Sentences with phrase «do with scripture»

He explains the Theological interpretation of Scripture better than the other books, provides some examples of how to do this with Scripture, and when he does not give an explanation of «how to» do it yourself, explains why such an explanation is impossible (p. 195).

When it comes to helping me understand what to do with Scripture, Bible college and seminary didn't help me much.

Frankly, I really, really like this approach, because (as you may know if you have been reading my blog for the past six years or so), this is all I have been able to do with Scripture for the past decade or so.

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?

I knew that it had to have something to do with Scripture and theology, since that is what I enjoy writing about.

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?

It's not that I don't feel like I can, I can... but is that in the vocabulary of the one who I worship, if it's not then why would I as His Son want to take on what is not His, my Father's nature... The versions of the Bible I've read seem to think that words are powerful and speaking them is an action and can even change physics if used properly... Again, the scriptures speak for themselves and circumventing the topical study with christiany cliche come - backs doesn't answer or annul anything that the Word has to say on the matter.

So, by your reasoning, if «People put so much importance on words» (implying that they don't matter and we shouldn't take thought of how we use them) then I ought to be able to sing along with the lyrics from pac's «hit»em up» with my black friends, curse in a kindergarten class as well as a corporate meeting for my boss... what impression would a client have of my boss if I were cussing in a professional meeting or at a charity event... it doesn't add up, it's a cop - out rebuttal... trying to find loopholes or applying «human reasoning» like» ll take a swearing guy who's helpful» doesn't change Jesus or scripture it's just setting up a what - if scenario and trying to allow that to in some way justify your stance when again, that doesn't change The Holy Spirit or His heart in those who have been born again... the verses (inspired by His own Spirit) speak for themselves.

Since young adults perceive evangelical Christianity to be... «unconcerned with social justice», it's a shame that more evangelical churches don't know about the Just Faith program, which provides «opportunities for individuals to study and be formed by the justice tradition articulated by the Scriptures, the Church's historical witness, theological inquiry and Church social teaching» (from jusfaith.org/programs).

You don't want to try to understand the scriptures, and if you did, then you would know how wrong you are But, its more fun to twist things in your mind, so you can co = meback with your old and worn out «fouls» on everything.

I thank you for the scriptures you posted, because I sense that you do this with right intentions.

A great many of your points have little to do with actual scripture which has even less to do with the moral scaffolding of 21st century life.

While our understanding of God might begin with the scripture and be well informed by the scripture, it does not end with the scripture.

In «With Her» Milosz speaks of hearing a passage from Scripture during Mass at St. Mary Magdalen in Berkeley: «A reading this Sunday from the Book of Wisdom / About how God has not made death / And does not rejoice in the annihilation of the living.»

I don't want to gloss over the historical difficulties of the «phenomena of Scripture,» as I agree with Smith that it's important to take those into account.

This, along with the words of Mr. Handspicker, is good advice — as long as we do not miss the eternal aspect of the Scriptures and the absolute directives contained therein.

I love watching all you christians squirm as usual, with your counterarguments of scripture, that as usual have nothing to do with the article.

Now here is the difference, Judas planned all this ahead, Peter did not (read the Scriptures) and we can tell he repented later in the book of Acts, when he was filled with the Holy Spirit, he became a more solid, mature man of God that produced the fruits of the Spirit.

I do think that maintaining the normativity of Scripture entails giving it a higher priority than worship, if we are talking about our means of knowing the shape the Christian faith ought to take in the world, even if our primary encounter with Scripture is within the context of worship.

This led Luther eventually to conclude that the Roman Church was irrevocably committed to the claim that the authority of the pope stood even above Holy Scripture and it was in this context that he came, over the next several years, to believe that the papacy was the prophesied Antichrist of the last days, a conviction he then held to his dying day with a literalistic fervor that his modern interpreters have rarely been willing to take as seriously as he did.

The above verse of scripture has not a damned thing to do with celestial glories as from what I heard the LDS are leaning towards,,,, Care to explain to us all this celestial rewarding?

If you want to say that two men or two women is an abomination then you might want to read some more of that scripture and you would find puting two seeds in the same hole, working on sundays, wearing cloths with more than one color and lots of other dumb things are mentioned in a list why do you all foucus on just one part of that list it has lots of abominations that we all do every day

«If we look at the Scriptures, we see a God who weeps with those going through pain, who is compassionate for those who suffer and condemns those who do injustice,» Reese said

While convergence does happen in religion from the perspective of the human psyche being adapted through its self - deceptive capabilities (e.g., as a coping mechanism), we didn't land in the new world with the discovery of the same kind of scripture stemming from a singular God.

