Sentences with phrase «interpret other scripture»

If you allow scripture to interpret other scripture you will find the things you thought were contradictions or unfulfilled prophecies really are not.

So if God says do something and your pastor interprets other scripture to mean not to do what God commands you pastor is interpreting incorrectly and misleading you.

Not exact matches

When the commission agreed that Scripture provided no directive concerning the ordination of women, the representatives from Latin America and Africa and other conservatives interpreted this as prohibiting a change of policy, while representatives, and especially theologians, from North America, Europe and Australasia interpreted this as allowing innovation.

If «Scripture is to interpret Scripture» and all the other references to an «unquenchable fire» in the OT and NT are fiery judgments on the Nations / Peoples... either Israel or the Enemies of Israel... does that mean «the Lake of Fire» is to be interpreted likewise?

It really helped us realize the real - world implications for how we read each other's texts, and how vulnerable we feel when others are interpreting our scriptures in certain ways.

In other words, Bonhoeffer was trying to interpret the scripture from the church's point of view.

On the one hand, by our historical amnesia we break our continuity with historic Christian faith as did the liberals and, on the other, we accord to some preachers a magisterial authority in interpreting Scripture not unlike Roman Catholics do!

Principles of interpretation (Hermeneutics) 1) Literal Principle — Scripture is to be understood in its natural, normal sense, read literally 2) Grammar Principle — Deal with what it says in the way it says it, be it using metaphor, simile, narrative, etc. 3) Historical Principle — Read the Bible in its historical context 4) Synthesis Principle — No one part of the Bible contradicts any other part (Scripture interprets Scripture) 5) Practical Principle — It contains a practical application 6) Illumination of the Holy Spirit — It is the job of the Holy Spirit to enlighten the child of God to the meaning of Scripture, without Him, one is without the ability to interpret Scripture

Personal religious experience, the home, other religions, church membership, missions, the Scriptures, doctrine, Christian action, the ecumenical movement, church history, Methodist heritage, evangelism, and Christian education — each of these is considered and thoughtfully interpreted from the Christian viewpoint, book by book.

Other tasks, too, besides interpreting Scripture face theologians, tasks both intramural (dealing with the church) and extramural (dialoguing with the world)- tasks of phenomenological analysis of theologies past and present and of apologetics, philosophical, evangelistic, and defensive - but these can not be spoken of here either.

In this way, Scripture is being interpreted and judged according to other Scripture, in a way that undermines the authority and trustworthiness of all the Scriptures in their parts.

Particularly for evangelical Protestants» but for many other Christians too» the Scriptures are not something that we interpret and adjust, conforming the documents with whatever passes for present realities or suits particular sensitivities, either individual or cultural.

A more sophisticated screening of Scripture is carried out by others who claim that we must look in Scripture for the «locus classicus» of a Biblical doctrine and concentrate on its teaching, interpreting all else in light of its truth.

Finally, we can learn much about Barth (and, of course, other great Christian thinkers) by watching how he interprets scripture; work at this task is still underdeveloped.

The way to interpret Scripture is to compare it with other passages of Scripture, and read it in context with the rest of the Bible.

The internal principle for interpreting scripture can be no other than the mind of Christ.17 Christ is Lord of scripture as surely as he is Lord of the Sabbath, Lord of the church, Lord of all.

I don't want to rewrite this article in english, but basically, I came to the following conclusions 1 - that Scriptures ought to be used in close interaction with daily reality (not out the blue, in abstraction, or in academic ivory tower) 2 - it ought to be interpreted by what we could call «crucified» christians 3 - and that «crucified» christian should interpret in the context of a «crucified» community / church (because being in a close knit church is a very good way to actually be «crucified» and sanctified, and because I need insight from others in my interpretations.

When the two despondent disciples on the road to Emmaus expressed to the stranger their bewilderment that such a powerful prophet as Jesus should have been condemned to death and be crucified, we are told that the risen Christ «began with Moses and all the prophets, and explained to them the passages which referred to himself in every part of the scriptures».6 The story implies that the Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to scriptures».6 The story implies that the Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to scriptures to us?»

