Sentences with phrase «not biblical terms»

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.

This is NOT a biblical term, and it is unclear at best, and extremely confusing and misleading at worst.)

It is, of course, not a biblical term.

Christianity is not a biblical term.

Not exact matches

Read Luke 9 or Matthew 10, and tell me that short - term missions aren't biblical, that Jesus doesn't use discomfort and risk to teach His disciples how to rely only on God.

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.

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.»

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 history.

This is not consistent with an honest study of the term and it's biblical usage.

This does not affect the fact that whereas metaphysical terms can be literal, Biblical terms are typically analogical.)

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

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).

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.

One great term these people use in my country is «non believers» to refer to anyone who does not believe in his little list of non biblical inventions.

In other words, witness ought not to be triumphalistic — or, to use a biblical term, it should never be boastful.

It is, in particular, the second of evangelicalism's two tenets, i. e., Biblical authority, that sets evangelicals off from their fellow Christians.8 Over against those wanting to make tradition co-normative with Scripture; over against those wanting to update Christianity by conforming it to the current philosophical trends; over against those who view Biblical authority selectively and dissent from what they find unreasonable; over against those who would understand Biblical authority primarily in terms of its writers» religious sensitivity or their proximity to the primal originating events of the faith; over against those who would consider Biblical authority subjectively, stressing the effect on the reader, not the quality of the source — over against all these, evangelicals believe the Biblical text as written to be totally authoritative in all that it affirms.

Although Biblical «infallibility» thus seems the better of the two options, as even Pinnock's most recent statements imply, the term is not without its problems within and outside the evangelical community.59 Given the history of controversy over inspiration, to say that Scripture is «infallible» seems to many evangelicals a watered - down statement, one sidestepping Biblical truth.

Ultimately this elliptical, even eccentric involvement of biblical themes, figures, and narratives does not make for a work of superior accomplishment in either religious or literary terms, whether by comparison to masterworks of the past or the finer novels in Coetzee's own oeuvre.

The Biblical writers do not understand social ethics in terms of one or the other of these human values, but in terms of the nature and activity of God who demonstrated their interconnectedness and indissolubility.

In «Myth and Truth» he maintains that the truth of mythical utterances can be shown only by restating them in nonmythical terms.113 Yet adequately to demythologize Christian myths will require not just any nonmythological language but one, such as process philosophy provides, which can do justice to the biblical view of God.

(We are not discussing etymology of a term, but what the Biblical writers intended with their statements) You suggest that they couldn't condemn it because it wasn't within the realm of their experience.

First, it is interesting that in the fourth century, the road to Constantinople in 381 is not paved by blunt appeals to church authority but by extensive wrestling over biblical texts and fine - tooling of extra-biblical language (most notably the term «hypostasis») in an attempt to establish which exegetical claims made sense of Scripture as a whole and which fell short.

Though that theological system gets its name from this verse, don't think that just because it uses a biblical term, it is therefore completely biblical.

The only thing that would put us in «good standing» with the ex-gay and similar folk would be to admit we are gay and always will be («reparative» therapy doesn't work and denial ends in repression taking the form of promiscuity), and most of us aren't called to celibacy (in the only Biblical sense of the term, as Jesus makes reference to and Paul discusses at length).

I don't care if those terms are biblical or not.

It's my understanding that the Biblical term «church» does not reference a place of worship or an organization, but to a collective group of individuals.

Hence, Pentecostals defend the unity of the Spirit not in terms of the uniformity of the church, but as expressed in the plurality of the many members of the church catholic and the diversity of their biblical interpretations.

Just as the biblical narrative carries its own force and can not be reduced to a single teaching or moral, faith as expressed in story and metaphor is coherent on its own terms.

But even though in the light of Jesus we may not accept a particular biblical command as an adequate disclosure of God's will now, we must not conclude that God did not reveal himself then in just such terms.

Even the Biblical religions, which have so often been understood in these terms, are not committed to them.

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

Whether one looks at a Church of South India congregation in the «Harijan Wadi» of a village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh, or at a New Life Pentecostal congregation in the suburbs of Mumbai, whether one looks at a Syrian Orthodox community in Chungom, Kottayam, or at a Mizo Presbyterian Church in Mission Veng in Aizwal, whether one looks at the worshipers at the Indian mass celebrated at the National Biblical Catechetical and Liturgical Centre in Bangalore, or at a newly set up Baptist congregation among former estate workers in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, one thing that would strike even the most impartial observer is the reality of hybridity, hybridity which manifests itself not only in things external, but very often in terms of attitudes, thought - processes and historical self - understanding within the overall identity discourse.

Traditionalists, therefore, need not fear Vatican II, for the Council's teaching is profoundly biblical, and thus «traditional» in the best sense of that term.

Here we find a community of implicitly biblical memory and hope set out in terms that usually sound more populist and progressive than religious: «America is not just for people on the make; it's for everybody, including people who can't make it.»

Criticism of the term will not and probably should not abolish its use (though I, for one, believe a better historical case can be made for referring to «the biblical tradition»), but it may encourage citizens to regard it with suspicion.

Within the tradition of biblical and trinitarian Christianity it would be eccentric not to come to be on intimate terms with God.

This is not how the Bible uses the term, and in fact, since condemning others as «heretics» is divisive, this behavior itself is the true biblical «heresy.»

Don't you people understand that the biblical term «Jews» refers to a small sect of Jews with membership that included the Herod's?

The biblical material stresses the material world, the bodily condition, the time - and - space reality, which we all know and in terms of which we exist as men and women; it does not take flight into some supposedly more «spiritual» realm where these things are of no importance and where presumably life is lived, at the creaturely level, without any genuinely created order at all.

Those are not beliefs — not in the biblical sense of the term «belief» — or if they are a form of belief they are disconnected from any relevance to you and I. None of these «so called» beliefs affect much of what you do with your life — knowing about a virgin birth won't give you the tools to be a better parent — these «beliefs» do not function like that — they are more suppositions about the character of God.

It is not the precision of philology but the politics of rhetoric that controls the choice of terms to describe such phenomena in the biblical text.

It is not an ordinary biblical term for sexual intercourse, which is usually described as a man «going in» to a woman or «lying with» her.

But the significance and content of all such views will be defined completely in terms of thinking about them in the view of larger facts of Jesus Christ and the gospel — not primarily by gathering and arranging pieces of scriptural text that seem to be relevant to such topics in order to pinpoint the «biblical view» on them.»

Biblical Dating: How It's Different from Modern Dating:: Boundless ``... We can not simply state that the Bible «doesn't mention dating or courtship,» and then think we're off the hook to pursue this area of our lives either on the world's terms or however seems best to us without diligent, submissive reference to God's Word...»