our participation in the working of God which is infinitely deeper than anything we can define or control.

In another context we have said that the nature, intensity, duration, and organization of a religious group depends upon the way in which its members experience God, how they conceive of and communicate with Him, and how they experience fellowship, conceive of it, and practice it.

For over forty years, Charles Hartshorne has been clarifying and defending a conception of God which he has variously termed «panentheism,» «surrelativism,» «dipolar theism,» or «neoclassical theism,» depending upon which aspect of his understanding he has been concerned to emphasize.

Hartshorne's criticism of paradox, and Whitehead's insistence that God is not an exception to all metaphysical principles but their «chief exemplification,» are products of logical thought that in no way depend upon process philosophy: indeed the converse is the case, for this philosophy is largely built upon such principles of logic.

She rejects apocalyptic hope in favor of prophetic hope, in which the outcome depends upon human obedience.5 She asks rhetorically: «Can God — independently of whatever «the world,» and therefore society, does or fails to do — bestow forgiveness directly on a penitent man and make possible a new beginning for him?»

«It is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.»

I will not argue this view here and will try to carry on the discussion presupposing as little as possible my own peculiar proposals for a doctrine of God, proposals which depend upon, but differ from, Whitehead's own position.

Moreover, it is a contribution that God desires and, in the sense explained above, depends upon.

If Aquinas at least tacitly acknowledges this by making all analogical predications depend upon the clearly literal distinction between Creator and Creature, he can also seem not to acknowledge it by flatly declaring that we can not know of God quid sit, but only an sit or quod sit.

Josiah Royce with a quite different philosophical orientation from Ritschl expressed the same truth when he described the Church as the community which is sustained by its memory of the atoning deed of Jesus.21 What is supremely important here is that knowledge of God's forgiveness does not depend upon a private and subjective illumination of the individual believer alone.