Sentences with phrase «biblical authority in»

Robert K. Johnston, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice (Atlanta: John Knox Press, I 979), P. 151.

Other works by Johnston include The Christian at Play, Eerdmans, 1983; Psalms for God's People, Regal, 1982: and Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice, John Knox Press, 1979.

For analyses of the biblical interpretation on both sides, see Willard M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983), pp. 152 - 191; Robert K. Johnston, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), PP. 48 - 76.

On the question of biblical authority in Reformation theology much has been written but especial note should be taken on A. Skevington Wood, Captive to the Word: Martin Luther, Doctor of Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969); Kenneth Kantzer, «Calvin and the Holy Scripture,» in Inspiration and Interpretation, ed.

As I have argued in a previous book, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice, there is no set procedure or program for controlling this theological dialogue.

Not exact matches

And after that, I thought about the Biblical admonition: «When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.»

this is why christians who stress biblical creation, and biblical literalness in general, tend to be protestants: if their authority is wrong, then they are wrong.

BC I have already corrected your error with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah and your response, in direct violation to your claim to accept biblical authority, was that regardless YOU believe what you want to about it anyway.

Such a shift has great implications for theological method in the Wesleyan tradition and for its view of biblical authority.

At many points Wesley sounds like a son of the Reformation in his emphasis on the finality of biblical authority and in his desire to be, in the much quoted phrase, a homo unius libri (a «man of one book»).

In the complementarian manifesto, the Danvers Statement, egalitarians are accused of «accepting hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity.&raquIn the complementarian manifesto, the Danvers Statement, egalitarians are accused of «accepting hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuitybiblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity.&raquin a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuityBiblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity.»

So Grudem claims that any selectivity whatsoever represents an arbitrary «pick - and - choose» approach to Scripture and a threat to biblical authority, and that those who support functional gender equality in the home and church are simply bending the «plain meaning of Scripture.»

(See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5) I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same - sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay.

In addition to sociology, tradition, and biblical authority there is Luther's teaching on marriage and family life.

But simply put, if your leadership structure is such that it requires continual committee meetings that lead to business meetings where many people get to cast votes on the direction and decisions of the church and where Roberts Rules of Order trumps biblical spiritual authority, multi-site will most likely end in a train wreck!

The real question is, should we, in the name of being «biblical,» hold tight to a first - century worldly understanding of male authority?

Today's evangelicals rightly identify the loss of conviction about Biblical authority as a major source of the decline of evangelical fervor in the United Methodist Church.

Fourth, the understanding of biblical authority they use to justify this program is one that few Methodists would employ in other areas.

If a church follows the Biblical pattern of having elders, and those elders exercise their authority as elders, then any abuse will be nipped in the bud.

This would not end disagreements about homosexuality and the nature of Biblical authority, but it might provide a context in which these disagreements could be less threatening and Methodists might be more willing to make room for differences.

For example, Moses Stuart of Andover Seminary in Massachusetts (who was sympathetic to the eventual emancipation of American slaves, but was against abolition), published a tract in which he pointed to Ephesians 6 and other biblical texts to argue that while slaves should be treated fairly by their owners, abolitionists just didn't have Scripture on their side and «must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the fiery course which they are pursuing.»

It is clear then why the question of biblical authority is so important to evangelicals: belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures is the pillar which supports our theology - without it the edifice would surely crumble.

Critical scholarship is supposed to have proven the unscientific nature of belief in biblical authority.

This is one I've done a good deal of study on, as I did a brief article for it as part of our going through 1 Corinthians 15 in AiG's biblical authority devotional series.

He's an authority on the Song of Songs, and he interprets the biblical Song in light of other ancient love poems — as it should be.

All of this blue - chip evangelical clout is brought to bear in support of the doctrine of biblical «inerrancy» against a growing party of theological compatriots inclined to speak more of the «authority» of Scripture with regard to «faith and practice.»

It is an affirmation and not, as many conservative evangelicals have reflexively assumed, a questioning of biblical authority when the language of liberation and empowerment prove fruitful in understanding further dimensions of what salvation always meant according to the scriptural witness, even though we had not previously been pushed to see it that clearly.

There those in authority, in churches, who perpatrate expectations, and use pressure of things not biblical.

This is a problem that can be corrected by those evangelical process theologians who are genuinely immersed in scripture rather than distinguishing themselves by their objective statements about biblical authority.

