Sentences with phrase «disagree with scripture»

If you think this is wrong, then you disagree with your scripture.

I guess C. S. Lewis wasn't wrong after all... Maybe the problem is not that Lewis» story disagreed with Scripture, but that we have misunderstood Scripture.

Not exact matches

Does it blow your mind to know that A) other people disagree with your interpretation of biblical scripture and that B) neither of you can ever be objectively right?

Williams violently disagreed with the Quakers, charging them with replacing God's revelation in Scripture with their own fancy spun out of the «light within.»

And don't bother to say your bias is scripture because there are many great teachers of scripture who flatly disagree with you.

There are other things that are made much clearer in Scripture and in the teachings of Jesus, so we all have to start with a posture of humility, and a posture of listening, and maybe even a commitment to disagree well.

You further dismissed that there could possibly be any scholarship that might disagree with your particular view of scripture as mere «rationalizing».

On the other hand, there were other men who disagreed: Tertullian, who believed that the soul would live on forever, that the wicked would suffer misery in proportion to the righteous» reward; St. Augustine, who came up with the doctrines of Original Sin and Predestination (some would be saved, the rest would be damned); and Jerome, who would end up retranslating the Latin Bible into what would become the Latin Vulgate and would twist various scriptures that talked about eonian chastening into teaching eternal torment.

This formulation makes sense, but I find myself compelled by Scripture, reason and experience to disagree with much of what constitutes traditional doctrine.

I want it to be a place where we can tell our stories, confess our sins, discuss Scripture, ask questions, disagree with grace, grieve, heal, create, follow Jesus, and rally together to do justice and love mercy — not just with our words, but with our actions.

well, my take on this whole discussion is that this cartoon was meant to expose the distance between what an scripture says (the whole world being reconciled) and what we actually think (but obviously not those who's lifestyle we disagree with).

I am a Christian and am thoroughly knowledge in the Scriptures, but I must disagree with you that Christians worship Satan by going to war in the name of God.

And I doubt many casual Christians (which is the majority of this country) would disagree with how he has interpreted the scripture to take on these issues.

But that's the way many of us approach Scripture and how other people understand it (when it disagrees with our understanding).

The author finds himself compelled by Scripture, reason and experience to disagree with much of what constitutes traditional doctrine.

It is arrogant of Dave and you to say that I don't understand the Bible simply because you disagree with my understanding of Scripture.

Frankly, I often disagree with fellow believers on how they try to legislate their interpretation of scripture, but the governance of a civil society is never going to be uninfluenced by people of faith as long as it is a democracy.

I said at various points that we basically disagree with the dispensationalists because we read the Scriptures differently.

So often, we see people in these discussions doing Scripture combat by throwing verses at those they disagree with, and if that was not your intent, then that is the point at which I misread you.

Such an assertion disagrees not only with the Council of Trent but also with the Protestant Reformers and, I would think, the clear meaning of Scripture.

If I say that I am right, and everyone who agrees with me is going to heaven, and everyone who disagrees with me is going to hell, I have just placed my interpretation of Scripture above Scripture itself, and placed myself in the role of God as the judge over all humanity.

If «using Christ against the Scriptures» is simply selectively extracting quotes of Jesus to negate anything else in scripture that someone disagrees with, then really it's just subjective picking and choosing, making it up as you go along.

But in the end, if you survive, and whether you agree or disagree with the author, you will be stronger in your faith and conviction about Scripture.

If they disagree with the teaching of scripture I will state that they are wrong even if I admire them.

So do not think that just because someone disagrees with your understanding of Scripture, this means they do not study Scripture.

There are numerous problems with such an idea, not least among them that Scripture and the example of Jesus seem to disagree, but it is not uncommon to hear sermons about living our best life now, full of freedom and liberty, and how to have a happy life, happy wife, happy kids, and happy job.

However by the Reformation in the 16th century, Martin Luther not only translated the Gospels, but he interpreted them in printed sermons as well, and when John Calvin, Roger Williams and others broadly disagreed in print with Luther on such matters as what the scriptures said about the role of government in society, the whole matter of scriptural interpretation was opened to thousands of individuals who for the first time could read (or have read to them) the published documents.

If there were only one possible interpretation of scripture, there wouldn't be thousands of Biblical scholars who disagree with each other.

Rachel has many views that are not in line with scripture, and she admits she disagrees with many biblical teachings and the infallibility of scripture.

And yes, even the so - called «heretics» argued for the «inspiration of Scripture» against those who disagreed with them.

I must earnestly disagree with you in your use of scripture to attempt to prove that God is not specially present with His people during public worship.

I does not seem that the doctrine resulted from a careful analysis of what Scripture says, but rather that the doctrine was a result of a need within the early church to have a trump card against those who disagreed with it theologically.

Since the early church had no set «canon of Scripture» (we'll deal with this later), no universally accepted doctrinal statements or creeds, no seminaries to teach «correct doctrine», and no Pope or Denominational leaders to decide between disagreeing factions, there was a lot of disagreement in the early church about what was truth and what was «heresy.»

Other men and women disagree based on different criteria, such as compliance with scripture or church tradition.

(They don't take scripture seriously, they are uncomfortable with thoughts of hell as opposed to actually disagreeing with the doctrine, that their decisions are based upon what is easy or satisfies their desires, etc..)

MacArthur and other cessationists believe that the Gifts of the Spirit, specifically tongues and healing, do not operate today (an assumption that I disagree with), so they interpret all scripture with that filter, that initial bias.

Those who would disagree with this reading of scripture are charged with being jealous of growing churches.