Sentences with phrase «in biblical terms»

Rather than saying that Whitehead was very deficiently Christian by orthodox standards, Morris B. Cohen and Bertrand Russell complained that he was excessively Christian, or at least too Christian to be a rational philosopher.7 Whitehead, from a purely rational point of view, was, as Pascal and James before him, a defender of emotion and feeling, or in Biblical terms, a defender of the heart, the raison.

He worked out a view of history in biblical terms in which the first period is that of the Father, characterized by the rigour of the law, and man's response of servile obedience and fear.

If the discussion had continued in biblical terms, ontological precision would not have been sought.

As Evangelicals, we saw this teaching as implicit in the doctrine of justification by faith alone and tried to express it in biblical terms.

Bill Wilson himself often spoke of his «Father» in Biblical terms.

It reads as follows: ab — ba — abc — cba — abc; bc — cb — bcd — dcb — bcd; or in Biblical terms: «In the — the in — in the beginning — beginning the in — in the beginning, etc..»

God comes up often, but almost never in biblical terms; «God,» we remember, was generic for deists and theists, philosophers and believers alike.

The history of the human city may be read in biblical terms as a movement from Rameses to the New Jerusalem.

In biblical terms this means: Call no man your father, for you are all brothers.

Arius agreed to all of the biblical titles and expressions used of Christ's divinity because each one could be interpreted in such a way as to ascribe to him a diminished divinity (which, in biblical terms, could not be a divinity at all).

And many Pentecostal and Jesus groups see the present in biblical terms as the end of times just before Jesus is to return.

Therefore it was also natural that the kerygma as we find it in the New Testament should not only be couched in biblical terms but also that these terms require for their proper understanding an awareness of the whole Old Testament witness and record.

Who, in biblical terms, has a right to be under that tent?

In biblical terms we might cite I John 4:20: «He who does not love his brother whom he has seen, can not love God whom he has not seen.»

Even in biblical terms, knowledge too shall pass.

Not exact matches

There are many biblical predictions («prophecies» in bible terms) that have been fulfilled, predictions that were made hundreds of years before the event, like the fall of some empires / nations (ancient and current), a natural and supernatural sign at a particular place, a catastrophe, etc..

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.

steve: i say there are theologians and biblical scholars on both sides, and you say «the bible in no uncertain terms calls homosexuality sin»... how circular is that?

Nevertheless, biblical prosperity (far more accurate term than «prosperity gospel») is with merit and present in the Scripture.

Now, before all the church curmudgeons jump on this with I - told - you - sos about biblical illiteracy and widespread deficiencies in systems for discipleship (which may be partly to blame for the statistic), it important to note that unfamiliarity with the term does not necessarily equal widespread ignorance of its content.

Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text, and the term «Biblical exegesis» is used for greater specificity.

In terms of how my faith played a part in making that decision, God is the God of justice, these things are evil, and it is biblical, right, and godly to pursue justicIn terms of how my faith played a part in making that decision, God is the God of justice, these things are evil, and it is biblical, right, and godly to pursue justicin making that decision, God is the God of justice, these things are evil, and it is biblical, right, and godly to pursue justice.

In ancient biblical cultures, the term was often used in connection with a person being bought from the slave markets and then being given their freedoIn ancient biblical cultures, the term was often used in connection with a person being bought from the slave markets and then being given their freedoin connection with a person being bought from the slave markets and then being given their freedom.

The reconstruction of the biblical history which they produced is now commonly called the «liberal» view — though the term «liberal» is here used in a sense originally German rather than English, and should not be made a stick to beat those who are «liberal» in a different sense.

• «What is the biblical view and Christian experience of the operation of the Holy Spirit, and is it right and helpful to understand the work of God outside the Church in terms of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit?»

Well then, perhaps you could give your definitions for the theological / biblical terms you cited above plus any other necessary terms that you didn't cite (i.e., your definition in distinction to the Calvinist / Arminian definitions of those words)?

And yet, while all this is true and must be emphasized unfailingly in the Church, we can not, on the other hand, make Jesus simply a figure with Jewish significance and interpret him only in terms of biblical patterns of thought.

Estrangement and alienation are not biblical terms, but they are implied in the biblical description of the human predicament; the expulsion from paradise, the hostility between humanity and nature, the hostility of person against person, of nation against nation, and of the continuous complaint of the prophets against the rulers.

«3 Theology today must attempt to reappropriate Christian tradition and biblical faith in terms of our contemporary situation and language.

Mention was made earlier of Amos Wilder's comment that all biblical stories might be understood in terms of the «lost - found» motif.

Even if I embraced biblical morality, I would not find this term being applied in the manner you believe.

