Sentences with phrase «between god the father»

Nor is there any dialogue between God the Father and the pre-existent Son about the work of redemption such as we find in the hymns of Luther and Paul Gerhardt.

54 The cross is «neither a symbol expressing the relationship between God the Father and his Son nor a symbol of masochism which needs suffering in order to convince itself of love.

Not exact matches

So we all, even Osama, will be saved from physical death, but Jesus Christ — the atoning one, and only one capable of being the mediator between us and God the father — can only save the repentant from spiritual death (faith and works meet for repentance are necessary).

But until we come to the end of ourselves then we are going to do and say what we want, even as it was with me: It's one thing to be a heathen, even as I was, but a whole other ball game to set our hearts on God and His truth; yet, that can only come when we are sick and tired of being sick and tired of our own lives and we just give up, we know then who has given up by the one they advocate for, even has given place to: Paul said; with my heart I want to do what is right, but my flesh does what I hate: This is when God's grace is sufficient, because our hearts are right with God, but our flesh is not: There is a war going on within these temples, therefore; even as our flesh wins out to do what we hate, our hearts are set on God and His ways which has been established in the Word of Truth, which then causes us to stand and speak forth what we believe, even as this causes a rending to happen within us, for Christ to be formed in us this needs to be, as we come up in His glories even for a better resurrection for them who believe: The heart wars against our flesh, even as Christ wars against the man of sin within: For out of the abundance of our hearts our mouth doth speak, therefore; if we speak not the Wholesome Words of our Lord, Then our hearts are still wicked: But to advocate for wickedness instead of Christ, one has become a teacher of lawlessness, he then advocates for the man of sin: Many who have come out of religion has done this, as they went from one mountain top «from the extreme right» of self exaltation (Religion) to the other mountain top «to the extreme left» of the (Heathen) and missed the valley in - between that is takes to humble us: One extreme to the other, and missed Jesus: Jesus is taking ones through the valley's to strip us down of all who we are before exalting us to be just as He, even as the Christ in us overcomes that man of sin (Adam) through theses valleys of contrast that cause a rending to happen within; and when we are rent in two, we stand on His word of truth, so we too can become one with Him, even as Jesus is with our Father: This is how Christ is formed in us: Thank - you Father; in Jesus Name Alexandria

Russell argues that for the Fathers, the relationship between human beings and the Trinity was always «asymmetrical,» bringing together beings of «diverse ontological type» — the opposite of Mormon claims that God and humanity share the same ontology.

I may be mistaken, but it seems in his letter that Cardinal Kasper is denying that in the book he said mercy is essential to God, but rather that it is only «the mirror» of God's love among the Trinity, that the love between the Father and the Son from which proceeds the Holy Spirit has a counterpart in God's merciful love for creation.

At confirmation class, this pastor spoke about being «children of God» and looked for an example to illustrate this special relationship between father and children.

That's the One and Only True God, just as Jesus Christ is the One and Only Mediator between the Only God, His Father, and mankind.

People typically worship God because they're thankful for being given life, and as they let Him in their hearts they forge a relationship with Him as their heavenly father, but like the relationship between a child and a father here on Earth there is also an element of fear and respect.

He will choose one man to be the father of one nation, and that nation will be the means by which God will heal the breach between all other nations and himself.

The difference between a metaphor and a model can be expressed in a number of ways, but most simply, a model is a metaphor with «staying power,» that is, a model is a metaphor that has gained sufficient stability and scope so as to present a pattern for relatively comprehensive and coherent explanation.15 The metaphor of God the father is an excellent example of this.

Since John distinguished the Logos from God as well as saying the Logos is God, they affirmed a distinction within the unity of God, between the Logos and the Father.»

Brown finishes with a remarkable discussion of the Christology of Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria in their effort to sort out both the distance and solidarity between the Father and Son by comparing it to the distance between God and believer and between rich and poor.

It is no coincidence that most religious traditions turn to personal and public human relationships to serve as metaphors and models of the relationship between God and the world: God as father, mother, lover, friend, king, lord, governor.

Father Neuhaus» argument is to read these reprobation texts as «suggesting a destiny of separation from God,» while reading other texts (Colossians 1:19 «20, 1 Corinthians 15:20 «28, Romans 5:18, 11:33 «36) as «suggesting the redemption of the entire cosmos,» leaving us free to choose between these mutually exclusive alternatives, since the Church in her wisdom has not pronounced on the matter.

In becoming a model, it has engendered wide - ranging interpretation of the relationship between God and human beings; if God is seen as father, human beings become children, sin can be seen as rebellious behavior, and redemption can be thought of as restoration to the status of favored offspring.

Powell accordingly takes his reader through varying accounts of the Trinity in Barth's Church Dogmatics, where Barth finally settles on a view that stresses God's inherent otherness: «God exists as the in - between of the Father and the Son; here God enters into and becomes that which is radically opposite God.

While it is true that the event of the Crucifixion, or the movement of the universal process of atonement, reveals the self - estrangement of God, a polarity manifesting itself in the yawning chasm between the Father and the Son, a consistent and radical form of faith must never fall into a nondialectical dualism by wholly isolating the alien God and the incarnate Word.

Through the events that faith knows as the Incarnation and the Crucifixion, God empties himself of his sovereignty and transcendence, and not only does this kenotic sacrifice effect the dissolution of the opposition between Father and Son in the new epiphany of God as universal Spirit, but so likewise vanishes the opposition between God and the world.

But then there is the further, more jarring dissonance between, on the one hand, his facing me and speaking in my direction, and, on the other hand, his addressing God the Father.

The lie is so that people believe that another than Christ can be our intermediary between humanity and God the Father, but the only intermediary is Christ, and all who pray to the Virgin Mary are doing so to demons.

