Sentences with phrase «from biblical meaning»

Much modem theology is of the opinion that contemporary meaning is largely uncontrolled by and different from biblical meaning.

Not exact matches

For at least a decade and a half before the appointment of Tietjen to the presidency of Concordia Seminary, some of its faculty had begun to turn away from such understandings — though without claiming that this turn meant giving up biblical inerrancy.

But the task of preserving even our moral floor is complicated by the determination of many that «we» should have free and full access to the remissive power of Christian forgiveness without any of the interdictory authority of biblical faith — even if this means that this power can only be «pried from God's clutches» by corrupting it, on at least some important occasions, into nihlistic nonjudgmentalism.

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

But I also meant the continuing work of our great high priest, helping to provide meaning to this altered world from the depths of our faith and the biblical drama.

They are also concerned that I presented and explored a variety of divergent perspectives on what «biblical womanhood» means (from Jewish, Catholic, Amish, feminist, polygamist, Christian fundamentalist and complementarian viewpoints, to name a few), including some viewpoints with which they do not agree.

Generous orthodoxy also means that one embodies biblical virtues as a theologian and as a biblical scholar as one encounters those who come from other traditions.

I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles of Peter and Paul, about the meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really mean when we talk about «biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.

Yet the early Church itself, when it departed from biblical idiom at the Council of Nicea and used for theological purposes a non-biblical word, homo - ousion, as the guarantor of true biblical meaning, gave Christians in later days a charter for translation — provided always that it is the gospel, its setting and its significance, that we are translating, and not some bright and novel ideas of our own.

In Nehemiah 8, does Ezra provide us with a biblical model for preaching when he reads from the law and explained the meaning?

The story makes innumerable references to the Bible, from the opening parody of biblical language in the description of Astor, to the parody of Pilate's questioning of Christ in the lawyer's interview with a mute Bartleby, to the seriously meant quotation from Job.

One might call this the soteriological captivity of creation, because it succeeds in emptying the world of its own meaning as a realm of divine governance and human involvement prior to and apart from the biblical story of salvation culminating in Christ.

A Christian theology that respects the meaning of the biblical narratives must begin simply by retelling those stories, without any systematic effort at apologetics, without any determined effort to begin with questions arising from our experience.

The meaning of faith is cut loose from many biblical controls.

To take that into account means taking seriously some specifically theological themes not identical to, but derived from, biblical faith.

The framework created by these four elements decisively shapes the meaning of many «big» Christian words, giving them meaning very different from their biblical and ancient Christian ones.

Perhaps the laughter of Abraham, which turned from cynical to celebratory when his son Isaac was born (the name means «He [God] laughs») would prove a more fruitful source for a biblical theology of play (Gen. 21).

That means that there's no opt out... Where there's power, there should be people speaking to that power and stewarding that power from a biblical perspective.»

Decisions about biblical meanings are not made on the spot, but result from the growth of habits and convictions.

For an excellent introduction to the breadth of the meaning of shalom, see Donald E. Gowan, Shalom A Study of the Biblical Concept of Peace (1984), available from the Kerygma Program, 300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 205, Pittsburgh, PA 15234.

The modern use of the word talent as a special gift or capacity is drawn directly from the biblical parable of the talents, where it meant a sum of money of about one thousand dollars, and in either case it should be viewed as something held in trust.

For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

As I wrestled with what it meant to be a woman of faith, I realized that, despite insistent claims that we don't «pick and choose» from the Bible, any claim to a «biblical» lifestyle requires some serious selectivity.

When I speak of preaching from the law, I mean preaching that takes as its source the texts of Torah, but I also want to include all biblical texts that speak in the imperative voice, texts that teach what we are to do and what we are not to do.

Whether we understand lawfully to mean according to the rules (2 Tim 2:5), or in line with the character of biblical law, those who preach must model sound preaching from the law.

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.»

Since Catholics believe in tradition as a channel of revelation, they do not expect everything to be demonstrable from biblical evidence alone, nor by means of neutral historical research.

When CNN and other media sources get behind a movement, and when people grow up in a «Christian» home learning two Worldviews (moral relativism and love means affirmation from TV and schools vs. biblical Christianity from the Church) you get the confused Rob Bell and the generation he has influenced through his books and videos.

