Sentences with phrase «about justification in»

Not exact matches

As I wrote about last week, the machines are allowed to go berserk and assign valuations to commodities that have zero justification in fundamental analysis.

To be sure, valid questions may be raised about whether Enlightenment justifications based on insecurity in the state of nature can truly ground human rights.

In any case, this is about as childish as justifications get, and it says you have no values guiding your actions.

It is about putting our faith in him for salvation and justification and not in the law or anything else.

No doubt there is some justification for their belief that the lessening of knowledge and conviction about these doctrines has left a void that leads to lack of evangelical fervor in the church as a whole.

Perhaps his forgiveness of us might evoke in us, if only for a moment, a willingness to wonder about the pride we take in our modernity, our self - sufficiency, our self - justification.

In a second article about the practical implications of the justification debate, this question was asked:

Their stories often suggest the appalling extent to which the church tends not simply to ignore sexual, physical, emotional and spiritual violence against women and children as a major crisis, but actually to provide theological justification for this violence in its teachings about male headship, women's subordination, and the sinful character of sexuality.

But I'm not sure about just ditching the idea of a vision that the Body has (I'm talking local church)... I mean, although I want sometimes to ditch it, I can't find justification in Scripture.

The test of justification must always be pragmatic» (PR 181).13 The experience of CE and particularly of the «withness of the body,» if accurate, gives us essential real - time information about events in our environment which could well have a vital impact on our well - being.

What else is religion for but to fill in gaps — in our knowledge of how the world should work, in our justifications for our actions, in our responsibility for things we ought to do something about but don't?

R In 1879, W. K. Clifford had never thought about epistemology and had not acquired the concept of rational justification, so that he didn't believe that he was rationally justified in believing that ship owners ought not to send their ships to sea without checking their seaworthinesIn 1879, W. K. Clifford had never thought about epistemology and had not acquired the concept of rational justification, so that he didn't believe that he was rationally justified in believing that ship owners ought not to send their ships to sea without checking their seaworthinesin believing that ship owners ought not to send their ships to sea without checking their seaworthiness.

Questions about justification are certainly in order, but for a number of reasons I think these are not the right ones.

I read again the passage in «Justification» about Romans 3:21 ff (which the reviewer mentioned) and I think Wright's book clears it up beautifully (cf. pp. 201 - 210).

He needs our view on salvation, wrath, and eternal rewards, and our case might be strengthened with his view of justification, while avoiding the mistakes he makes about works following faith... though really, his point about works is that they follow faith in the Holy Spirit... which is different, and which I could probably agree with.

In Wa!lington's case, for example, we are bombarded with direct quotations and paraphrases from the Bible, with explicit references to Puritan doctrines (such as justification and election), and with rich metaphorical and allegoric images (about beasts, trees, illnesses, Journeys, and so on).

They should at the same time be led to inquire into the justification for rules and instructed in the appropriate ways of bringing about changes in social regulations to make them more just.

This definition does not imply that metaphysics does not deal with reality and only refers to thinking about reality.19 As stated above, in An Essay on Metaphysics, Collingwood does not intend to expound his own metaphysical ideas, but to give a justification of the metaphysical project.

When I came to justification reading through Romans, I spent about 6 hours on my patio in the cold and snow and confessed everything I could think that I did wrong.

In case you were not aware, there is a big debate among New Testament scholars today about what Paul meant by justification.

It provides a one - sentence affirmation about the gospel and speaks of our entire hope of justification and salvation» resting on «God's promise and the saving work in Christ,» as «our ultimate trust.»

We have become way too much eyeball people as Christians assume that those who don't live according to the way they do they are unsaved, we have created this judgemental relationship which hurts peoples fellowship with God, there are no litmus tests for people that believe in Jesus, which is why we are called to not judge others, and people use James 2:14, and 1 John's verse of those who practices righteousness are righteous even though I think it's talking about earthly righteousness toward people that we as Christians should show because there is a lost world out there that needs are help and these doctrines of guilt, condemnation, anger, and judgement aren't helping in fact they are doing the opposite, just like how in James it's justification towards man.

