Sentences with phrase «biblical teaching as»

The church for a very long time apparently did not interpret biblical teaching as an edict for one - man, one - woman marriage.

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.

Not exact matches

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

Investment for return (as Rodney Stark relates in The Victory of Reason) largely occurred against the grain of Church teaching, the Spanish Scholastics being largely ignored, and it was Calvin's application of biblical law to trade and commerce that created the competitive tension under which a millennium of misapplication and resultant economic suppression could begin to be corrected.

Of course I may come off as «self - righteous,» because I take a firm stance on certain biblical teachings.

We also affirm that tradition, rightly understood as the proper reflection of biblical teaching, is the faithful transmission of the truth of the gospel from generation to generation through the power of the Holy Spirit.

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.

What preachers once taught as biblical truth — slavery is sanctioned by God; women aren't allowed to preach; gambling and dancing are sin — is now rejected by many churches.

It can be well demonstrated that, as far as Jewish biblical teaching goes, idolatry is proscribed only for Jews.

In the Biblical Manuscript P72, dating from 175 - 200AD, and containing the entire text of 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude, in this, we find 2 Peter 1:1 — ``... our God and Savior, Jesus Christ...» proving that the deity of Jesus was NOT a construct of Emperor Constantine (Roman Emperor from 306 - 337) as was proclaimed by Dan Brown in his book «The DaVinci Code,» but rather, this was a central teaching of the disciples from day 1.

But the corollary doctrine that the Jews were condemned to wander the earth as visible evidence of God's judgment so thoroughly muddied the biblical teaching that Christians in both communions, Protestant and Catholic, were blind to the escalating existential threat to Jews in Germany and elsewhere.

Biblical teaching is not nearly as anthropocentric as later Christians made out.

In Out of Sorts, Sarah Bessey helps us grapple with core Christian issues using a mixture of beautiful storytelling and biblical teaching, a style well described as «narrative theology.»

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

Sometimes I get the idea that folks in the mainline are so frustrated with how evangelicals have wielded the Bible and faith in the public square, they avoid language, practices, and teaching that might be construed as overly religious, overly biblical, or overly exclusive.

But the biggest problem, as I saw it, was that those teaching this view of «biblical womanhood» refused to acknowledge that their interpretation — like all interpretations — involved a certain degree of selectivity and required a certain set of presuppositions.

Obama went on to frame decisions as disparate as ending tax breaks for the wealthy and defending foreign aid as examples of biblical principles in action, quoting Jesus» teaching that «for unto whom much is given, much shall be required» and invoking the «biblical call to care for the least of these.»

(2) Evolution has often been taught with the implication that it was a rejection of the biblical creation account, by ignoring or dismissing the creation stories as prescientific myths surpassed by superior modern versions.

To rush biblical statements into this arena, as though they were of the same order as Charles Darwin's Origin of Species or Stephen Jay Gould's The Panda's Thumb, or as though scientific conclusions could be drawn from them, is to be very confused about what it is the Genesis materials are teaching.

I'm looking to eventually teach theology, but in between my personal studies, an obsessive reading habit, and spending far too much money on coffee, I started a blog called New Ways Forward as an outlet for some of my random thoughts and a way to interact with others who share a passion for theology, Biblical studies, and social justice.

Here it is assumed that the church's teaching is the responsible development of biblical teaching, but the task is not so much to check this assumption as to build on the tradition.

Obviously, I'm a big advocate for mutual submission in marriage, as that is what I believe those biblical passages ultimately teach and this is what works best in our marriage, but more important than adopting a single household model — either patriarchal or egalitarian — is adopting the posture of Jesus Christ, who emptied himself of power and took the role of servant.

Christmas, Easter... all others have no Biblical basis for celebrating, and as practiced today, are a travesty of the principles Jesus lived by and taught.

This can be regarded as a form of liberal theology; so at this point I will simply argue that Wesley would support no holds barred biblical scholarship and rethink his teaching in its light.

Placker presents an appreciative summary of Hans Frei's understanding of biblical narrative as neither moral teachings nor historical accounts, but rather as primarily narrative.

The word doctrine is therefore being used in a way that is flexible enough to accommodate the variety of biblical teaching on these and other subjects as well as the factor of development in some themes as we move from the Old Testament into the New Testament.

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.

A wise interpreter would set this verse aside as too vague and unclear on this particular issue and seek Biblical truth on this subject in the clear passages throughout the Bible that teach that God does not hold children to account for the sins of their parents!