It is, in particular, the second of evangelicalism's two tenets, i. e., Biblical authority, that sets evangelicals off from their fellow Christians.8 Over against those wanting to make tradition co-normative with Scripture; over against those wanting to update Christianity by conforming it to the current philosophical trends; over against those who view Biblical authority selectively and dissent from what they find unreasonable; over against those who would understand Biblical authority primarily in terms of its writers» religious sensitivity or their proximity to the primal originating events of the faith; over against those who would consider Biblical authority subjectively, stressing the effect on the reader, not the quality of the source — over against all these, evangelicals believe the Biblical text as written to be totally authoritative in all that it affirms.

How can we translate Biblical authority into practice in our constructive theology?

Not understanding the necessary interworking of traditional, Biblical, and contemporary sources (even in a theology that seeks Biblical authority as its ultimate norm), certain evangelicals have fallen prey to a new form of «traditionalism»; others have retreated to a «Biblicism»; still others have found themselves in theological bondage to contemporary standards.

Clark Pinnock, «Three Views of the Bible in Contemporary Theology» in Biblical Authority, ed.

Thus, rather than place the insights of contemporary society in dialogue with Scripture and tradition in a way that maintains Biblical authority, she has compromised the sole authority of Scripture by qualifying it from feminist perspectives.

its male predominance), or are there deeper principles implicit in the texture of the Biblical fabric which make male authority a cultural, and thus relative, affair?

It is inconceivable to me that Paul can be quoted by modern male chauvinists as the biblical authority for excluding women from accepting God's call to serve others in the name of Christ, when Paul himself encouraged and congratulated inspired women who were prominent — to use his own descriptions — as deacons, apostles, ministers and saints.

«29 Dayton is correct in noting the current problem in evangelicalism concerning Biblical authority, but wrong in asserting the inadequacy of evangelicalism's paradigms.

In the process, the authority of Scripture has been undercut, the full Biblical message being limited by some predetermined interpretive grid.

Perhaps evangelicalism's most common argument concerning Biblical authority runs as follows: If one will grant the general reliability of the New Testament documents as verified historically, then, as the Holy Spirit uses this witness to create faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, the Christian comes to accept Jesus Christ as authoritative.

Although Jewett chaired the committee which formulated Fuller's revised Statement of Faith and recognized the need to move the discussion concerning Biblical authority from the issue of inerrancy to that of interpretation, the argument in his book is inadequate at this very point.

From the doctrine of God, we must turn in our discussion of authority to the matter of Biblical hermeneutics and questions of theological formation.

So prominent has been this debate that outsiders have often regarded evangelicals as holding, not to a distinct view of the sole authority of Scripture (as was argued in the previous chapter), but to a belief in Biblical inerrancy.2

It is not the theoretical underpinnings of Biblical authority that are in error, but the evangelical community's inability to translate theory into practice.

Eichenwald is careful to compare opposition to homosexual practice only to biblical offenses that he thinks evangelicals will have a difficult time opposing consistently: drunkenness, greed, pride, and the injunction in 1 Tim 2:9 — 15 for women to keep silent and not have authority over men.

Only in this way can the current impasse in regard to Biblical authority be overcome and the evangelical church prove itself to be a continuing authentic witness to the Christian faith in the days ahead.

As the first chapter indicated, constructive evangelical theology is a dynamic blend of Biblical, traditional, and contemporary sources, all operating in such a way as to insure the continued place of Scripture as one's final authority.

As we turn in the next chapter to consider the evangelical church's role in society, we will see that matters of a correct theological understanding of social ethics - one resting in Biblical authority - do not hinge so much on the issue of Biblical hermeneutics as they do on the matter of conflicting loyalties to ecclesiological traditions.

The importance of recognizing the authority of multiple Biblical witnesses must be maintained if interpreters are to avoid twisting the Biblical record to support outside aims.37 Paul Holmer is correct in warning against evangelicals treating the Scripture as if it were a literary and metaphysical and casual gloss on a literal and systematic structure that it otherwise hides.

If evangelicals can not discover a way to move more effectively toward theological consensus, can they still maintain in good conscience their claim to Biblical authority as a hallmark?

Faithfulness to Christ supports our recognition of our rootedness in the Bible and the history it recounts, but it alters the nature of Biblical authority as it opens us to awareness of the patriarchal character of all our Scripture and tradition.