Sentences with phrase «historical ideas of god»

Instead of measuring historical ideas of God by nonhistorical standards (as creeds, principles, and definitions tend to be), one ought to measure what the Bible says by using a historical norm.

Not exact matches

We must resolutely resist any such idea, even though we may find it again today in the formulae of modern theologians: «Historical events express a Word of God to the church,» or: «Christ lives in history.»

Not only is it true that the idea of the consequent nature of God is metaphysically dependent upon a particular historical tradition, but I would also suggest the possibility that it is directed wholly and without remainder to what the Christian, and only the Christian, has known as the total and final presence of God in Christ.

This is the concept of that beyond which thought can not go, in which it completes its search for understanding, at which it really affirms only itself, and through which it relates all else.2 Leaving aside his views on its historical character, this is what R. G. Collingwood seems to be suggesting when he says that Anselm's argument does not prove «that because our idea of God is an ideal of id quo maius cogitari nequit therefore God exists, but that because our idea of God is an idea of id quo maius cogitari nequit we stand committed to belief in God's existence.

Divine initiative, together with the ontological and epistemological distance assumed between man and God, is a correlate of the ideas of historical revelation, grace and redemption; the gulf can only be bridged from the side of the divine.

When people seek to defend the idea that God is violent «because the Bible says so,» what they are really doing is allowing the violent portrayals of God in the Bible to override and trump the loving and merciful portrayals of God elsewhere in Scripture, even when both portrayals are talking about the same historical event.

(Contrary to a period in the historical school when scholars tried to see the God of Israel as God of Sinai [as a place], or as a god connected to Jerusalem» after which he became little by little more universal, until the birth of the idea of universaliGod of Israel as God of Sinai [as a place], or as a god connected to Jerusalem» after which he became little by little more universal, until the birth of the idea of universaliGod of Sinai [as a place], or as a god connected to Jerusalem» after which he became little by little more universal, until the birth of the idea of universaligod connected to Jerusalem» after which he became little by little more universal, until the birth of the idea of universalism.

We could probably hold on to the idea of God, and some of the historical events in the Bible, but beyond that, most of it would probably not be true.

Thus, if it is true, as has been claimed, that the idea of Christendom and the doctrines of Christian orthodoxy, were not at all what the historical Jesus had in mind when he spoke of the Kingdom of God, we should not be surprised if the continuing stream of cultural influence which he was so instrumental in re-directing should in the future manifest itself in ways very different from the conventional Christianity it later became for a period.

We are so used to thinking about the human quest for God that we can not easily grasp the idea of God's taking the initiative in making himself known, especially when it is affirmed that he has done so in specific historical events and developments.

Having seen the kind of statements about God which appear objectionable, and having seen how historical understanding enables us to see positive merit in them, we must still face the question, What shall we do with these ideas today?

Must we not conclude with Lessing in The Education of the Human Race that the aim of God's revelation of himself in history was to render itself superfluous by becoming an abstract idea loosed from its historical moorings — in fact, an understanding of human life?

But it seemed to him that the idea of God constituted an enormous obstacle to our need for an open - ended, limitless historical future.

Just because you hate the idea of god does nt negate historical figures.

There is something remaining in the vacated space, and perhaps the idea of one's historical perspective or point of view can be used to rebuild the old notion of faith as assensus and fiducia before God.

The idea of historical or special revelation means, it seems to me, not only that God acts in history but also that there is a history of the acts of disclosure of God whereby the character of existence is progressively revealed to man.

I also believe that since our ideas about who God is and what God does must be defined and corrected (not just supplemented) by Christ, the fact that he lived as an outcast and died a death reserved for anti-Roman rebels is not merely a fact of passing historical curiosity.

His Ten Religions: An Essay in Comparative Theology dealt with the historical origin and development of individual religions as well as the historical survey of certain key ideas and doctrines, such as doctrines of God, man, and salvation.

Now, if I'm correct, what you meant is that you subscribed to the idea that there's this real, historical Fella, God incarnate, died for the sins of mankind, conquered death and rose again on the third day.

And Christian faith speaks about the grace of God not as an idea but as an act of God: an act which reveals itself as grace in Jesus Christ, that is, in a historical event.