Sentences with phrase «interpreting scripture for»

Genuine believers avoid interpreting scripture for themselves like the plague because as they study they learn that the bible interprets itself and our duty is to let it do that for us and for God's glory.

The shades of Marcionism move lively again across the pulpit when the Church, for reasons probably sincere and rooted in a theology of the Word, is unwilling to take up the task of interpreting Scripture for specific contemporary settings.

Thirdly, it follows that more realistic and responsible Biblical preaching means bearing the awesome burden of interpreting Scripture for the congregation to which one preaches.

In James» view, the Reformation led to a chaos of doctrines, as independent authorities began interpreting scripture for themselves, thus proving the value of Catholicism's centralised body of teaching centred on the authority of the Pope.

YET they frequently do JUST THAT VERY THING as they interpret their scriptures for their own purposes.

Baptists believe that every person has the right to interpret scripture for himself or herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

They maintained that «each individual has an incontestable right to interpret the Scriptures for himself,» only to discover that «this principle, carried to the fullest extent, was not sustainable.»

Not exact matches

The ELCA is a large and diverse community (currently twice the size of the LCMS) that has chosen to interpret Scripture to allow for the inclusion of many previously marginalized by the church.

What you are asking for here is that we would ask the millennial generation how we should interpret the scripture.

There is therefore a sound basis for the use of the allegorical method in interpreting the Scriptures.

As I said last week, this general guide for interpreting and applying the Bible makes sense to me.It's not about discounting the historical / grammatical method in favor of forcing a Jesus message into every last page, but simply looking at Scripture through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ just as Christians should look at everything through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You now have a foundational hermeneutic («interpretive key») for interpreting all of Scripture wisely.

The framework which forms the foundation and basis for all theology is Bibliology (and the accompanying Hermeneutics, which are the rules of interpreting Scripture).

One's view of Scripture (Bibliology) and one's rules for interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics) form the foundation on which the rest of theology is built.

Following on the British government's decision in favour of promoting English rather than Oriental or Vernacular education in India, and to seek the help of private agencies in the task, the Missions started Christian colleges for imparting education in Western culture and modern science with the teaching of English literature at the centre of secular courses and spiritually interpreted by the teaching of Christian Scripture.

The Catholic basis for denying this tension lies in the argument that Scripture must be read as interpreted in the ecclesiastical tradition.

We may assume that at least some forms of black theology and Minjung theology are thus affirmed, for they both interpret Scripture in just such ways as these.

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.

Of course, process theology can not fulfil this responsibility without interpreting Scripture, and the separation of process theology in recent decades from the close involvement in Biblical scholarship of the earlier Chicago school has led to critical weaknesses which are only now being addressed.1 Nevertheless, for process theology the appropriate relationship to the Bible can not be exhausted by hermeneutic.

The basic motivation for denying evolution is fundamentalism — the tendency to interpret the scriptures completely literally, refusing to allow any symbolism or figures of speech.

And then we interpret the Scripture based on this wrong belief that it was written by a later author with a different audience and for different reasons.

For example --- when I have asked Calvinists to interpret the majority of the Scripture, that reeks with the implication «that man has the inherent ability to accept / believe or reject what is being communicated to them from God» from their «no inherent ability of man to accept / believe or reject» perspective, the usual answer I get is along this line is: «Yes, God communicates with man in a style that implies that man has the inherent ability to accept / believe or reject what is being communicated to them from Him, but God knows that man does not have that inherent ability.»

If humans had an inate understanding of their creator at birth there would be no need for religious teachers to interpret holy scriptures now would there.

While I appreciate the approach that DTS teaches, it can really only be followed by expert scholars and theologians, and is not feasible for the average student of Scripture, which indicates to me that it is not the only oven the best way of reading and interpreting the biblical text.

It is proper to call him doctor of doctors, the agility of the spirit without which there would be no doctor who could give good instruction; through the treasury of his writings they have enriched all they have gained; and through his commentaries they have acquired the ability to interpret; from him I have learned the habit of meditation of the divine word; his meditation became for me the guide towards scripture; and he has elevated me towards the understanding of the books of the spirit.

We read scripture searching for attributes and end up interpreting things out of context often as we search for data points to or against our hypothesis of God.

Watch debates between Andrew Wilson, Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke on how we should interpret scripture today, and read articles (at the bottom of the page) by all three for Premier Christianity.

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.

The need remains for ongoing work in interpreting Scripture, if the Bible is to be normative.

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.

For behind the apparent differences in approach and opinion regarding the women's issue are opposing principles for interpreting Scripture — I. e., different hermeneutiFor behind the apparent differences in approach and opinion regarding the women's issue are opposing principles for interpreting Scripture — I. e., different hermeneutifor interpreting Scripture — I. e., different hermeneutics.

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.

If the Augustinian lens through which sin is interpreted is that sin is too much love for self and not enough love for God or neighbor, then perhaps we need a more subtle analysis of the young men in the X chromosome study If scripture is light — that we love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19)-- then all of us, these young men included, need first to experience love before the capacity to love either self or neighbor can develop.

One key practice for interpreting a passage in the Greek scriptures is to look for its antecedents in the Old Testament.

God tells you to let scripture interpret scripture which means he puts it all out there for you to figure out the truth.

I did this not out of disdain for Scripture, but out of love for it, out of respect for the fact that interpreting and applying the Bible is a messy, imperfect and - at times - frustrating process that requires humility and grace as we wrestle the text together.

In it, Justin makes the case for a hermeneutic of love as well as anyone I've read, and his Christocentric approach to Scripture is one that can benefit all Christians, regardless of how they interpret the passages discussed above and regardless of where they stand on same - sex relationships.

The issue from the outset has not been the need for new and better tools, but the solution of the fundamental anomaly of the field: the failure of the old paradigm so to interpret Scripture as to enable personal and social transformation today.

«hermeneutical skills» is code for «the construct in which my pastor tells me I should interpret scripture».

First of all, the fear of interpreting Scripture by and for a congregation as though it were a case of laying soiling human hands upon the Divine or pouring water into the pure wine must be dispelled.

Then the existentialism of the early Heidegger seemed to provide the key to the problem of interpreting Scripture meaningfully for modern hearers.

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

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.

Finally, when I say that God is on the side of the poor, I do not mean that hermeneutically we must start with some ideologically interpreted context of oppression (for instance, a Marxist definition of the poor and their oppressed situation) and then reinterpret Scripture from that ideological perspective.

You don't take it upon yourself to treat one differently because you interpret (incorrectly) some scripture to mean God wants you to break his Commandment for those you believe He loves.

Webber writes: «In the first place evangelicals should recognize that a doctrine of inerrancy is not a sufficient basis for authority... evangelicals should recognize that the key to interpreting Scripture is the «rule of faith.»»

Now a Catholic might very well reply that of course the Scriptures are the source for our knowledge of God, but that, contrary to the belief of some Protestants, no text is self - interpreting.

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.