The very arrangement of the biblical books in the Hebrew canon of scripture presupposes this definition of prophetism.1 Between the first division of the Law and the third division of the Writings, the central category of the Prophets embraces not only the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve prophets from Hosea to Malachi (all together termed «Latter Prophets») but also the historical writings of Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings («Former Prophets») In this way the Hebrew Bible formally and appropriately acknowledges that prophetism is more than the prophet and his work, that it is also a way of looking at, understanding, and interpreting historin the Hebrew canon of scripture presupposes this definition of prophetism.1 Between the first division of the Law and the third division of the Writings, the central category of the Prophets embraces not only the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve prophets from Hosea to Malachi (all together termed «Latter Prophets») but also the historical writings of Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings («Former Prophets») In this way the Hebrew Bible formally and appropriately acknowledges that prophetism is more than the prophet and his work, that it is also a way of looking at, understanding, and interpreting historIn this way the Hebrew Bible formally and appropriately acknowledges that prophetism is more than the prophet and his work, that it is also a way of looking at, understanding, and interpreting history.

This is «Biblical theology» in quite a different sense of the term.

Two: It seems that these exercises in process hermeneutics are done as exercises in Biblical theology; but it is «Biblical theology» in two quite different senses of the term (although they could be interrelated).

Post-biblical Hebrew uses the clinical term ebar (organ / limb) or ebar qatan (small organ / limb) but no such term exists in biblical Hebrew.

Dr. William Porcher DuBose seems to suggest in his fine autobiography Turning Points of My Life, and James Matthew Thompson explicitly said in his Through Fact to Faith — both of these books are nearly a half - century old — that the soundly biblical conception of providence serves to safeguard and to state all that the term «miracle» was once used to affirm.

«38 Thus Bonhoeffer exhorts us to interpret the Biblical concepts in terms of responsible involvement m life itself.

As a result of biblical research we now realize that the Scriptures speak of God's eternity in terms of time, not timelessness.

Melancthon, who was very instrumental in translating the biblical scholar Luther's thoughts into theological categories was also on very close terms with Calvin, a lot closer than Luther realized some people believe.

In that role the statement is likely to be read more in terms of its main drift toward biblical theology than in terms of the slight affirmation it accords other theological programIn that role the statement is likely to be read more in terms of its main drift toward biblical theology than in terms of the slight affirmation it accords other theological programin terms of its main drift toward biblical theology than in terms of the slight affirmation it accords other theological programin terms of the slight affirmation it accords other theological programs.

[It should be noted here that complementarian notions of manhood and womanhood tend to be based on culturally — influenced stereotypes, many of which project idealized notions of the post-industrial revolution nuclear family onto biblical texts rather than taking those texts on their own terms — a topic we've discussed at length in the past and will continued to discuss in the future.]

Readers unaccustomed to think of the Biblical literature in terms of its chronological development are advised to consult the approximate dating of the documents presented in the Appendix.

It is fascinating in itself; it throws light on every portion of the Bible; it clears up obscurities, explaining what is else inexplicable; it distinguishes the minor detours from the major highways of Biblical thought; it gives their true value to primitive concepts, the early, blazed trails leading out to great issues; and, in the end, it makes of the Bible a coherent whole, understood, as everything has to be understood, in terms of its origins and growth.

In terms of real depth, Biblical insight, Christian apologetics, and faith, it's one of the very best blogs out there.

The biblical story of Noah makes no sense in terms of contemporary Christian belief so here's Joel Baden attempting to try to rationalize the inconsistencies.

Such a proposal in no way invalidates the search for doctrinal forms that are consistent with the substance of the biblical revelation; it merely means that their discovery will constitute but a halfway house rather than the journey's destination itself These doctrinal forms will then have to be adapted to and translated in terms of the assumptions and norms of the American situation in such a way that the Word of God is preserved in its integrity but affirmed in its contemporaneity.

Bultman's use of existential categories and Cobb's use of process thought can not be explained in terms of biblical reflection but must be explained in terms of the influence of secular modernity.

To be more pointed, a psychotherapeutic reading of Shakespeare would be hard to challenge in court, but presenting Shakespeare's view of human nature in terms of biblical realism would almost certainly be considered a violation of the establishment clause.

Each biblical statement is a sentence which must be understood in terms of the vocabulary and grammar of its original language (Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek), but the better modern translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, have made it possible for one who understands English vocabulary and grammar to read and study the Bible without being seriously misled on most points.

It may be increasingly necessary, however, to allow the concrete situation, rather than the biblical revelation, to propose the «doctrinal» loci or the organizing forms in terms of which biblical faith needs to speak, because the secularism of our time has so transformed the way people think that Christian faith is now in a cross-cultural situation.