It is in this context that Paul says much about the natural man being «in sin,» until its burden is lifted and victory is won through justification by faith in Jesus Christ.

God allows everything to happen, but is at work, in His mysterious ways, to bring about repentance, death to the self (the religious, self - justification project), and new life.

It is in this light that we must understand all that Paul says about redemption, justification, and the end of the Law.

This idea of external justification has no basis in Scripture which consistently speaks of the «new creation» or «new man» brought about through baptism.

We are justified by faith in the Messiah not by believing the correct doctrine about justification.

Highlights for me included: 1) Belcher's call in Chapter 3 to find common ground in classic / orthodox Christianity (the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed) which, if applied, would dramatically reduce some of the name - calling and accusations of heresy that have been most unhelpful in the discussion between the emerging and traditional camps, 2) Belcher's fabulous treatment of postmodernism and postfoundationalism in Chapter 4, where he rightly explains that when talking about postmodernism, folks in the emerging church and the traditional church are using the same term to refer to two completely different things, and where he concludes that «a third way rejects classical foundationalism and hard postmodernism,» and 3) Belcher's fair handling of the atonement issue in Chapter 6, in which he clarifies that most emergering church leaders «are not against atonement theories and justification, but want to see it balanced with the message of the kingdom of God.»

At the beginning of Romans — the epistle of justification by faith — Paul introduces himself as an apostle set apart for the gospel and explains the gospel as a message about God's Son, born in the flesh as a descendant of David and raised from the dead by the power of the Spirit.

Our inheritance of Reformation iconoclasm is usually put forward as the traditional reason for our discomfort; and in the mainline churches our commitment to social justice and our resulting decisions about stewardship are cited as contemporary explanation and justification.

There remains a theological problem, in the tendency of popular evangelical discourse to reduce the gospel to regeneration and justification by faith alone, as though conversion were only about entrance to the faith.

In the end, the only justification for metaphysical thinking is that it throws light on human experience in its widest and deepest ranges.12 Proof is out of place in speech about God, but we can seek insight where the tradition has left us in confusions and obscuritIn the end, the only justification for metaphysical thinking is that it throws light on human experience in its widest and deepest ranges.12 Proof is out of place in speech about God, but we can seek insight where the tradition has left us in confusions and obscuritin its widest and deepest ranges.12 Proof is out of place in speech about God, but we can seek insight where the tradition has left us in confusions and obscuritin speech about God, but we can seek insight where the tradition has left us in confusions and obscuritin confusions and obscurity.

It centered in Luther's discovery of the meaning of justification or forgiveness, and its symbol proved to be Luther, storming about his room in Wittenberg, cursing the God who demands righteousness of men.

In fact, it used to bother me that Jesus wasn't more clear about justification by faith alone.

My justification for thinking He did not is the revelation we have about God in Jesus Christ, who never sent destruction on anyone, but always forgave and even died for rebellious sinners like us.

In the light of this broader description of evil we should reformulate the theodicy problem so as to ask not only about the justification of disorder in a world created by an allegedly all - good and all - powerful God, but also about a world that seemingly can not exist apart from an intrinsic adventurousnesIn the light of this broader description of evil we should reformulate the theodicy problem so as to ask not only about the justification of disorder in a world created by an allegedly all - good and all - powerful God, but also about a world that seemingly can not exist apart from an intrinsic adventurousnesin a world created by an allegedly all - good and all - powerful God, but also about a world that seemingly can not exist apart from an intrinsic adventurousness.

This «flawed humanism,» as Sennett and Cobb call it, provides a perverse justification of the inequities of the class system, and confirms those on the bottom or middle or even uppermost rungs in their anxiety about their lives.

After reading a post about (very real) discrimination in the church, you respond with an attempted justification, rather than an apology.

Those who are sceptical about the value of rap and hip - hop won't find a direct justification for it in scripture.

In February, Spalatin sent one of his worried queries about Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone.

As a side note, it is important to recognize that when Jesus speaks about being «saved» in this passage (cf. Matthew 24:13, 22), He is not referring to justification or receiving eternal life, but to being delivered from death in this time of tribulation.

