Sentences with phrase «not accept the gospel»

No one who does not accept the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ will ever enter the kingdom of heaven!

You also believe that anyone that is not a mormon will NOT be allow to be with Jesus Christ or God, no matter how good they are, if they do not accept your gospel (religion) to be the only true church.

The Apostle Paul» stated very clearly that those who do not accept his gospel «are without excuse for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them» (Rom.

One reason the Jewish people did not accept the gospel message (from Jesus or Paul) is that it threatened their exalted position as God's only «chosen» people.

I don't believe there is a God and therefore I do not accept the Gospel accounts as factual.

I do not accept the gospel or the Christology of Latter - day Saints — and they don't believe I am a member of an authentic church.

Not exact matches

The Qur «an never asks a Christian or Jew to accept it because their own scripture has become corrupt, rather they are asked to accept the Qur «an because the Qur «an claims, 1 / to confirm the teaching of the Bible, 2 / that Muhammad is foretold in the Torah and Gospel, 3 / the Qur «anic teaching makes clear what the Jews and Christians could not understand properly from their own scriptures.

The feminist reformist recognizes that that ideal is not fully achieved, and that there were times when male Christians refused to accept the full humanity of women, but they consider those failures as expressions of inadequacy and human perversion of the gospel.

As to those who may have gone through life without any feasible knowledge of God, those individuals would still have an opportunity to learn and choose whether or not to accept the newly received gospel as spirits after death.

In the Gospel we see how Christ does not give up on Saint Thomas, despite all his refusals to accept Divine mercy (cf Jn 20:19 - 31).

If we are to speak truly to our age, therefore, we can assume, not (1) the complete ignorance of Christian principles, such as existed in the decaying civilization of early Greece and Rome; (2) the thoroughgoing knowledge and acceptance of Christian principles, such as existed in the time of most of our grandparents; or (3) the vigorous antagonism to the gospel, such as now exists among those who accept either the Marxist or the Fascist interpretation of history; but (4) a vague and tenuous residuum of Christian piety, devoid of any intention of doing anything about it.

The Sermon on the Mount makes it clear, how God (Jesus) wants us to handle people, which don't want to accept the gospel and want to continue to sin (for example gayness).

Mormons believe that no one is made to accept the baptism, it is their choice, so a deceased gay person could choose to accept the gospel or not.

Paul even thanked God that he himself had baptized none of the Corinthians save two, together with the household of Stephanas, saying, «Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach»; (I Corinthians 1:13 - 17) in the Fourth Gospel John's baptism in water is explicitly subordinated to Christ's baptism in the Holy Spirit; (John 1:33) and in the Epistle to the Hebrews «the teaching of baptisms» is put among the rudimentary principles, to be accepted, indeed, but beyond which those need to go who are pressing on «unto perfection.»

Mormons believe that no one is made to accept the baptism, it is their choice, so a deceased person could choose to accept the gospel or not.

However, we can not escape the exclusive nature of the Gospel as well: it does require that accept it, to the exclusion of false gospels, whether it be a false gospel of legalism, or a false gospel of freedom apart from life in the SGospel as well: it does require that accept it, to the exclusion of false gospels, whether it be a false gospel of legalism, or a false gospel of freedom apart from life in the Sgospel of legalism, or a false gospel of freedom apart from life in the Sgospel of freedom apart from life in the Spirit.

Brian and Alden... let's not forget that the early church believed in the imminent return of the Lord... it appears somebody was wrong... how wd that belief affect the message on what was to be accepted as the gospel in the interim?

I can accept them, I can study them, I can respect them... but they are not equal in revelation to the revelation that is the Gospel.

People hurt and heal in different ways, so I can't tell you that you have to accept this apology.But I do, and I want Jared and The Gospel Coalition to know that.

I agree with David, and if you think it's not possible, then you're welcome to accept the «truth» as «made up» by the institution which we accept as «gospel».

Your sins are already forgiven, no one goes to Hell because they did not ask for forgiveness, a person goes to Hell because when they have passed the age of innocence, and have come to the Knowledge of the Gospel, or they have learned that Jesus died for their sins, and that He gives us salvation freely because He loves us more than we love ourselves, and we have to make a choice to accept or reject this free gift, if that individual accepts Jesus as their Savior, then they go to Heaven, and if that individual rejects Jesus, then they go to Hell.

Bonhoeffer said that even when the RCC would pronounce the true Gospel, we should not accept it because the RCC is bad in herself nevertheless.

Such a view was accepted by Justin and Irenaeus in the later second century, although in the third century Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, attempted to minimize the authority of the book by proving that since John son of Zebedee wrote the gospel ascribed to him, he can not have written the book of Revelation, since the two writings employ different ideas, styles and vocabularies.

Price and Cunningham are forced to accept that the gospel (or their version of it at least) doesn't always fit nicely into our word - for - word spiels, instead, it has to be re-contexualised, it needs to be embedded in the culture it's being shared in.

The fact may be explained by saying that everything goes back to, or rests upon, the Gospel of Mark; but I think we can not assume that this Gospel would have been accepted if upon any major point its general outline had been found to be faulty or inaccurate by those who were in touch with the primitive tradition handed down in the churches in Palestine.

