Sentences with phrase «accept the gospel of»

The reason we do baptisms for the dead is to offer our deceased ancestors an opportunity to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The poor themselves accept the gospel of work.

He studies his Bible and admits to an affinity for the «Christian sentiment,» but insists: «I accept the Gospel of Jesus as a challenge to go my own way.»

They will be free to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ after they die.

No one who does not accept the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ will ever enter the kingdom of heaven!

I get Texas.I lived half my life in Texas, grew up in Texas churches, ministered in 3 of them, accepted the gospel of Willow Creek (which is from Chicago but is Texas - sized) in one of them, and know full well what Jesus meant when he said a prophet is not accepted in....

Thus Christian mission is the action of the body of Christ in the history of humankind - a continuation of Pentecost Those who through conversion and baptism accept the Gospel of Jesus partake in the life of the body of Christ and participate in an historical tradition.

Not exact matches

All will have the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ and enter into «His Kingdom» by baptism if they so choose.

Do you accept the sayings or infancy gospel of thoas as literally true, the Gosple of Peter?

The Qur «an never asks a Christian or Jew to accept it because their own scripture has become corrupt, rather they are asked to accept the Qur «an because the Qur «an claims, 1 / to confirm the teaching of the Bible, 2 / that Muhammad is foretold in the Torah and Gospel, 3 / the Qur «anic teaching makes clear what the Jews and Christians could not understand properly from their own scriptures.

Given a Reformed ecclesiology, an individual believer seems to have no reason to accept a particular ecclesial body as part of the «true Church,» unless its interpretation of the Gospel matches the believer's own.

The feminist reformist recognizes that that ideal is not fully achieved, and that there were times when male Christians refused to accept the full humanity of women, but they consider those failures as expressions of inadequacy and human perversion of the gospel.

As to those who may have gone through life without any feasible knowledge of God, those individuals would still have an opportunity to learn and choose whether or not to accept the newly received gospel as spirits after death.

Since the gospel of grace is opposite to the way the rest of life works, many people have great trouble accepting it.

They must learn to accept a communication process in which the laity actively feed into the preaching of the gospel the data and insights of their lives so that the contemporary and the traditional heritage will meet.

These Christians want to «put Christianity back on course,» and since, nowadays, championing the poor implies violence, they accept violence; because, they say, the love the gospel speaks of is utterly useless in this world of ours.

Many Christians continue to accept the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts, which have formed the basis for dramatic re-enactment of Jesus» passion over the centuries.

The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God - knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.

His statement of the gospel is couched too often in language and in a context which bear little or no relationship to the circumstances, the accepted ways of thinking of the world both scientifically and philosophically, in which the hearers live.

Most of what we think we know about God and sin came from Paul — and there was a series of battles — and lives lost — before the whole redemption theme was accepted as, literally — gospel truth.

If we are to speak truly to our age, therefore, we can assume, not (1) the complete ignorance of Christian principles, such as existed in the decaying civilization of early Greece and Rome; (2) the thoroughgoing knowledge and acceptance of Christian principles, such as existed in the time of most of our grandparents; or (3) the vigorous antagonism to the gospel, such as now exists among those who accept either the Marxist or the Fascist interpretation of history; but (4) a vague and tenuous residuum of Christian piety, devoid of any intention of doing anything about it.

The administration of the Church's sacraments is equally important, of course, and this is especially true for us if we accept the position of the sixteenth - century Reformers that in the celebration of the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, as well as in the pulpit, the gospel is proclaimed and expressed.

On the other hand, Professor Martin Werner has studied the evidence for this supposed influence of «Paulinism» upon the Gospel of Mark, and concludes that instead of «Paulinism» Mark presupposes only the common Christianity, the generally accepted Christian doctrine, of the Gentile churches at the middle of the first century.

Paul even thanked God that he himself had baptized none of the Corinthians save two, together with the household of Stephanas, saying, «Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach»; (I Corinthians 1:13 - 17) in the Fourth Gospel John's baptism in water is explicitly subordinated to Christ's baptism in the Holy Spirit; (John 1:33) and in the Epistle to the Hebrews «the teaching of baptisms» is put among the rudimentary principles, to be accepted, indeed, but beyond which those need to go who are pressing on «unto perfection.»

Tolerance is a double - edged sword that has crept into the body of Christ and provided comfort, cover and an accepted excuse for allowing today's church model to hinder the gospel of Christ and burden the church.

I think that as people respond to the revelation they have received, God obligates Himself to provide more revelation to them, so that they receive enough revelation from God to either accept the offer of eternal life by faith alone, or to reject such an offer (See What About Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?).

We must find back to the complete gospel of Jesus Christ: Repentance, accepting the gospel as true, and getting sacramentally baptized in order to experience the releasing power of the gospel.

