Sentences with phrase «biblical scripture as»

Romans 9:22 - 24 — And right on queue, you quote biblical scripture as if this somehow bolsters the points you make.

Not exact matches

If you hold to the biblical teachings in scripture, you will indeed hold to this teaching as well.

The Reformers vigorously protested what they viewed as deviations from biblical teaching, but they never used Scripture to undermine the Trinitarian and Christological consensus of the early Church embodied in the historic creeds that had come down from patristic times.

Patrick was immersed in the language and thought of Scripture, and Moore provides alongside the text the biblical references, as well as unobtrusive footnotes explaining historical obscurities.

They turned from the authority of the church as interpreter of Scripture to the biblical texts themselves.

In addition to those 225 Biblical manuscripts there was recovered three Apocryphal Scriptures: «Tobit», «Ben Sira» (also known as «Sirach» or «Ecclesiasticus»), and «Baruch 6 ′ (also known as «Letter of Jeremiah»).

Its presence there, however mistakenly justified, serves as a continuing corrective particularly to ascetic Christian tendencies, and to an otherworldly view of Scripture and biblical faith in general.

5:20 - 21 and 1 John 4:1, to not quench the Spirit, to not despise prophecies, but to examine all extrabiblical revelations according to biblical criteria and test all persons, like the noble Bereans in Acts 17, who «examined the Scriptures daily to see if this were so,» the Calvinists / MacArthurites deleted my post of my testimony on SO4J's FB timeline — because it threatened them, and they knew I am telling the truth about an awesome dream of Jesus in 1973, as I emerged from a traumatic childhood with a mother who had worked the Ouija board when I was 11.

Clinton cited the Scripture Mark 6:30 - 44 - where Jesus instructs his disciples to organize their followers into groups and to feed them with five loaves of bread and two fish - as the central biblical passage of her speech.

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authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuitybiblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and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 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.»

As such, it is never merely the repetition of biblical ideas alone, even for those holding to the sole and binding authority of Scripture as God's revelatioAs such, it is never merely the repetition of biblical ideas alone, even for those holding to the sole and binding authority of Scripture as God's revelatioas God's revelation.

Similarly, when it comes to biblical interpretation within evangelicalism, I've experienced a sort of «flattening - out» of Scripture in which the words of David carry the same weight as the words of Paul, which carry the same weight as the words of Christ.

Ministers are mostly male and shut women out of the ministery or even from Biblical instruction as though they are inadequate teachers, unable to merely regurgitate what scriptures say to participants as the men do; 5.

Scripture is the primary source and guideline «as the constitutive witness to biblical wellsprings of our faith,» but tradition, experience and reason also function as sources and guidelines, and in practice «theological reflection may find its point of departure» in any of them.

As a result of biblical research we now realize that the Scriptures speak of God's eternity in terms of time, not timelessness.

Choosing as his subject the biblical account of the marriage at Cana, he takes the Scripture's «sustaining myth» and transforms it (in the style of the 15th - century Old Masters) into a mythic self - portrait.

With the emergence of historical criticism as the dominant form of biblical interpretation, allegory was discredited as a feckless style of medieval exegesis that twisted the words and phrases of Scripture into arbitrary symbols of hidden truths.

'» (90) The prevailing attitude, he shows, is heavily influenced by the Platonic concept of an evil material world and a perfect immaterial soul, as well as a misunderstanding of Scripture in which heaven, (as a kind of final resting place for the soul), is emphasized over the clear biblical picture of a new heaven and new earth for which believers will be physically resurrected.

Having studied biblical theology in graduate school (part of the time under a conservative Rabbi) and currently studying theology at the Pontificia Universita Gregorian in Rome as a seminarian, I regard Meir Soloveichik's biblical theology as unrepresentative of what the Hebrew Scriptures teach.

While we are on this subject, how is it that those who take a high view of the Scriptures are known to produce less by way of creative biblical interpretation than those who either bracket the question or treat the text as a human document?

The James O'Kelly Christian Church, which represents an important southern heritage of the United Church of Christ, underscores other nonhierarchical biblical Reformation concerns by viewing the Scriptures as «the only creed, a sufficient rule of faith and practice.»