They know, as Wesley did not, that many of the supposed miracles reported in Scripture can be interpreted as perfectly natural occurrences and that yet others are clearly the products of faith, instead of extraordinary happenings that somehow produced faith.

There are 3 major religions that have evolved from that Middle Eastern «scripture»... each with subsets (thousands of them in the case of Christianity), who don't agree with each other because of how they translate and interpret those old writings and ideas... each saying that they are the «true» one.

For appropriateness entails a judgment about a certain text - as - interpreted, within which «propositions reside; it is not a judgment made in the interpretation of a text.6 In other words, although «process hermeneutics» proposes that theology attend to «propositions» in Scripture - as - interpreted, this proposal is impartial, at least initially, to any proposition; that is, it is materially indeterminate.7

This means that context — in the broad sense of cultural, religious, social, political and economical circumstances — and text — as Scripture in its process of transmission and interpretation, that is, its Tradition — do mutually interpret each other.

You probably have a list of scriptures (the same ones I once used) for this purpose, but if you look at them honestly they do not mention the Bible, but rather «the law», writings of «men of old», «the Word of God», «this book», «this prophecy», «the scripture» or other specified or unspecified writing (s)-- NOT ONE says «the Bible» or can be reasonably interpreted to refer to the Protestant or Catholic canon WE moderns mean when we talk about «the Bible».

Before the New Testament was put together, from the oral traditions about Jesus and the letters and other material known in the primitive Christian community, appeal was made to the Old Testament, that is the Jewish Scriptures, for predictions of and a way for interpreting the significance of Jesus.

However by the Reformation in the 16th century, Martin Luther not only translated the Gospels, but he interpreted them in printed sermons as well, and when John Calvin, Roger Williams and others broadly disagreed in print with Luther on such matters as what the scriptures said about the role of government in society, the whole matter of scriptural interpretation was opened to thousands of individuals who for the first time could read (or have read to them) the published documents.

Being arrogant enough to believe there's only one «correct» way of thinking is exactly why religion will increasingly struggle, as more people become educated throughout the country and find other paths instead of interpreting scripture literally, regardless of how factually / scientifically inaccurate it is.

1) Do you agree that all Christians pick and choose when it comes to interpreting and applying Scripture, and can you think of some other examples?

MacArthur and other cessationists believe that the Gifts of the Spirit, specifically tongues and healing, do not operate today (an assumption that I disagree with), so they interpret all scripture with that filter, that initial bias.

A perfect God doesn't make it easy to interpret scripture because that would mean I'd spend less time being with him, and more time doing other things.

We then set out grounds for judging the position to be contrary to Catholic faith, that is, to Scripture and teachings that definitively pertain to Tradition, each interpreted in the other's light.

So many denominations all believing they have got it figured out and judging all others for not interpreting the scripture the same way they do.

Together with the principle that in God's revelation no word is without significance this conception of scripture leads to an atomistic exegesis, which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases, and even single words, independently of the context of the historical occasion, as divine oracles; combines them with other similarly detached utterances; and makes large use of analogy of expressions, often by purely verbal association.

He said the French scholar Stapulensis was also guilty — although «a man otherwise spiritual and most sound», he «lacks spiritual understanding in interpreting divine Scripture; yet he definitely shows so much of it in the conduct of his own life and the encouragement of others.

The verse has to be read within the entire context of scripture, including how Jesus lived and other things he said (notably — he who is without sin cast the first stone) to recognize that that verse is not now, nor has it ever been, interpreted to mean that Christians are under OT law upon Christ's resurrection.

There is no Bible school or Biblical seminary that does not also study the mind of some founder of its method of interpreting Scripture, or of some other groups of Bible students besides itself.

How can christians or any other religious person take their scripture which is supposed to be the divine word of their god, and interpret it as they see fit?