Sentences with phrase «agree with this scripture»

The Bible says to rightly divide the Word of Truth which means that ALL scripture must agree with ALL scripture.

I understand what you want it to mean, but in effect they are actually saying that their «evidence» will always agree with scripture, because any evidence that does not, is not considered «valid» evidence.

Jacky, its not a personal judgement to agree with Scripture.

Yes, I agree with the scriptures... Jesus was offered a «cup of death» by His Father.

In teaching about the Trinity and Christology, the creeds and decrees of the first four ecumenical synods are affirmed, along with the Athanasian creed, as agreeing with scripture, the authority for faith (chap.

Not exact matches

I agree with your stance that the scripture is fulfilled in that we are equal in God's eyes.

I don't want to gloss over the historical difficulties of the «phenomena of Scripture,» as I agree with Smith that it's important to take those into account.

You spater in a few scripture quotes and condemn everyone to he - ll for not agreeing with you.

Jeremy, you did a thorough interpretation of this scripture and it agreed with my spirit.

And then you use scripture that says that those who don't agree with this are atheists.

The «Me» from ten years ago would not have agreed with the «Me» from today about the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture.

If you agree with a person's view of Scripture, and you agree with their rules of interpreting Scripture, you will also agree with them in almost everything relating to their theology.

It was agreed in the Samaj that «the Vedas, the Upanishads and other ancient writings were not to be accepted as infallible guides, that reason and conscience were to be the supreme authority and the teachings of the scriptures were to be accepted only insofar as they harmonised with the light within us.»

(TCUJ concluded that Ohene agrees with Catalano's view that Scripture does not prohibit homosexual practice.)

I agree with you, winning hearts is a better way but we Americans are extremly vain.Dont be a busybody scripture says but do we heed?

Now, here's where I suspect Challies and I may agree: Because we believe Scripture to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice and a trustworthy testimony regarding Jesus Christ, we would be right to be highly suspicious of anyone whose claims about their experiences with God run contrary to the teachings of Scripture.

Think whatever you want about George R. R. Martin and his books, Scripture agrees with him on this one.

I really agree wholeheartedly with the little post and that is what the scripture says to me.

I happen to agree with Maher that Christians have terrible answers to these sort of moral issues in Scripture, and it is past time we decide to have a better answer than the traditional trite explanations and pat answers of the past.

I just can not agree with some of these points, and despite Thom Stark's claim to the contrary, I do think he reveals an antisupernaturalist bent in his approach to Scripture.

but I do not adjust the scriptures to fit my life, lol, that would be too easy, believe me, I struggle with my own demons, and not because of fundamentalist traditional teaching, as you can probably tell I rejected that long ago, I wanted to know what God was really saying, whether I liked it or agreed with it at all, and then I began to adjust my life to His Word.

I felt betrayed when I looked at scriptures and found they don't even agree with Judaism teaching.

Totally agree with Chuck here, Jesus is using a typical Rabbinical motif by only quoting the first part of a scripture, consider he probably wants to quote it to the end but physically it is almost impossible due to what is happening to his lungs and rib - cage during the Crucifixion.

I agree with the first part that God is defined by Jesus, that Jesus as represented in the scriptures is an analogy of what God is like.

The word of the Lord will always agree with the true meaning and / or the true interpretation of scripture).

Jesus did not say that it hinged in whether a person agrees with me or with my interpretation of the Scripture.

I tend to agree with almost every interpretation or perspective on how to read scripture.

You won't agree with his conclusions, his take on various passages, his theology of God, or his morals, but you will learn to view Scripture in a new light — the unadulterated, unprocessed Bible which God has given to us.

In my case I have undergone a life changing shift in my view of what Christ achieved for us (thanks to you) and so I agree with what you have proposed as a more accurate view of the atonement coming from scripture.

Clark Pinnock, in a perceptive paper entitled «The Inerrancy Debate Among the Evangelicals,» warns that men like Francis Schaeffer and Harold Lindsell «tend to confuse the high view of Scripture with their own interpretation of it, so that unless one agrees with their reading of the text he may be described as an unsound evangelical or no evangelical at all.

Then when I say I don't agree with their view of scripture,...

You agree with what Paul taught in 2 Timothy 3:16 about how the Scriptures are useful and train us in righteousness, and so on.

Jeremy i agree with what you have written many of the traditions in the church have come from pagan beliefs.I thought some of the comments were judgemental of others especially towards those who are pagan.There response was respectful we can learn alot about having a good attitude towards others and responding to others kindly.I think using scripture in a legalistic way is no different than what the pharisees did to Jesus in his day and he disarmed them by rebuking them saying you without sin cast the first stone.regards brentnz

We can not and need not reinterpret everything in the Scriptures to agree with Jesus, which is what would be required if we claimed the Christ as our principle of interpretation.

If he is arguing as a systematic theologian, with a sense of both Scripture and tradition, he should have no doubt that the reality and the essential importance of Eucharistic presence is central to Christianity even though each and every Christian might not agree.

I myself am inclined to agree with Barr about the poverty of this postfundamentalist theology and tradition for the future of evangelicalism — though I would want my evangelical colleagues to understand clearly that I reject this tradition not to reject biblical or evangelical faith but to seek rather a more adequate conceptual framework through which to be more faithful to the Scriptures.

I agree with what you have said, that the revelation of scripture is received from Holy Spirit and I know this to be true in my life as well, as I to have had no biblical teaching of a professional nature.

The fact that many of the greatest Christian theologians appear to agree with this evaluation» Aquinas, for example, argues that «the object of anger is good» (Summa Theologiae, 2.1.46.2)» has led some to conclude that they were insufficiently attuned to the obvious and contrary message of Scripture.

Anyway, I can't agree with his nontrinitarianism and that casts doubt on his exegesis of Scripture in my mind.

Although I agree with much of what he says, he seems to stray to Universalism which is contrary to Scripture which says in John 3 that Jesus came to save the world and those who believe will be saved and those who do not believe are condemned and will not see life but the wrath of God.

I understand that your interpretation of scripture doesn't agree with Saint Augustine's, but you can not deny that forcible, violent conversion has been justified as righteous by some of the most influential theologians in the history of Christendom.

If I say that I am right, and everyone who agrees with me is going to heaven, and everyone who disagrees with me is going to hell, I have just placed my interpretation of Scripture above Scripture itself, and placed myself in the role of God as the judge over all humanity.

There are 3 major religions that have evolved from that Middle Eastern «scripture»... each with subsets (thousands of them in the case of Christianity), who don't agree with each other because of how they translate and interpret those old writings and ideas... each saying that they are the «true» one.

It's not like the Christians we are talking about ever demonstrated anything remotely resembling an ability to read and comprehend what is read when it comes to scripture, so we should perhaps not be too surprised that they think they agree with Ayn Rand even if they've bothered to read anything she wrote.

I can agree with Jeremy's original statement, «I believe that God did lead human authors to write the words of Scripture, though not in a way that would override their unique thought pattern, vocabulary, or idiom.»

I tend to agree with you because I notice several people have read into some of the scriptures what many of us can not find therein.

He, so many preachers pick and choose the scriptures that they agree (namely, the anti-gay ones) to justify their bigotry, while ignoring the stuff they don't agree with.

I usually like reading Catholic theology (even if I don't always agree with it), but this book placed too much emphasis on Franciscan thought and theology, and too little emphasis on explaining Scripture.

But in the end, if you survive, and whether you agree or disagree with the author, you will be stronger in your faith and conviction about Scripture.

Please tell us what you do not agree with, based on your knowledge of the he Holy Scripture.