Sentences with phrase «by biblical scripture»

The counseling they provide is based upon sound Christian principles backed by biblical scripture.

Not exact matches

Revisiting late medieval biblical interpretation, we may consider the delicacy of the hermeneutic circle formed by Scripture and tradition, appreciating the fragility of a synthesis that refuses to impose on ancient consensus a linear, hierarchical path to truth.

The convictionâ $» endemic among churchfolkâ $» persists that, if problems of misapprehension and misrepresentation are overcome and the gospel can be heard in its own integrity, the gospel will be found attractive by people, become popular, and, even, be a success of some sortâ $ ¦ This idea is both curious and ironical because it is bluntly contradicted in Scripture and in the experience of the continuing biblical witness in history from the event of Pentecost unto the present momentâ $ (William Stringfellow, quoted in A Keeper of the Word, p. 348).

They argue that when they quote Scripture at me, I am silenced by the weight of Biblical evidence.

I personally don't think Steve was «fair» with all of the biblical accounts of violence, since he often cuts off quotations in mid-sentence, but with all the clear «unfairness» in Scripture where actual human lives are getting «cut off» by God, it's hard to quibble over minor details like that.

Of course, process theology can not fulfil this responsibility without interpreting Scripture, and the separation of process theology in recent decades from the close involvement in Biblical scholarship of the earlier Chicago school has led to critical weaknesses which are only now being addressed.1 Nevertheless, for process theology the appropriate relationship to the Bible can not be exhausted by hermeneutic.

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.»

The fact is, most of the defenses of American slavery were written by clergy who quoted Scripture generously and appealed to a «clear, plain, and common - sense reading» of biblical passages like Genesis 17:2, Deuteronomy 20:10 - 11, 1 Corinthians 7:21, Ephesians 6:1 - 5, Colossians 3:18 - 25; 4:1, and I Timothy 6:1 - 2.

A reading of scripture refreshed by appropriate scholarship: «Biblical scholarship is a great gift of God to the church, aiding it in its task of going ever deeper into the meaning of scripture and so being refreshed and energized for the tasks to which we are called in and for the world,» says Wright.

'» (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.

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.»

Salem Kirban was a biblical - prophecy guru who flourished in the 1970s — think of a minor - league Hal Lindsey — who produced a Bible in which every passage of Scripture relating to the end times was highlighted, magnified, commented on, and surrounded by illustrations.

If it is so easy to ignore a major and substantial religious practice repeatedly uplifted, enshrined and required by the Torah and by all the scripture that follows, why is it so hard to let go of two verses that have substantially less biblical mention and support and no contemporary justification?

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.

Moreover, while the central biblical message of new life through Christ is expressed so fully and dearly that one who runs may read and understand (which is what Reformation theology meant by the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture), there remain many secondary matters on which certainty of interpretation is hard if not impossible to come by.

But while Lindsell obviously intends to meet these concerns, his book is actually a repristination (and often less subtle than earlier expressions) of a particular timebound formulation of biblical authority that is being seen by increasing numbers of evangelicals not only to have outlived its usefulness but to have become a positive hindrance to the understanding of the fuller and deeper significance of the Scriptures.

(3) Biblical narratives must be evaluated by biblical norms: for it is not safe to infer that because God caused an event to be recorded in Scripture he approved it and means us to approveBiblical narratives must be evaluated by biblical norms: for it is not safe to infer that because God caused an event to be recorded in Scripture he approved it and means us to approvebiblical norms: for it is not safe to infer that because God caused an event to be recorded in Scripture he approved it and means us to approve it too.

The fact that people are tempted to abuse Scripture by calling upon it to support whatever they believe is one of the reasons it is inappropriate most of the time to think that the primary theological debate is about whether the biblical text is authoritative or not.

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.

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.

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

By focusing on individual conversions apart from traditional church authorities that had, even for Protestants, provided the context for the communication of biblical truth, the revivals encouraged individuals to appropriate Scripture for their own purposes.

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.

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.]

I sacrificed them on the altar of biblical womanhood, fervently believing that the only way I could be blessed by God was to follow the clear guidelines laid out in Scripture.

[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».

First, it is interesting that in the fourth century, the road to Constantinople in 381 is not paved by blunt appeals to church authority but by extensive wrestling over biblical texts and fine - tooling of extra-biblical language (most notably the term «hypostasis») in an attempt to establish which exegetical claims made sense of Scripture as a whole and which fell short.

There is overwhelming biblical scholarship for the full equality of women and that the interpretation of scripture to exclude women from roles by gender (rather than gifting) has been found to be rooted in patriarchy, an ancient worldview that became intertwined in the growth and doctrine of the church.

Some background: Rachel Held Evans has made a career out of undermining fidelity to the teachings of Scripture by ridiculing simplistic or non-existent notions of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), while practicing a flawed hermeneutic of her own that often seems to be little more than an extension of her own ideology.