Agnosticism about human dignity and objective morality in various forms plays a significant role in the justification and promotion of «abortion rights» around the world.

In 2009, the European Food Safety Authority reviewed the science and found no justification for claims about the health risks from BCM7.

When I tell people this, they're either super exited and all about sharing the granola love, or they're not, in which case they generally have one of the following two justifications for their feelings:

Mertz should never have been our captain in the first place... who has ever heard of a team that makes 11th hour transfer buys (Arteta & Mertz) then seemingly places those same individuals into prominent leadership positions from the get - go... indicative of the problems that have permeated our clubhouse for the better part of 7 years under the Kroenke & Wenger... what is wrong with the players chosen and / or the management style of Wenger that doesn't develop and / or encourage strong leadership from within... Mertz was the fine collecting lackey from year one... this is what happens when you don't get world - class players because many times they want to have a voice on and off the pitch and this can't happen when you play for a fragile manager who has developed a coddling wage structure where everyone is rewarded for simply wearing the shirt and participating in the process... not enough balance between performance and pay, combined with the obvious favoritism shown to some players regardless of their glaring lack of production... remember that Ramsey has played in positions that make no sense considering his skill - set (out wide) and has forced other players off the field or into equally unfamiliar positions with little or no justification (let's remember when you read articles about how Ramsey's goals this upcoming season being the potential X-factor for our success that this is the same individual who didn't score a goal until the final week last season)... this of course is just one example of many... before I hear another word from Mertz I want this club to address the fact that no former player of any real consequence has any important role in the management structure of this club, yet several former Gunners have expressed serious interest in just such an endeavor (Henry, Viera, Adams, Bergkamp... just to name a few legends)... there is only one answer: an extremely insecure manager!!!

Although I've found it very cathartic to speak, vent and end occasionally rant about all things Arsenal, we need to act carefully and intelligently right now or we're going to get played by this club even worse than at present... the pro-Wengerites and the suits, who represent a considerable proportion of the season ticket holders, don't want to believe that there is no plan and that Wenger has mailed it in for several years now or that things are going to get much worse before they get better... why would they... many have spent a considerable sum buying some of the highest priced tickets in the World... they want to have a front row seat to see something special and to be seen doing so, which simply provides ample justification for the expense and the time invested... to many of them, Wenger is the sun in their soccer universe... his awkward disposition, misplaced arrogance and his utter lack of balls makes him a rather unusual cult figure, but the cerebral narrative seemed to embolden those who already felt pretty highly of themselves... many might not even of really liked football that much before his arrival and rarely games they weren't attending... as such, they desperately believe that Wenger, and only Wenger, can supply them with their required fix... if he goes, they were wrong and that's a tough pill to swallow... they would have to admit that they were duped... they will definitely resent whoever made them feel this way, but of course it will be too late by then... so when we go overboard with ridiculous comments bordering of anarchy, it scares the shit out of them and they shift their blame towards us rather than at those who really perpetrated this act of treason... we aren't the enemy... we simply woke much earlier and the reason our comments have gotten more vile in recent years is out of utter frustration... in order for any real change to occur at this club we need to bring as many supporters as possible with us or the big money interests will fade and our ultimate objective will be lost... so it's time to focus on the head instead of the heart for now

I was curious about this statement, so I went to the Heritage Foundation website where I found position papers, including this one, that point to obesity in America as proof positive that hunger must be greatly exaggerated — and, of course, as a justification for limiting federal funding to feed the poor.

Dr Shedden also expressed concerns about the manner in which the Scottish government has reversed its earlier position without further consultation after citing the existence of a petition signed by 20,000 people as some justification for the u-turn.

Additional concerns about the fourth premise were also raised (i.e. «is the federal government really more efficient at managing such efforts»), but arguments about the effectiveness of the department are really ancillary to the justification for its existence in the first place.

As to your question about the justification for paying someone an ownership fee to claim the land initially, this would only make sense in the purists vision and the someone would potentially be everyone depending on the terms of the transaction you as the potential owner would have negotiated with all other rightful claimants.