Sentences with phrase «not biblical theology»

However, this is Tupac theology, not Biblical theology.

Not exact matches

I'm fond of saying,» We have a choice... theological history or historical theology»... and becuz I lean toward the latter, biblical anachronisms (belonging to another time) aren't on my wish list.

Forms of exegesis or biblical interpretation that do not support the homiletic, evangelical, and educational missions of the Church may have their place in the academy, but they are subsets of religious studies, not theology.

You don't call physics egoistical; neither biblical theology should be called so.

For Gilkey, the «neo» of his orthodoxy is precisely where he remained most liberal» not just his penchant for talking about biblical symbols and myths but also his conviction that the problem of historical consciousness is the context for all modern theology.

Last week a controversial book of theology was condemned by well - established critics who cautioned the public that the book did not present Christian doctrine in an accurate, biblical, or traditional way.

Virtually all of the most renowned biblical scholars of our era — the names of G. Ernest Wright and Rudolf Bultmann come to mind — either have not investigated the biblical theology of nature or have «discovered» that the biblical approach to nature is substantially the same as the modern theological approach.

They themselves were well - instructed in the traditional schema, and it controlled the biblical theology of Calvin, for example, not less than that of mediaeval theologians.

My disagreements with the five points of both Calvinism and Arminianism iare not exactly with their theology or understanding of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etBiblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etbiblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc, etc..

«A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels», NTS 7 (1960 - 1), 220 - 48 (= H. E. W. Turner and H. Monteflore, Thomas and the Evangelists [Studies in Biblical Theology 35 (London: SCM Press, 1962)-RSB-, pp.40 - 78).

I suggest that it really is not «hermeneutics» at all, neither «process» hermeneutics nor any other, although it nonetheless is certainly a kind of theology, even a kind of «Biblical theology.»

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.

This notion could be interpreted to include the scientific and philosophical wisdom which would then be integrated with biblical wisdom in an inclusive theology, although this interpretation is in tension with the flat assertion that reason is «not itself a source of theology.»

It is not primarily a book on Biblical theology but a genetic survey of developing Biblical thought.

Not to mention, this entire post is one long and contra - biblical argument that you / we shouldn't argue about theology, without ever setting forth clear and logical propositions that NOT arguing (again, fill in whatever verb you're more comfortable with, the result is the same) theology honors God more than standing in the gap and defending the truth he has set forth once and for aNot to mention, this entire post is one long and contra - biblical argument that you / we shouldn't argue about theology, without ever setting forth clear and logical propositions that NOT arguing (again, fill in whatever verb you're more comfortable with, the result is the same) theology honors God more than standing in the gap and defending the truth he has set forth once and for aNOT arguing (again, fill in whatever verb you're more comfortable with, the result is the same) theology honors God more than standing in the gap and defending the truth he has set forth once and for all.

When Rob Bell released Love Wins, a book that made a compelling biblical case against the exclusivist theology that all non-Christians will be condemned to eternal conscious torment in hell, the Southern Baptist Convention released a resolution that stated: «Being troubled, even deeply troubled, by the implications of the biblical text does not give us a reason to abandon the text or force it into a mold that rests comfortably with us.

Some of the insights provided by the first phase of liberation theology seem too important to let slip between the cracks — for instance, the centrality of the category «the poor» for biblical interpretation; the awareness of structural, not just individual, evil; the use of the social sciences as dialogue partner for theological discourse; and the need to apply a hermeneutic of suspicion to theology itself.

Steve... I think we're floggin» a dead horse here, but for what it's worth, understand that I'm not trying to convince you to think like I do, rather I wd hope that room wd be made for many theological differences.To think discuss and debate theology is well supported by the New Testament and history, and is perfectly within the bounds of what it means to engage our minds with the subject at hand.Theologians and biblical scholars have done this very thing for centuries, revealing a plethora of opinion on the evolving world of biblical studies.Many capable authors have written and debated the common themes as well as the differences between Paul, John, Jesus, the synoptics, etc..

He published the original version of The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical Bases of Dogmatic Theology in a Presbyterian adult education magazine called Crossroads in 1967, but it did not appear in book form until 1975 (Fortress), the year after he published The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth - and Nineteenth - Century Hermeneutics (Yale University Press, 1974).

In time, perhaps, it will yield a biblical theology of womanhood (not to be subsumed under the label humanity) with roots in the goodness of creation female and male.

To say that there is not unity in the canon and biblical theology, though not everything is explainable since God is larger than we, would similarly disqualify you from being a pastor in our church.

I don't agree with all the different theologies that are talked about, and view some of them as dangerous and definately not Biblical.

It would exercise some of the same freedom which Paul's and the other NT letters do when they refrain from any nostalgic attempts to play Galilee into their theology by transforming the teaching of Jesus» earthly ministry into a system of theology and ethics [Krister Stendahl: «Biblical Theology, Contemporary,» Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1962), theology by transforming the teaching of Jesus» earthly ministry into a system of theology and ethics [Krister Stendahl: «Biblical Theology, Contemporary,» Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1962), theology and ethics [Krister Stendahl: «Biblical Theology, Contemporary,» Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1962), Theology, Contemporary,» Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1962), I, 428].