It was only when this rigid view of scripture came to be questioned, and eventually abandoned by most, that men were free to examine the historicity of the many biblical narratives with the tools of historical method.

Examining the successful use of Scripture on the part of Bill Clinton and George Bush, and the unsuccessful use by Joe Lieberman and John Kerry ¯ not to mention Howard Dean's absurd excursion into the New Testament book of Job ¯ Berlinerblau demonstrates that biblical citations are most effective in American political rhetoric when they are (1) sparse, (2) positive, (3) vague, (4) shallow, and (5) veiled.

Though he preferred to speak of biblical «saga» rather than «myth» in order to distinguish biblical myth from the monist mythologies of other religions and philosophies, he urged that, by either name, the «mythical» aspects of scripture should not be regarded as dispensable for theology.

When Paul says that «all Scripture is inspired by God» (2 Tim 3:16), he doesn't mean that the biblical writers received God's word while rolling around in some trance, totally unaware of what was going on.

Is there a flaw here in one's use of Scripture or is it in the nature of Biblical materials that singleness of theme can be achieved only by their violation?

But he clearly doesn't mean by this that the concept of omnipotence he attributes to God is derived solely from biblical statements, for he immediately adds that «unfortunately, Scripture contains no explicit statement concerning God's omnipotence, nor does it discuss the issue in any philosophical way.»

As you search the Scriptures, here are a few books I would recommend for those embarking on learning in this particular area as companions are: — «Changing My Mind» by David Gushee; — «Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays vs. Christians Debate» by Justin Lee; — «A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor's Path to Embracing Those Who are Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Into the Company of Jesus» by Ken Wilson; and — «God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same - Sex Relationships» by Matthew Vines.

If we can respectfully acknowledge that a majority of todays» generation of believers are taught into the faith by their parents, we reluctantly must conclude that the theology base of * a lot * of these believers is not upon careful reflection and personal choice upon the fervent divulgence of the Scriptures, but rather a hodge - podge compilation of «feel good» thoughts that have no biblical or moral grounding other than vague references.

For example, the kind of «biblical theology» sometimes advocated assumes that we should go forward by taking with utmost seriousness the biblical images or motifs — not the literal, textual stuff of Scripture, which would involve us in a kind of new «fundamentalism», but the main - line of biblical images.

Most Intriguing (nominated by Brett Gibson): Roger Olson's review of Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture by Kenton L. Sparks

Pius XII already commented on the unitive significance of this powerful biblical expression: «In its natural structure, the conjugal act is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation on the part of the husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the proper nature of the act is the expression of the mutual gift which, according to the words of Scripture, brings about union «in one flesh»» (Address, October 29, 1951: AAS 3 (1951), 850).

(Ask: Could the «perspicuity of Scripture» or the correct biblical canon be established by such means?)

In The Art of Biblical Narrative, Robert Alter suggests a key to characters» inner thoughts and motivations which would be helpful even to the inexperienced reader of Scripture: first, external details (appearance, clothing, gestures); second, «one character's comments on another»; third, «direct speech by the character»; fourth, «inward speech... quoted as interior monologue»; and fifth, «statements by the narrator about the attitudes and intentions of the personages» (pp.116 - 117).

The fact that Nicene views prevailed, and have been defended over and over again by great theologians and biblical scholars down the centuries, only confirms the conclusion that the Nicene Fathers correctly discerned the meaning of Scripture on the vital issue of the nature of Christ.

Enns skillfully dismantles some of the common responses to these passages — that the Canaanites were super-duper evil and therefore deserved to be exterminated, that war with the Canaanites was inevitable, that God's bloodthirsty portrait in Joshua is balanced out by more flattering portraits elsewhere in Scripture, that questioning biblical accounts of God - ordained genocide is sinful because God can do whatever God wants to do, etc — before offering his own controversial, yet well - argued, conclusion: «God never told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.

A lot of these comments show the lack of biblical teaching and understanding of scripture in the home, of course its hard to teach biblical truth when the home is run by to men.

I read this article by charisma magazine which i thought was well written which is pro Women preaching http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/16851-why-i-defend-women-preachers This debate is an on going one John Piper who i respect as a bible preacher believes that scripture is clear women shouldnt have authority over men or teach in the church some go as far as saying women shouldnt preach in sunday school if the classes are mixed.Personally i think times are changing and i say that because i have a women manager she has authority over me and other men so if we follow the biblical example i shouldnt allow myself to be in that situation which is just crazy thinking.

Moreover, by failing to ground their assertions about scripture in a logically prior doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the narrative theologians undermine their purported desire to uphold the unity and authority of scripture.

The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative offered a richly detailed survey of the ways 18th - and 19th - century theologians overlooked the narrative character of scripture, but fundamentally, Frei argued, there were two main strategies by which modernist (and modernist - influenced) theologians reconstrued scriptural meaning.