The Christian community now possesses for the first time some excellent scholarly works on the treatment of homosexuality in Scripture, such as Robin Scroggs's The New Testament and Homosexuality (Fortress, 1984) and George Edwards's Gay / Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (Pilgrim, 1984).

Having quoted from scripture, likewise there may be some who think of me as a so - called «believer» or «biblical Christian».

It is fashionable these days for Scripture scholars to look for substantive differences of conviction between biblical writers, but this is in my view an inquiry as shallow and stultifying as it is unfruitful.

To critics of biblical inerrancy, it sounds like we Christians are making the same argument as this man uses: Is this what we do with Scripture?

As a result, they endlessly critique the biblical texts but rarely get around to hearing scripture's critique of us or hearing its message of grace.

(7) I contend for biblical inerrancy because acknowledgment of Scripture as totally true and trustworthy is integral to biblical authority as I understand it.

The authors often cite scripture, but, as in this case, do not make their hermeneutic explicit, seeming to apply a very literalistic method without much benefit from biblical scholarship.

I argued with Christians over the existance of God and constantly studied scripture so I could uncover as many biblical contradictions as I could.

They may be challenged to reconsider their view of the authority of scripture as they learn how the biblical canon came into existence and the different literary genres it contains.

The result of two centuries of Biblical criticism, as this has affected the thought of the Church, has not been an impairment of the power of the Scriptures but it has been an increase of the sense of the communal character of the book.

In fact, the number of theologians and exegetes is increasing who consider that nothing more is expressed in this feature of the biblical narrative than the important truth that Eve is of the same equal nature with Adam, «made of the same stuff», as we might say today, using a similar figure of speech to the dramatic one in Scripture.

Our embodied generations of godliness seemingly does not show very much considerations to our current worldly affairs as was made mentioning of within many of our biblical scriptures passaged ways.

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.

'30 That is, although specific sections of Scripture might need to be rejected, one must still take as authoritative the overall message of the Biblical text.

Although Biblical «infallibility» thus seems the better of the two options, as even Pinnock's most recent statements imply, the term is not without its problems within and outside the evangelical community.59 Given the history of controversy over inspiration, to say that Scripture is «infallible» seems to many evangelicals a watered - down statement, one sidestepping Biblical truth.

As J. P. Sanders once said regarding biblical interpretation, «Anytime we read scripture and find ourselves right away on Jesus» side, we have probably misread the passage.»

To support his slurs, Eichenwald first tries to undermine reliance on Scripture as a supreme authority for moral discernment and then to show how Christians, oblivious to the problems with biblical inspiration, ignore its clear teaching.

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

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 authoritAs 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 authoritas to insure the continued place of Scripture as one's final authoritas one's final authority.

I have a hunch that one explanation accounts for the silence of evangelical biblical scholars more than any other: the basic fear that their findings, as they deal with the text of Scripture, will conflict with the popular understanding of what inerrancy entails.

Some «black» churches preach liberation theology, which many biblical scholars recognize as incompatible with Scripture.

All these scriptures / Biblical teachings created a problem for me as over the years when I would experience psychotic symptoms and psychic phenomena as a result of intense / deep prayer and meditation, I actually thought that God was trying to show me a sign or tell me something or he was leading me in a particular direction.

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.

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.

Those who advocate for «biblical equality» often overlook those passages in which women are clearly regarded by the writers of Scripture as less than equal.]

In the third paragraph I, upfront, indicated my bias as to what I believe is the Biblical precedence which is that fallen mankind has the inherent - free - will capacity to accept or reject God's call / drawing, commands, instructions, teachings, promises and gifts which biased my interpretation of John 6:25 - 71 — and my interpretation indicates that section of Scripture can be understood (interpreted) to be consistent with the precedence I mentioned.

[1] He acknowledges that a truly historical approach is necessary, but while it only deals with the isolated past as past it «does not exhaust the interpretive task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of Holy Scripture inspired by God».

That does not mean that the idea of Purgatory is necessarily true and it must be assessed in the light of scripture as a whole and, in my view, there's simply not enough biblical support to affirm it as an established doctrine.

Read, study and meditate on Scripture every day, and make sure you get as much good, solid, Biblical teaching as you can during the week.