The particular resources of contemporary liberal theology that have especial relevance for a Christian approach to our culture's current difficulties are these: (1) the contemporary historical consciousness, (2) the conclusions of biblical scholars regarding Jesus and the Kingdom of God, and (3) the current «process» understanding of God, Which allows a positive relation (but not a surrender!)

Moreover, while the central biblical message of new life through Christ is expressed so fully and dearly that one who runs may read and understand (which is what Reformation theology meant by the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture), there remain many secondary matters on which certainty of interpretation is hard if not impossible to come by.

Accepting this requirement, I infer from it the way in which theology should seek to be systematic: not by trying to go behind or beyond what the texts affirm (the common caricature of systematic theology), but by making clear the links between items in the whole compendium of biblical thought.

It should be emphasized that this position does not at all imply a lack of respect for or even theological interest in other religious traditions, but it follows the great majority of historic Christian theologies in denying the possibility of salvific revelations anywhere outside the biblical orbit.

If it can not, then the prognosis for biblical theology in James Barr's preferred mode is indeed grim.

James Sanders, for example, a well - known and respected figure in American biblical studies, receives less than a page, since, Barr explains, «he does not do much to claim that [his work] leads toward an «Old Testament theology» or a «biblical theology,»» while David Brown, a British theologian of whom Barr says the same, is the subject of a substantial and highly laudatory chapter.)

For this reason, contrary to what most biblical theologians probably think, their work «requires an interest in theology and an empathy with it, but not a personal faith - commitment.»

Surely not on those of doctrinal theology, to whose lights true biblical theology often and appropriately represents heresy, according to Barr.

Apparently, Barr is so committed to the view that the relationship between biblical theology and the history of religion is exclusively one of «overlap and mutual enrichment» that he can not brook someone's drawing attention to a point of serious tension between them.

The most advanced biblical theologies do not reach as far as the point at which actual theological thinking begins.

Not understanding the necessary interworking of traditional, Biblical, and contemporary sources (even in a theology that seeks Biblical authority as its ultimate norm), certain evangelicals have fallen prey to a new form of «traditionalism»; others have retreated to a «Biblicism»; still others have found themselves in theological bondage to contemporary standards.

But in Beyond Humanism and elsewhere he expresses the idea that the new conception of God is not only philosophically superior to that of classical philosophies and theologies, it is also theologically and religiously more adequate in that it is much more compatible with the Biblical idea of God as love.

Timpson follows Pope John Paul II in using the story of Tobit as a biblical base for his argument, but does not discuss the Pope's theology of the body with its rich idea of sexuality as a gift.

But not to do so, for ecological theology, is profoundly false to the Biblical vision.27

Ellingsen notes that numerous ecumenical breakthroughs resulted from the Second Vatican Council, but mutual respect does not always bridge the gap between the mainline churches with their primary commitment to contextual theology, and fundamentalists as well as evangelicals with their prevailing commitment to biblical authority.

Of course not — but a great deal that passes historically and at the present time for Christian faith and theology is not biblical but an imaginative development or a logical implication out of the biblical sources.

I myself am inclined to agree with Barr about the poverty of this postfundamentalist theology and tradition for the future of evangelicalism — though I would want my evangelical colleagues to understand clearly that I reject this tradition not to reject biblical or evangelical faith but to seek rather a more adequate conceptual framework through which to be more faithful to the Scriptures.

As Gutiérez himself affirms, these emphases have been present from the first; a rereading of A Theology of Liberation will not only uncover a section titled «A Spirituality of Liberation,» but another 400 biblical references with which to wrestle.

It is my contention that a theology of Black liberation also must embrace an organic worldview, not only because it is consistent with the authentic roots of Black Americans but because it also represents something fundamental in the Biblical tradition.

Finite spirit envisaged from the beginning and from its end, at least in the case of man, is «spirit in the world» or «cosmic spirit» and even with regard to the angels it will be appropriate for a Christian, and in the first place for a biblical, theology to see their distinction from mankind within this «cosmic spirituality» and not outside it or in contrast to it.

Not surprisingly, many advocates in the biblical theology camp were quick to point out these apparent «elective affinities,» even to the extent of claiming Barth in support of their views.

Provided this judgment is taken as it should be, not as formulating a timeless principle, but as relative to the classical philosophy that Pascal clearly had in mind in making it, it can claim the full support of contemporary historical, including biblical, theology.

But on the whole, nineteenth century philosophical theology was not particularly interested in the question of original or corporate sin; it was far more involved in various responses to Hegel, the new prominence of biblical study and its corollary «quest for the historical Jesus,» and the implications of economic and psychological developments for Christian faith.

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 Presstheology, 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 PressTheology 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).

Though he preferred to speak of biblical «saga» rather than «myth» in order to distinguish biblical myth from the monist mythologies of other religions and philosophies, he urged that, by either name, the «mythical» aspects of scripture should not be regarded as dispensable for theology.

If you hire a pastor who has the spiritual gifts of mercy, or service, his sermons will probably not be full of Bible knowledge and theology facts, nor will he place a heavy emphasis on biblical literacy.

I came to recognize that being gay was not a choice, so I delved deeply into biblical scholarship and theology to find what the Bible had to say about homosexuality.