Sentences with phrase «accepting the gospel as»

NO, in no way ever «must» we accept the gospel as true!

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.

Citing a commenter: «We must accept the gospel as true».

Requirements for baptism are repentance and faith (accepting the gospel as true).

Not exact matches

The stories are so different that to accept any version is to reject three gospels as untrue.

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

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 deatAs 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 deatas spirits after death.

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.

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?).

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?

I agree with David, and if you think it's not possible, then you're welcome to accept the «truth» as «made up» by the institution which we accept as «gospel».

The gospel comes to me as a sinner and astounds me with the news that I am loved, accepted, forgiven, redeemed and chosen in Jesus Christ.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.»

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.

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.

9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!

He was saying that before you can love your neighbors as the gospel calls you to do, you must first recognize the gospel truths that you yourself are loved, forgiven, and accepted.

The problem with the critical tradition, from Reimarus to Bultmann and beyond, has been the interpretation of historical events within the methodology of the laboratory — as if the historical veracity of John's Gospel can be analysed while dogmatically refusing to accept the possibility of Jesus» miracles and divine self - knowledge.

This is the Christian gospel, and it is the primary and supreme mission of the church to bring all men into the orbit of its saving power, to declare it to the world until mankind accepts Jesus Christ as the cornerstone, not of the church alone, but of civilization itself.

In fact, I can not name one person involved in any of the above steps, but I accept the end product with blind adherence as, well gospel.

At this point, however, it must be clearly stated that most New Testament scholars still accept the tomb pericope as part of the oral tradition already in circulation at the time Mark wrote his Gospel.

But if someone believes that he can not and should not accept the authority of the Gospel, of Scripture and of the teaching office of the Church he can not consider himself a Catholic, he can not be a partner in the dialogue that takes place within the Church and which presupposes the acceptance of her teaching office in as far as it claims to have authority.

One reason the Jewish people did not accept the gospel message (from Jesus or Paul) is that it threatened their exalted position as God's only «chosen» people.

And here's where the beauty of the Gospel comes in: It gives us permission to be imperfect, to be vulnerable, to simply embrace who we truly are and that we are accepted as we are.

Just as God loves all and accepts all regardless of whether they love or follow Him in return, so also, a government guided by the gospel will govern with values of equality, justice, and generosity without forcing anyone to follow the ways of Scripture.

Evangelism is primary because our chief concern is with the gospel, that all people may have the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

This is a proposal to accept as authentic material which is attested in all, or most, of the sources which can be discerned behind the synoptic gospels.

We shall return to Jeremias's work on the parables again and again, for it is epoch - making in several respects, but for the moment we want only to call attention to the consequences of this work so far as a general view of the nature of the synoptic tradition is concerned the success of Jeremias's work demands that we accept his starting - point, namely, that any parable as it now stands in the gospels represents the teaching of the early Church and the way back from the early Church to the historical Jesus is a long and arduous one.

I don't believe there is a God and therefore I do not accept the Gospel accounts as factual.

Bultmann agrees that modern man can not accept the mythology, but he does not want him to have to content himself with a timeless sublimation of the gospel: he is looking for another alternative, which will rescue the historicity of the gospel and so retain its character as kerygma.

New Delhi said: «[This unity] is being made visible as all in each place who are baptized into Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Savior are brought by the Holy Spirit into one fully committed fellowship, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one gospel, breaking the one bread, joining in common prayer, and having a corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all and who at the same time are united with the whole Christian fellowship in all places and all ages, in such wise that ministry and members are accepted by all, and that all can act and speak together as occasion requires for the tasks to which God calls His people.»

As in the Gospel there will be those who can not accept such a great mystery: «One might say that basically people do not want to have God so close, to be so easily within reach or to share so deeply in the events of their daily life (p. 15).»

12 chapter speaks about gifts & many members in one body in Christ & to my interpretation it's pertaining to all that have accepted him as their person savior & is empowered to be witness & spread the good news (The Gospel) about Jesus saves!

Here are some quotations from the introduction to that gospel, taken from my copy of the New American Bible (p. 91, N.T.): «Modern critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one man.»

So, it is not His true followers that you have angst with, it is HIM that you have angst with, we merely LIFT HIM UP, we merely ACCEPT HIS WORD, we merely SPEAK HIS WORD, we merely HOLD TO HIS WORD, we merely SHARE & PREACH HIS GOSPEL and His Gospel is to as HE SAID: «Call The Sinner to Repentance» I did not say thaGOSPEL and His Gospel is to as HE SAID: «Call The Sinner to Repentance» I did not say thaGospel is to as HE SAID: «Call The Sinner to Repentance» I did not say that. . .

The «politics of Jesus,» to use Yoder's phrase, demands that through the collective witness of the Church Christians bring the gospel to the attention of the world with a compelling and revolutionary challenge to the powers of the age, as Jesus did by rejecting temporal power and accepting death on the cross.

An inseparable part of the ecumenical task is to move the churches toward visible unity in, as the New Delhi statement put it (I abbreviate), «one baptism, one gospel, breaking the one bread, joining in common prayer, a corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all, a ministry and membership accepted by all, and the ability to act and speak together as occasion requires.»

Because of their belief in this gospel of reconciliation and their experience of its power, Christians can never accept, as the only kind of existence open to nations, a state of perpetual tension leading to «inevitable» war.