I have accepted Jesus Christ and if you had as well you would be telling people to read the Gospel of Jesus Christ NOT corinthians.

I think I cd safely assume that there is some unknowability in yr understanding of God (mystery), that you accept and believe a gospel narrative (discovery) and yr engaged in how you treat others (Spirit) The point of the model is not being the same, but recognizing sameness.

The Apostle John writes similarly in his Gospel, where he explains that although Jesus came unto His own people, they did not accept Him (John 1:1 - 8).

This is the Christian gospel, and it is the primary and supreme mission of the church to bring all men into the orbit of its saving power, to declare it to the world until mankind accepts Jesus Christ as the cornerstone, not of the church alone, but of civilization itself.

In fact, I can not name one person involved in any of the above steps, but I accept the end product with blind adherence as, well gospel.

However impressive the alleged sign or wonder might be, we are not to pay heed to any messenger who leads us toward a different god than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or to accept another gospel than the one the Church received from the apostles in the first century.

But if someone believes that he can not and should not accept the authority of the Gospel, of Scripture and of the teaching office of the Church he can not consider himself a Catholic, he can not be a partner in the dialogue that takes place within the Church and which presupposes the acceptance of her teaching office in as far as it claims to have authority.

I get Texas.I lived half my life in Texas, grew up in Texas churches, ministered in 3 of them, accepted the gospel of Willow Creek (which is from Chicago but is Texas - sized) in one of them, and know full well what Jesus meant when he said a prophet is not accepted in....

He knew that the refutation of secular presuppositions did not compel the secularist to accept the Christian faith, but it gave the gospel an opportunity to be heard.

Kasemann's argument that this form of pronouncement comes from early Christian prophecy is careful and convincing, with the result that we must accept the fact that in their present form the two gospel sayings come from an early Christian tradition and not from the teaching of Jesus.

Since the gospels tell differing versions of the same story, you pretty much have to pick and choose what version to accept or just say it is not reasonable to believe any of the supernatural mumbo jumbo.

The work of C. H. Dodd on the historical tradition in the fourth gospel does not help us appreciably here, because, even if we grant his case (and we could not accept his basic premise that early tradition and historical tradition are synonymous), 63.

Bultmann agrees that modern man can not accept the mythology, but he does not want him to have to content himself with a timeless sublimation of the gospel: he is looking for another alternative, which will rescue the historicity of the gospel and so retain its character as kerygma.

Not everyone who holds the Gospel of Mark to be «Pauline» would accept this definition of Paulinism!

As in the Gospel there will be those who can not accept such a great mystery: «One might say that basically people do not want to have God so close, to be so easily within reach or to share so deeply in the events of their daily life (p. 15).»

Furthermore, these churches argue that we should not be wasting our time on social justice issues until people have heard and accept the Gospel.

So, it is not His true followers that you have angst with, it is HIM that you have angst with, we merely LIFT HIM UP, we merely ACCEPT HIS WORD, we merely SPEAK HIS WORD, we merely HOLD TO HIS WORD, we merely SHARE & PREACH HIS GOSPEL and His Gospel is to as HE SAID: «Call The Sinner to Repentance» I did not say thaGOSPEL and His Gospel is to as HE SAID: «Call The Sinner to Repentance» I did not say thaGospel is to as HE SAID: «Call The Sinner to Repentance» I did not say that. . .

of cause not; he had to accept the culture then work for change through the gospel.

Pope Benedict accepts the hypothesis that the fourth Gospel was written by a certain «Presbyter John» who is not to be confused with the Apostle John but who was nonetheless the latter's «transmitter and mouthpiece».

We not only announce the promise of the Gospel, that God gives eternal life to anyone who believes in Jesus for it, but we also present whatever supporting evidence is needed to help people accept and believe that Gospel promise.

If, however, neither side accepts instruction and you start to fight with each other — may God prevent it — I hope that neither side will be called Christian... Your declaration that you teach and live according to the Gospel is not true... You want power and wealth so that you will not suffer injustice... The Gospel however... speaks of suffering, injustice, the cross, patience, and contempt for this life and temporal wealth... You are only trying to give your unevangelical and unchristian enterprise an evangelical appearance.

The discourses of Jesus, for example, upon Baptism (3) and upon the Eucharist (6) reflect the same fundamental conception of the significance and necessity of these two rites; that this conception was that of the evangelist is plain, e.g. from 3:16 - 21, where Jesus» words have passed insensibly into the evangelist's reflection upon them; if the evangelist was the son of Zebedee, it would be natural to accept his accounts as substantially correct records of incidents and discourses from Jesus» ministry, but, if he was not, a comparison with the synoptic gospels and with the teaching of Paul and others on the sacraments would suggest doubts as to the historical value of both discourses.

However, since we do not «prove» the depth of our love for God or committment to the Gospel by * ace - ing * a theological exam or * racking - up * spiritual experiences, I accept your beliefs and the ways you chose to express your faith as valid for you.

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted — you may well put up with it!

Liberal critical scholarship, coming into full flower at the time of Strauss and thereafter, was not prepared to accept a rendering of the gospel texts into a Christ myth and then the dissolution of that myth into a speculative Christology.