The man who does not yet know (and that still means all of us) that we know Christ no longer according to the flesh, can learn it from critical biblical scholarship: the more radically he is shocked, the better it is both for him and for the cause.

(b) Secondly, such a dualism splits the biblical word off from creation and would substitute the principle of discontinuity for the organic continuity of meaning which exists between the Old and New Testaments.

And from the biblical perspective at least, the meaning of history is found only in our pursuit of this promise.

Yet from a biblical point of view, the refusal to accept the promising character of mystery is the fundamental meaning of sin.

If Tillich meant by this merely that today we can not think of God in just the way the biblical authors thought millennia ago, his distinction of his view of God from that of the biblical authors would be of little importance.

We dare not move beyond the biblical limits of the Gospel; but we can not be fully evangelical without recognizing our need to learn from other times and movements concerning the whole meaning of that Gospel.

My view of what church is has changed over the years from «church» to the biblical meaning ekklesia or gathering.

Regrettably, repeated references to liberation from «the system» of nationalism, consumerism, imperialism, etc. lack the specificity and subtlety that might enable readers to know what biblical faithfulness means in their lives, if they do not happen to be Old Testament scholars publishing books.

And in a sense this comment is true: interpret the biblical verse or the brief narrative or in a couple of instances even the Old Testament book in isolation and it becomes in meaning something totally different from what was clearly its intent in context.

But for biblical religion, freedom meant above all freedom from sin, freedom to do the right, and was almost equivalent to virtue.

But we'd do well to define what «cult» actually means, both inside the Christian church - i.e., Christians use the term largely to differentiate other religions which deviate from orthodox, historical and Biblical Christianity - and outside, where it's thrown around to describe everything from followers of Kevin Smith films to any organization that's secretive and raises boat loads of money.

This would mean that we would move from the «pessimism» of Paul to the eschatological optimism of the synoptics and thus give the new optimism a theological and biblical base.

While that is not an easy question to answer, it does seem that the second step toward worship renewal ought to be a concerted effort within our seminaries to recover the biblical - theological meaning of worship and to trace its historical development from Pentecost to the Reformation.

And if evolutionary theory can be accommodated by calling creation accounts myths, presumably other aspects of the biblical world need to be corrected or altered in meaning when confronted by materials from more sources of knowledge than I wish to list.

The loss of meaning to contemporary man of biblical and theological language, and the problems resulting from the accelerated process of secularization and technological advance, present special problems to contemporary preachers that make the recovery of our Lord's kind of preaching more than ever imperative.

I have just one week left in my year of biblical womanhood, which means I am days away from a much - needed haircut and the ceremonial packing - away of my many head coverings.

Many well - meaning Christians today are unaware that the biblical concept of «holiness» is derived from the word «separate.»

Far from repudiating this biblical pattern of thought, a feminist denunciation of sexism as a primal expression of human fallenness can reinterpret that pattern with new power and meaning.

In biblical usage, it is often a Greek translation from the Hebrew sheol, which means «the pit» or «the grave.»

Derived from the biblical name Jonah, it means «dove.»

Drawing from the biblical story of Jonah and the Whale — in which the prophet's resolve and message is galvanized whilst he meditates within the dark body of the great beast that has swallowed him whole — this group exhibition brings together artworks and objects to trace various transformations of meaning, reception, and use over time.

• Pres ointroduces the paper ooutlines the content • - massive clapping by Venezuela on the table, but are not given the right to speak • Tuvalu oI am grateful that you came back to the meeting owithin the UN, we are given respect as nations owe have processes to consider items collectively otoday I saw leaders saying they had a deal othis is disrespectful of the other countries owe have democratic processes owe appreciate that you have given us more time othis documents have major problems owe need science - based results oanything above 1,5 can mean the end for oresponse measures — inconsistant with Bali oreference to mechanism on REDD - but is not defined clearly ono reference to International Insurance Mechanism oreview mechanism in 2015 is too late oin biblical terms: oI regret to inform you: Tuvalu can not accept that document • Venezuela (bleeding hands from her clapping!)