Jeremy before the Gospel was preached in New Zealand my people the maori people already had many gods and lived under there own type of spiritual law.They had rituals to keep themselves holy or pure but was by works.They also believed that there was one supreme God who was above all other Gods and his name was eo.So when the Missionaries came they understood the message of a supreme God and the way to know him was through his son over 60 % of maori people accepted the Gospel.It was bigger revival than the welsh revival in terms of percentage of population the welsh revival was only 10 % of the population of wales and that was considered a large revival in its day the new zealand revival was in the years 1820 - 1840.

However, we can not escape the exclusive nature of the Gospel as well: it does require that accept it, to the exclusion of false gospels, whether it be a false gospel of legalism, or a false gospel of freedom apart from life in the SGospel as well: it does require that accept it, to the exclusion of false gospels, whether it be a false gospel of legalism, or a false gospel of freedom apart from life in the Sgospel of legalism, or a false gospel of freedom apart from life in the Sgospel of freedom apart from life in the Spirit.

Brian and Alden... let's not forget that the early church believed in the imminent return of the Lord... it appears somebody was wrong... how wd that belief affect the message on what was to be accepted as the gospel in the interim?

The modern Gospel of say a prayer and accept Jesus and hey presto you are saved is a lie of Satan because it completely contradicts the Scriptures.

If we believe the quote of Jesus words in the gospels is accurate then we must accept the statement that He was / is the only way.

Your sins are already forgiven, no one goes to Hell because they did not ask for forgiveness, a person goes to Hell because when they have passed the age of innocence, and have come to the Knowledge of the Gospel, or they have learned that Jesus died for their sins, and that He gives us salvation freely because He loves us more than we love ourselves, and we have to make a choice to accept or reject this free gift, if that individual accepts Jesus as their Savior, then they go to Heaven, and if that individual rejects Jesus, then they go to Hell.

The logic of Johnson's argument would seem to be that, since one or more major accommodations of the gospel were accepted in the past, the accommodation that feminists propose must also be accepted.

Other groups accept the fact that the short - term volunteer mission trips are likely to remain popular, and aim to reach the volunteers with a deeper form of the gospel.

Yet within 300 years of Jesus» death and resurrection, the church had accepted and embraced all three as tools to help them spread the Gospel.

He writes in book The Meaning of Marriage, «The gospel is this: We are more sinful and flawed than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope.»

Such a view was accepted by Justin and Irenaeus in the later second century, although in the third century Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, attempted to minimize the authority of the book by proving that since John son of Zebedee wrote the gospel ascribed to him, he can not have written the book of Revelation, since the two writings employ different ideas, styles and vocabularies.

They may have accepted the first chapter of John's Gospel with its explanation of Christ in terms of Greek philosophy, as God's «Logos,» his forth - going - ness.

Price and Cunningham are forced to accept that the gospel (or their version of it at least) doesn't always fit nicely into our word - for - word spiels, instead, it has to be re-contexualised, it needs to be embedded in the culture it's being shared in.

It is possible that they used Mark in a rather different form to that in which we possess it, or even in two different forms, but the simplest explanation, that they both used substantially our gospel of Mark, is by far the most probable, and is now generally accepted.

It must be admitted that there are grave obstacles in the way of accepting the second gospel, in its present form, as the work of Mark, although there is much in the gospel which clearly comes ultimately from Peter.

But when the hearer of the Gospel came to the point of decision, that is, to accept or reject it, it was taken for granted that this should be made on the basis of spiritual self - interest.

Using his experience as a detective, Wallace showed the «Chain of Custody» of the evidence which was recorded in the New Testament Gospels and how they went from the actual life of Jesus to the «courtroom» or the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD where the four Gospel accounts were officially accepted into the New Testament canon.

The job of a Christian preacher, he said, is to «proclaim the given gospel to the given world,» The given gospel — that is to say, the gospel which has come to him from the Christian tradition which he represents and for which in his preaching function he speaks; the given world — that is to say, men and women in their actual concrete situation, with their interests and worries, their concerns and their problems, And the two are to go together, so that the gospel will be heard and (one hopes) accepted by those who hear its proclamation as directly relevant to their own lives.

The fact may be explained by saying that everything goes back to, or rests upon, the Gospel of Mark; but I think we can not assume that this Gospel would have been accepted if upon any major point its general outline had been found to be faulty or inaccurate by those who were in touch with the primitive tradition handed down in the churches in Palestine.

Rather than accepting as authoritative Scripture's total witness, the interpreter uses either his subjective experience with the Christ, or his contemporary sensibility, or the church's traditional understanding of the gospel, or perhaps some combination of these to judge what reasonably the «whole Bible» might be saying.

I have accepted Jesus Christ and if you had as well you would be telling people to read the Gospel of Jesus Christ NOT corinthians.

I think I cd safely assume that there is some unknowability in yr understanding of God (mystery), that you accept and believe a gospel narrative (discovery) and yr engaged in how you treat others (Spirit) The point of the model is not being the same, but recognizing sameness.

They also believe that you must accept Joseph Smith as a prophet to be saved, so says LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith in his book, Doctrines of Salvation.They also believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers — Milton R. Hunter, Gospel Through the Ages on page 15.