Love is the will to that communion between God and man and between every man and his neighbour which has its ontological ground expressed in the Trinitarian symbol of the love of the Father for His Son.

A beautifully written piece of literary criticism that mines the depth of the connection between O'Connor's achievement as a novelist and her quest, in imitation of the desert fathers, for aloneness with God.

The only significant point of difference between my understanding of the Trinity and theirs is the one which I urged earlier in my critique of their respective theories: namely, that the role of the Spirit within the Trinity as the bond of love between the Father and the Son should not overshadow the fact that God is by nature community or interpersonal process.

Like Moltmann, Mühlen then presents the Spirit as the personified bond of love between the Father and the Son, who at the moment of Jesus» death on the cross is breathed forth upon the world to unite human beings with one another and with the triune God (VG 23 - 24, 33 - 36).

I will say this however; a truly just and beneficent God would also consider the separation of knowledge and understanding between this life, and the life before and after (that being the energy or spiritual existence as energy is not destroyed) and in so knowing this a just God or «father» would simply have the ending of the material life be a moment of coming home, learning, and changing over into understanding of all that occurred while we were away.

The distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit are distinctions truly drawn of God, and not merely of the way that God appears to us to be, or of the way that for some brief span of time — he was.»

We are not concerned here to consider the eventual result of this Pauline and early Christian interpretation of Jesus — the development of the doctrine of the triunity of God, with distinctions made between the eternal Father, the Word (or Son) as the «outgoing» of God in creation and redemption, and the Holy Spirit somewhat uncertainly added to round out the three-fold pattern in unity.

visions of God as the Trinity see the inner trinitarian relationships (that is, the relations between Father, Son and Spirit) as a prototype or charter for right relationships tout court.

It seems to me that the motto or title of the Holy Father as «Servant of the servants of God» is possibly the most promising key to reconciliation between the East and the West.

This kind of internal contradiction seems to run through much traditional theology; it finds explicit expression in Luther's dichotomy between the terrible God, who put him not only in awe but in utter terror, and the tender and loving God whom he knew in Jesus Christ as the savior, the loving friend, and the gracious Father of men.

We hope that there remains no quarrel with the orthodoxy of our central affirmations that «The fathers maintained the sacredness of matter and its share in God's saving plans ``; that the flesh is central to the plan of salvation; that the Incarnation takes place in order to bring about eternal communion between the Godhead and humanity, and thereby the whole of the physical creation which is summed up in Christ.

standing between good and evil, snaring in both; man, the sinner, rebelling in his freedom against his Creator and Judge: God the merciful Father, contending for man's soul.

Let's get busy with God's idea of the whole scenario and I believe He's aim is to get us into being part of the fantastic relationship (or is it fellowship) between Him: Father, Son and Spirit.

«God is what happens between Jesus and his Father in their Spirit,» Jenson declares.

«God is what happens between Jesus and his Father in their Spirit.»

Certainly for devotional purposes it is hard if not impossible to distinguish between these two; indeed, it is equally difficult to distinguish these two from whatever is known of «God the Father.»

Because God glorifies Himself in Trinity, the Father gives glory to the Son who gives glory to His Father with the Spirit being the reciprocal love between the persons.

Standard Western theology, according to Rahner and others, has been led by alien philosophical maxims to posit an ontological chasm between God's triune history in time and his eternal triune being — so that, for instance, it has been thought that the Father or the Spirit could have become incarnate instead of the Son.

Are there not some points of identity between the God of Hartshorne's philosophy and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?

How can we continue claiming that the love of God is revealed in the cross of Jesus and yet ignore the unbearable anomalies that exist between the demands that love makes upon human parents and the terrible way the Father, in order to make peace with his enemies, presides over the death of his very son?

Toward the end of Ut Unum Sint, John Paul cites some of the questions that must be addressed in conversation with the communities issuing from the tragic divisions of the sixteenth century: (1) The relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God; (2) The Eucharist as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and Real Presence of Christ and the sanctifying outpouring of the Holy Spirit; (3) Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate; (4) The Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the pope and the bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith; (5) The Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church, the spiritual Mother who intercedes for Christ's disciples and for all humanity.

The Pope further explores the profound relationship between Father and Son in a beautiful passage on the cloud and the voice of the Father (cf. Lk 9, 34): «Theholy cloud, the «shekinah», is the sign of the presence of God himself.

What if we, like our Jewish brothers and sisters, do not believe we need an «intermediary» between us and Father God?

Because of the close connection between obedience and hope, one particular expectation especially filled many minds: the hope that God would destroy the rule of the heathen, that He would again make of Palestine a completely holy land in which only the law of their fathers would prevail.

Its awesome, do nt let anyone come between you and God it is a relationship and personal if its not what you have then run to Him cling to Him and find out what your Father has for you, You wont be disappointed.

Luther's distinction between law and gospel seems to express this view, as does the vision of the twentieth «century Polish mystic St. Faustina Kowalska, which portrays a wrathful God the Father holding back from the application of terrible justice only because He sees man through the wounds of His Son.

There are three levels at which the issue must be confronted: at the trinitarian level, of the internal relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; at the Christological level, regarding Jesus Christ who was born true God and true man; and at the anthropological level, about males and females created in the divine image.

Accordingly, he correctly points out that the language of intimacy in love as applied to God, the love between father and son, between husband and wife, are basic in Hebraic speech about the love of God for Israel (SFL 19f).

However, those who recognize the God - given inherent differences between men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and see their importance not only for the proper working of society but for our salvation, should give thanks for the Catholic Church's resolve in adhering to two thousand years of tradition — a tradition rooted in God's good purposes for all men and women.