Sentences with phrase «biblical teaching for»

The earlier ones already showed the relation of Scripture to theology in Pentecostal practice: such works were simple, uncritical explanations of biblical teaching for recent converts and for new but untrained ministers.

The fact that cultural prejudice sometimes uses Biblical teaching for its own ends does not invalidate the Biblical teaching...

But that kind of clarification of my understanding of biblical teaching for evangelical groups has usually been a preface to a plea for sexual humility.

Why anyone would think Hitler was a person that should be quoted in any sort of positive way to support - or - contrast Biblical teachings for parents and children is beyond me.

Not exact matches

I'm impressed by the ability of some of these so - called Christian leaders» attempts to rationalize their support for Obama and / or his positions despite Biblical teachings.

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.

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

I believe biblical teaching and Christian discipleship do have important implications for the way we think about and do politics.

And to say that Biblical teachings are invalid because there are other similar beliefs that have older known written sources invalidates the Biblical teachings also should take into consideration that for certain Biblical believers that all those truths whether they are known to have been placed in the Bible first or known thus far to have been placed elsewhere that they believe that they all come via deity who at the beginning of human history on this world dispensed those truths to humanity and that to those who believe in the biblical teachings believe that through time they are more complete than those of other ancient beliefs due to God restoring those truths through revelations given to later prophets like say Moses and other later Old and New Testament prophets and aBiblical teachings are invalid because there are other similar beliefs that have older known written sources invalidates the Biblical teachings also should take into consideration that for certain Biblical believers that all those truths whether they are known to have been placed in the Bible first or known thus far to have been placed elsewhere that they believe that they all come via deity who at the beginning of human history on this world dispensed those truths to humanity and that to those who believe in the biblical teachings believe that through time they are more complete than those of other ancient beliefs due to God restoring those truths through revelations given to later prophets like say Moses and other later Old and New Testament prophets and aBiblical teachings also should take into consideration that for certain Biblical believers that all those truths whether they are known to have been placed in the Bible first or known thus far to have been placed elsewhere that they believe that they all come via deity who at the beginning of human history on this world dispensed those truths to humanity and that to those who believe in the biblical teachings believe that through time they are more complete than those of other ancient beliefs due to God restoring those truths through revelations given to later prophets like say Moses and other later Old and New Testament prophets and aBiblical believers that all those truths whether they are known to have been placed in the Bible first or known thus far to have been placed elsewhere that they believe that they all come via deity who at the beginning of human history on this world dispensed those truths to humanity and that to those who believe in the biblical teachings believe that through time they are more complete than those of other ancient beliefs due to God restoring those truths through revelations given to later prophets like say Moses and other later Old and New Testament prophets and abiblical teachings believe that through time they are more complete than those of other ancient beliefs due to God restoring those truths through revelations given to later prophets like say Moses and other later Old and New Testament prophets and apostles.

Spend a half - hour teaching the text for every minute reviewing the latest biblical scholarship.

The Catholic Church is and has been the Biblical teaching authority for ALL Christians for 2000 + years and will continue to be because Jesus said all the powers of hell (including propserity organizations operating under the pretext of Christianity) would NOT prevail against it.

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.

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.»

To the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, thanks for the rhythm of exile and return, for teaching us how to argue and for the biblical book of Ecclesiastes (Oh, and Bob Dylan and Woody Allen, of course).

First, look for strong Biblical preaching and teaching.

This question is a litmus test for whether or not someone is teaching the Biblical Gospel.

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.

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.

Egalitarians and Christian feminists both share a common denominator — that justice and equality for females is a biblical ideal that can and should be part of the moral teachings and practices of Christians.

The presence of biblical support was not the reason for the teaching.

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.

It is sort of the «Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime» approach to biblical prophecy.

And it is boringly generic for everyone to thing their interpretations are «the unequivocal Biblical teaching on the topics»

These all are quite accurate translations of the Biblical text, and so are good for preaching and teaching.

So, it is Christ his life, example, character and teaching who is our guide and our primary lens, not only for biblical interpretation but for doing life.

But to claim some biblical justification for something so directly contrary to the teaching of Christ is (I think I have said this before) a perversion of the text.

Therefore, ANY Church that stands upon and teaches biblical morals and ethics become «impossible» for those folks to be a part of.

Instead of settling for the minimum in biblical languages, I try to teach that minimum and introduce an electronic product that will make translation almost nice.

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!

I wonder if the intelligent design folks would fight for all creation stories to be taught alongside the biblical one?

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.

While I appreciate the approach that DTS teaches, it can really only be followed by expert scholars and theologians, and is not feasible for the average student of Scripture, which indicates to me that it is not the only oven the best way of reading and interpreting the biblical text.

(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.

I wanted to learn and to teach a method of publically reading scripture, for example, that respected the intrinsic value of studying biblical texts while enhancing their communicative value in worship.

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.

A few years ago, Swedish pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in prison for preaching on the biblical teaching against sexual immorality from the pulpit of his small church in Borgholm.

For him this doctrine is not only the fundamental discriminator whereby one discerns the «true Christian» but also the universal teaching of the Christian church — at least prior to the rise of biblical criticism.

I discovered that Yoder taught not at Goshen College but rather in Elkhart at the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, but in my exploration of Goshen I discovered that Yoder had written numerous pamphlets that could be bought off a rack in College Church for a dime a piece.

Pastoring conservative churches for 20 + years has taught me that too many professed Christians don't know what they might believe because of self induced Biblical illiteracy.

I differ in that I find in Christ a basis for critical liberation from many aspects of Biblical teaching.

On Biblical grounds, we note, for example, that Jesus» ministry is summarized in the Gospels in ways like the following: «And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.»

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.

A more sophisticated screening of Scripture is carried out by others who claim that we must look in Scripture for the «locus classicus» of a Biblical doctrine and concentrate on its teaching, interpreting all else in light of its truth.

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).

Then after giving unconditional election a second and more Biblical look, I went through the musing s about how it could be true if all unbelievers go to eternal hellfire torment, and then I got hit with the realization that the New Testament teaches eternal torment for Satan and his followers, which I heartily endorse, but It teaches destruction for unbelievers.

Instinctively we take this view we have been taught and project it onto the biblical passages rather then letting Scripture speak for itself in its own context.

James Dobson taught, in no uncertain terms, that the biblical ideal was for women with young children to stay home instead of work.

In particular, one could ask the Prime Minister to put in writing his personal guarantee that no Church or individual will be forced to perform «gay marriages»; and that it will not be illegal for Christians to teach the traditional and biblical view that homosexual acts are sinful; and that Christians who refuse to perform «gay «marriages will still be able to be registrars.