Jenson's ambitious enterprise requires familiarity with the sources of Christian teaching through the centuries as well as with the biblical roots, and he displays an intimate knowledge of the Eastern Fathers as well as of Western figures such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

We are called to be light and salt, and one way to do this is to stand up and speak out FOR BIBLICAL VALUES and against sin... yes, of course we should be preaching / teaching / living God's «theology of marriage» in our own marriages...... but God has clearly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and therefore, when our government says it's otherwise, we should be light and salt and speak up, and vote accordingly.

I had been attending Liberty University but with tuition costs and I did not feel that I was getting as much biblical based teaching I needed I decided to look at other options.

It can also be referred to as the prophetic premise, since it was the biblical prophets who first taught that «no work of man's hand or brain should ever be regarded as absolute, as permanent, as definitive» (Garaudy, 1:68).

These people believe what they believe as do I. I am a Christian and do my best to follow Biblical teachings.

The technical disciplines taught in universities and seminaries - technical dogmatics, ethics, spirituality, apologetics, missiology, historical theology, and so forth - find their value as they lead to richer biblical interpretation.

It was an Episcopal Seminary, and 40 years ago, as well as some Episcopal students and professors that still taught Biblical studies and philosophy, there were also Zen Buddhists and a Jewish Shule.

(1) Biblical teaching is coherent and self - consistent: for, as I said above, with whatever variety of literary form and personal style from writer to writer and with whatever additions and amendments as redemptive history progressed, it all proceeds from one source; namely, the mind of God the Holy Spirit.

The main biblical evidence is (1) the stories of the creation (Gen.I: 26 - 27 with 5:1 - 2; 2:18 - 25) and the fall (3:16 - 20); (2) Jesus» respect for women, whom he consistently treated as men's equals (Luke 8:1 - 3; 10:38 - 42; 11:28 - 28; 13:10 - 17; 21:1 - 4; Mark 5:22 - 42; John 4:7 - 38; 8:3 - 11; 12:1 - 8; (3) references to women ministering in the apostolic church by prophesying, leading in prayer, teaching, practicing Samaritanship both informally and as widows and deacons, and laboring in the gospel with Apostles (Acts 2:17 - 21; 9:36 - 42; 18:24 - 26; 21:9 Rom.

I have not found a «kind and gracious way» to use this biblical teaching — I do it exactly as it's given in the Bible.

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.

I certainly wouldn't assume as much about the undergraduate English students I teach, and I have ceased to be surprised by blithe ignorance about Western literature's biblical groundings in otherwise brilliant and intellectually agile doctoral students.

Furthermore, thanks to the work of a hundred years of biblical study, we no longer regard Christianity as simply «developing the content of the founder's teaching.»

of his entire antiquities, there are two passages that mention Jesus, 1 merely says his brother was James, and people called him christ (which says nothing about works, resurrection, miracles, teachings), and the other is recognized as most likely a forgery, even by biblical scholars.

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.

Thus the gospel was concentrated in the person of Jesus; the hope of the Kingdom receded and became eventually only another name for «heaven,» the other world, the state of bliss beyond death, or, as in Thomas Aquinas, a term for the divine theodicy in general — though in truth this interpretation really emphasized a fundamental element in the whole biblical conception, in Jesus» teaching as elsewhere — and thus an intellectual concept of the person of Jesus tended to become central for Christian doctrine, theology, and devotion, rather than the person of God, his sovereignty and his redemptive will, his wisdom and his love.

Luckily, I also group up in a Christian home and was taught the importance of caring for the earth as a biblical mandate (Genesis 2:15).

In Out of Sorts, Sarah Bessey — award - winning blogger and author of Jesus Feminist, which was hailed as «lucid, compelling, and beautifully written» (Frank Viola, author of God's Favorite Place on Earth)-- helps us grapple with core Christian issues using a mixture of beautiful storytelling and biblical teaching, a style well described as «narrative theology.»

So when eternal conscious torment is the very question at hand, what biblical evidence would you point to as teaching that the resurrected bodies of the lost will likewise be made immortal?

In essence for many years as a result of all the complex biblical teaching I have been immersed with and confused by, I find Jeremy that the clear way you put it helps a great deal.

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.

The back cover of Wilkinson's book describes Walk Thru the Bible as «an international organization dedicated to providing the finest biblical teaching.»