Sentences with phrase «not scriptural»

28:10,18) and the concept of «milk to meat» (1 Peter 2:2; Heb 5:12) This interpretation is not scriptural.

I agree that pleading the blood of Jesus is not a scriptural teaching, but the shedding of His blood was essential for your salvation.

In this chapter, we look at some of the forms of evangelism today, and how they amount to little more than talking at people, which is not Scriptural and does more damage to the Gospel than good.

That is not the scriptural response,» Leatherman said in his sermon «Homosexuality & the Bible,» according to a cached version of the transcript posted online.

But to suggest not being baptised is just not scriptural.

Unfortunately, those billions of dollars in revenue and assets are primarily used for the carnal comforts and conveniences of man — not the scriptural directives of Christ and the Apostles for the church.

Rudolph Smend maintained that the Tribal League was a cultic league, not a military or political one.21 The very name von Rad coined, «holy war,» is not scriptural.

This kind of stuff confuses me and I am not sure what is and is not scriptural anymore.

The word «justify» is not a scriptural word.

Mistakenly for them, but fortunately for the Bible, that statement on child - rearing is not a scriptural text.

On your list in the right hand column about «Abundant Life» are not scriptural, they are man's way to God, man's works.

and as for there gossiping...... It is NOT scriptural God hasn't told anyone to do it or to listen to it...... which is usually followed by them saying... ah we all do it....

â $ œApostolicâ $ is not a scriptural term.

If by «strongest» you mean the argument from whose clutches those bound by it find it most difficult to escape, it is not a scriptural argument at all.

All are in the same situation and no authority — not scriptural status, liturgical longevity, or ecclesiastical fiat — can decree that some types of language, or some images, refer literally to God while others do not.

We both recognize that judgments must be made in the life of Christ's Church as to what is and what is not scriptural truth.

But it is certainly not a Scriptural truth.

The whole idea of hell isn't scriptural.

That way, nobody has to stop doing traditional things that bring them closer to God, but it might keep people from berating those who refuse to do traditional things that aren't scriptural.

And it is this NT scriptural support for the discrimination of women that helped to deny women the right to vote in this country until 1920.

Not exact matches

Even though we are not trying to reconcile scriptural prophecies with the message of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the principle outlined in Acts 17 by the Bereans gives us hope that God can lead us through the discernment process in our information - saturated world.

I don't know of any legitimate theologians or Scriptural interpretations vouching for humans and animals and tools to get married.

With that in mind, the prophetess as God's voice, as judge, as apostle, as leader has precedence in the scriptural history of God's people as far back as at least Judges and as recently Acts, to saying nothing of those who have been recognised as particular saints since then (although I'm not RC I don't deny there are people worthy of particular honour).

Other Lutherans understand infallibility and inerrancy to refer to issues essential to the Gospel, and they would not insist, as would Missourians, that skepticism concerning, say, the historicity of Adam and Eve undermines scriptural authority.

You have provided no scriptural support for your assertions (yet you say scripture is the most important thing), and you can't even respond with anything substantial to when it is pointed out that the site you linked to is complete crap.

History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history... Elaine

Why did you disappear when I pointed out that you weren't giving any basis (scientific or scriptural) for your claims in the previous page?

All the nonsense about marrying one's pets is an absurd diversionary tactic that I can only assume you engage in because you can not win an honest discussion on the ethics of the issue and / or the scriptural case for your view.

However, both globally and within the U.S., the MAJORITY of Christians are NOT «Scriptural inerrantists.»

Luke 12: 47 - 48: Said passage is a single attestation i.e. not found in any other scriptural docu - mentation and was written between 80 - 120 CE thereby failing rigorous historic testing and therefore historically nil.

In turn, the People of God of the flesh stand surety for the People of God in the spirit, not only as witnesses to scriptural promise but as the living root of the Church.

He argues that Protestants have an «inescapable problem» of hermeneutical authority: Who says what is or is not «scriptural»?

With all due respect, I don't see much scriptural basis for your position.

For the Indian scriptural tradition, although there is no explicit literary teaching as to whether or not brahman is dynamic, there is the affirmation that it is the key to the problem of the one and the many.

Do we hold up the word of God as a filter, blocking out every scene that does not contain a scriptural equivalent?

The materials of the Indian scriptural tradition do not dearly affirm brahman as either static or dynamic.

I don't want to compare my experience to that of Moses, since I was only called to open my heart, but I find the scriptural account moving in that when Moses first notices the burning bush — a moment we have come to think of as a great theophany — the impression given by the text is more humdrum.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't consider that sort of thing as a sound basis for deciding difficult questions when we have actual scriptural evidence to use instead.

Since Jesus atoned for our sins by carrying love for enemy to the ultimate degree, a refusal to follow his example at this point not only involves a denial of scriptural authority; it also constitutes a questionable doctrine of the atonement.

This is not because I hold to absolute scriptural authority, but rather because if they do hold such a belief I will usually lose an audience with them before any chance at a productive dialogue.

But it does show how much Biblical interpretation has changed, because the scriptural point that made them pacifist was «thou shalt not kill», which they felt applied to war.

The scriptural case, in my honest opinion, simply does not exist.

When Noll speaks of Equiano's «immersion» in Scripture, he is not using that metaphor casually, as an extract from the Narrative makes clear with its «fusillade of scriptural quotations and allusions.»

Even now... embracing scriptural infallibility is not required to do proper exegesis of the text.

I agree with the model in principle only, it is totally based on traditional church model and not on scriptural basis, not all churches fall into that category and even if they do we as Christians need to change the way we have our religious eyes.

The Patheos site does not show replies... somehow, my inbox shows that you are asking Gary to make a scriptural case for one of two items: — that God makes people gay; and / or — that God blesses homosexual behavior.

I did not want that for myself.I prayed to GOD to humble me and the answer came immediately.I had a vision of a piece of paper with a scriptural verse, James 4:10.

If you do not believe some of the things that some people think is scriptural is scriptural and can not find it in Scripture, just ignore it.

Yet you apparently won't even examine the moral / ethical implications of your beliefs, which are I might add, contrary to much scriptural teaching.

When they spoke of God's eternal bliss and immutability, they weren't surrendering to a static, Greek conception of God so much as they were seeking to understand the implications of Scriptural affirmations such as «I Am That I Am» (Exodus 3:14).