Sentences with phrase «doctrinal statements for»

If you develop a doctrinal statement for these reasons, I would urge you to keep the the statement as basic as possible.

Not exact matches

Perhaps a modern paraphrase for us today would be: «If I have my doctrinal statement nailed down flawlessly and am able to prove myself right by quoting verses to support my theology, but do not have love, I am dead wrong.»

No need for a separate doctrinal statement to join... Christ is our doctrinal statement!

Full disclosure: I'm starting another website, and while it is not a church, it is built for churches, and I am trying to decided whether I should have a doctrinal statement or not.

It wasn't the summer that brought an end to my doubt, but it was the summer I encountered a different Jesus, a Jesus who requires more from me than intellectual assent and emotional allegiance; a Jesus who associated with sinners and infuriated the religious; a Jesus who broke the rules and refused to cast the first stone; a Jesus who gravitated toward sick people and crazy people, homeless people and hopeless people; a Jesus who preferred story to exposition and metaphor to syllogism; a Jesus who answered questions with more questions, and demands for proof with demands for faith... a Jesus who healed each person differently and saved each person differently; a Jesus who had no list of beliefs to check off, no doctrinal statements to sign, no surefire way to tell who was «in» and who was «out»; a Jesus who loved after being betrayed, healed after being hurt, and forgave while being nailed to a tree; a Jesus who asked his disciples to do the same...

It would be easy for a campus ministry group to wink and nod toward their evangelical ancestors, pointing to a doctrinal statement that doesn't exactly say the right things but doesn't contradict them either, while buying political protection and cultural shelter through equivocation and virtue signaling.

It means that how we treat one another and what we do for our neighbors matters more than what we write down on our doctrinal statement.

But we must try, for the alternative is only more of the same: more doctrinal statements, more division, and more disunity.

The questions of a doctrinal and historical kind which are raised become more and more complicated and more difficult of access for a simple, universally intelligible official statement of the Church.

Despite how doctrinal statements can be misused and abused, I do think there are several good uses for them.

For example, if a denomination declared in their doctrinal statement that the Bible teaches that all good Christians must wear pink hats and only those people who wear pink hats can indeed be true followers of Jesus, we would conclude upon reading this statement that we would never be accepted by those folks because we don't agree with this bit of ridiculous theology.

Recent revisions of the Wesleyan Theological Society's doctrinal statement reveal a «purifying» process that avoids the characteristic expressions of the «inerrancy» position for vocabulary more at home in its prefundamentalist tradition.

He urged his readers not to concentrate on the doctrinal statements which they mocked, but on a «sense and taste for the Infinite», or, in a phrase that he often used, on «a feeling of absolute dependence.»

The «Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian» issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1990, stated that no public discussion of non-infallible doctrinal statements is permitted within the Church.

For example, most doctrinal statements include the idea that Jesus is fully human and fully divine.

Despite how hard I have been on doctrinal statements in recent posts, I do think there are several good uses for them.

Doctrinal statements are good for one thing and one thing only.

I will admit it, when I visit a church or ministry website, one of the first things I do is look for the doctrinal statement.

Similarly, other points from doctrinal statements often represent key teachings from Scripture and can help guide our own study into Scripture, keeping us within the doctrinal boundaries of Christians from the past (See The Shape of Sola Scriptura for more on this idea).

Though my job performance was faultless, and not a single one of the doctrines I was studying had anything to do with the doctrinal statement of the organization, the founder thought that if donors heard that I was studying these doctrines, support for the organization would decrease.

I was once fired for reading about and investigating some doctrines that made my boss uncomfortable, though I never disagreed with the doctrinal statement.

In these chapters, he shows how the reality of postmodernism is actually a blessing for the mission of the church, not something to be attacked or fended off with ever - lengthening doctrinal statements.

Thanks for the link to that poetic doctrinal statement.

No longer will doctrinal statements be focused on «truths to believe» as a litmus test for orthodoxy.

The chapter on doctrinal statements will make more sense when it is all put together, rather than cut up into pieces for blog posts.

Yes, in some future posts, I will praise the doctrinal statements, and suggest some positive uses for them.

I am not sure how long you have been reading this blog, but this post here is actually part of a series that has been going on for about three weeks so far, in which I look at at the use and abuse of doctrinal statements.

There are uses for doctrinal statements, and while one of the uses is to provide guidance and boundaries in our biblical interpretation, there are pitfalls to this approach, especially when we include some of the later doctrinal statements of church history.

Future posts will argue your second point, that we still need some doctrinal statements, but for purposes other than condemning and judging others.

Throughout history, people disagree on what Scripture actually teaches, and so doctrinal statements were written to serve as a guide for the proper interpretation and understanding of Scripture.

Hmm... one of the problems I see with doctrinal statements — and the underlying need for them — is that they often are the result of disagreements over interpretation.

On an earlier comment, Sam talked about «insider theology» where a group has a hidden doctrinal statement that is not written on paper, and you don't know what it is until after you trespass and get burned for it.

While the vast majority of these doctrinal statements were created primarily for the purpose of defining one group's distinctive beliefs without condemning those who believe differently, nearly every statement contains points that are considered «non-negotiable» and which will cause churches to separate from others who believe differently, and even condemn these other groups as «unsaved.»

Ironically, while these Creeds were intended to promote unity, they really just caused the church to become ever - more fractured and disunified, for as the complexity of doctrinal statements increased, so also did the charge of «heretic.»

For example, I was recently un-invited to speak somewhere we both know and love because «the doctrinal distance is too great» — and this when nothing I said, or was planning to say, violated the written doctrinal statement in question.

Of course, no doctrinal statements are mentioned there, no rituals, no structures, but only caring for orphans and widows.

All of these are valuable within the life of believers, but there are a few things that the church can do to help make preaching, doctrinal statements, prayer meetings, and evangelism more effective for the mission of the church.

It requires doctrinal theology for critical assessment of the ideological distortion and faithlessness of its practices insofar as they are statements of its outlook, and it calls for constructive proposals of preferable formulations of its outlook.

Legalism has dogged Christianity throughout its history whenever a particular structure of the Church, a particular doctrinal statement, or a particular form of behavior, has replaced the living Christ as the expression of divine revelation and the guide for human life.

First, I could continue on to the next chapter in Close Your Church for Good., in which I will challenge the use of Doctrinal Statements.

I also read the doctrinal statement in which it expressly states is for the board and facilty, not students.

The doctrinal statement of the school restrains their desire to learn, study, and think for themselves.

Many churches or denominations won't allow people to become members unless they use these words in their description of Scripture... Oddly, I've never heard of a church or denomination that asked people to affirm a doctrinal statement like this: The purpose of Scripture is to equip God's people for good works.

We are well used to such Evangelicals, sharing with them the doctrinal and moral essentials of classical Christianity, a commitment to the Augustinian patrimony of the West, recent remarkable joint statements on justification, and much common work for the sanctity of life, Biblical standards of sexual morality, social justice, environmental responsibility and world peace.

You have to admit... that paper Zane Hodges read was meant for shock value (sort of like what John Piper does) meant for generating discussion, and was not intended to remove the cross of Christ from a doctrinal statement.

While the Tribunal accepted that Christian Horizons sincerely and honestly believed the requirement to adhere to the Doctrinal and Lifestyle Statements was necessary for the performance of employment, it did not accept that the qualification was objectively appropriate or reasonably necessary to the performance of a support worker position.