If I were advocating for unqualified blessing of same - sex unions in the church, I would hope that I'd have the humility and charity and intellectual honesty to grapple with Scripture and the church's tradition in a way that didn't dismiss it as simply «homophobic» or hopelessly benighted.

Even with these few mentions of scriptures — what do they mean to you?

As one puts it, «I understand the importance of indissolubility, and I don't know how we'll square changing that with Scripture and tradition, but the present practice is simply not sustainable.

What bothers me most is that so many of the Scripture references that are used to support the pledges are taken out of context and really have little or nothing to do with the author's theories.I believe God will hold this man and those who abuse God's Word accountable.

How does culture have anything to do with determining the truths of Scripture?

Generally, when we cherry pick we acknowledge that the Scriptures were not composed systematically and we are using our context, our sitz im liben, after the example of the Scripture writers who did the same with the saying they had at hand.

Familiarity with Episcopal orthodoxy does not equate to Godly knowledge of the Scriptures.

We may all be one but they do not want to have anything to do with people who believe the interpretation of the Scriptures which calls that lifestyle sin.

That scripture is talking about RAPE and has NOTHING to do with the loving saved respectful relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today.

John's baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins was the Jewish baptism of repentance which I wrote a few posts about, and which has nothing to do with receiving eternal life, and everything to do with the repentance of Israel as a nation so that she can be restored to her rightful place among the nations as God promised in Scripture.

So the questions that come with regarding God and goodness — if He's good He can't be strong, and vice versa, those core questions — just don't get answered in the Scriptures.

I'm sorry now that I don't remember where it is found in the bible, but during these times where I had experienced the most hardship with relationships and bullying, a particular scripture kept coming up in my heart about letting Christ be my defender.

As for your converstaion, I don't have many Scriptures memorized (I'm a bit ashamed to admit) but I'm pretty familiar with the Bible and don't off - hand recall any Scripture that says «all men are liars.»

I think my message would echo that of Pascal: read scripture, pray, go to church, become involved with this world of faith and with people who believe, and see if things don't click into place.

This is a false dichotomy, and does not fit with either Scripture or logic.

Again, other Christians do this with our favorite beliefs: We'll claim our views are wholly based on scripture, but in fact our favorite proof - texts are cherry - picked, and least - favorites are dismissed, wholly based on our theology.

I've been doing some thinking and reading on all of this, and hope it continues to fit with Scripture as I read and study more.

If we can grasp all the intricacies and implications of Total Depravity, and see how it does not fit with Scripture, the rest of the Calvinistic system will fall like a set of dominoes.

Gambling your soul away on a guess based on ancient texts out of fear of torture doesn't sound logical at all, especially considering how many other versions of the scriptures have been found and conflict with today's bible.

If you end up at unbelief it is you who will cast off salvation / JESUS as Esau did (He cast off his inheritance) The «work» of a Christian begins with Faith to recieve Christ, maintaining faith (done by allowing the santification process, walking on all the warnings of the scriptures of things to avoid and things to add to faith).

On occasion I have come into contact with those Christians (and I do beleive them to be Christians) who feel that CALVINISM must be the truth from Scripture... and they look at me with what amounts to almost sorrow when I tell them that I have no time for Mr. Calvin and his «Institutes»... here are just a few reasons why:

Yet, if another believes another way, yet he goes home and treats his wife with love, what does that say about his belief in scripture?

The mutually recognized authority of Scripture served well in the debates with the papacy, but the Reformers and their successors never did a terribly good job of saying why they received what they received from the ancient church.

But even identifying these two very consequent decisions does not explain how in Lutheranism, of all places, the authority of Scripture could be so undermined and why in Lutheranism, with its strong theology of God's orders of creation and preservation, anyone could hope to get away with proposing that sexual arrangements be judged on quality not kind.

Regarding your point 8: Does your anthropomorphic analogy really square with what Scripture says?

So pretty much all I had to sort things out were the Scriptures, a few friends to talk with (many were traumatized by the split and would get freaked out, so we didn't talk much), and trying to follow the leading of the Spirit to learn and discern.