Sentences with phrase «of biblical support»

There's a lot of biblical support against some of the things we believe and do, but that doesn't seem to bother us.

In light of our conversation about Anne Frank yesterday, I thought I'd re-post this rather lengthy piece from 2008 (back when I thought people liked to read 1,000 - word blog posts) that details some of the biblical support for a more inclusive view of salvation.

Discovering Biblical Equality, edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis: If you want to take your understanding of the biblical support for Christian egalitarianism to a new level, this is the book for you.

I am going to DEMAND that you specify WHICH scripture I have perverted even though I have provided ZERO scriptural claims to back up my claims of biblical support for my view in the first place.

The presence of biblical support was not the reason for the teaching.

Not exact matches

To ignore or excuse the Daniels saga, some evangelical Christians are even using a biblical comparison to explain their continued support for Donald Trump: the story of King David.

And I would much rather have someone in office who is not a biblical Christian but holds biblical values than a man who claims to be a Christian but who supports the values of the devil (i.e., Obama).

I'm impressed by the ability of some of these so - called Christian leaders» attempts to rationalize their support for Obama and / or his positions despite Biblical teachings.

It continues, «I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.

Support for Israel has become a key issue for American evangelicals, some of whom believe the country plays a key role in end times and others who believe there's a biblical mandate to honor the Jewish state.

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.

Jesus» invocation of the Biblical sequence from Abel to Zechariah [Luke 11:51] can be seen as both an anticipation of the rise of the codex and a commendation of that technology, or of the patterns of thought that it supports.

Miller marshaled an impressive array of biblical citations to support his claim and could apparently argue his point persuasively.

The lawyer continued: «He argued that Mrs Davis's position is based on the Biblical view of same - sex marriage as a sin; when challenged, he provided quotations from the Bible supporting his view.»

Loki, his «church» was quite literally FOUNDED on the principle that Southern slavery was Biblical and just; further, that «church» has NEVER issued a binding, formal apology for its support of slavery, racial etiquette, and Jim Crow; in fact, they were their most ardent supporters.

In the light of such support from Biblical study and the analysis of the dynamics of capitalism, the call of the Living God to revolutionary commitment can not be silenced.

Plenty of archeaological finds have supported Biblical claims (i.e Sodom is believed to be found, and it was destroyed by fire)

Given these historical errors and oversights in both our biblical interpretation and our artistic engagement, we must support efforts to study and present a true, uncompromising picture of both the glory of God's creation and the depths of human folly.

Falwell spoke for a large number of Christian Zionists in the U.S., Christians who believe that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and so deserves unconditional political, financial and religious support.

Second, in response to both the biblical concern for justice and the problems of resources and energy, actively support international, national and local initiatives to conserve energy and resources and to reduce poverty and injustice.

And biblical scholars on both sides of the debate point to scripture for support.

The best biblical support for this argument is the story of Job.

Over the past few weeks, on Wednesdays, we have been discussing Matthew Vines» book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same - Sex Relationships.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

So Grudem claims that any selectivity whatsoever represents an arbitrary «pick - and - choose» approach to Scripture and a threat to biblical authority, and that those who support functional gender equality in the home and church are simply bending the «plain meaning of Scripture.»

(See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5) I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same - sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay.

I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles of Peter and Paul, about the meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really mean when we talk about «biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.

By contrast the second kind of argument mounted under the banner of process hermeneutics supports a claim that such - and - such a tenet of process theology is «Biblical theology» in the sense of being compatible with what some Biblical texts say on a theological topic.

It is true enough that the pseudo science of young earthers and biblical literalists would seem to support this view.

Plenty of important biblical texts, especially in the prophetic writings, support such an interpretation.

You spout off about the importance of charity and generosity as Biblical principles, but likely support movements like the tea party that promote the evisceration of social policies.

This can be regarded as a form of liberal theology; so at this point I will simply argue that Wesley would support no holds barred biblical scholarship and rethink his teaching in its light.

Disheartened by the amount of support Griffin had received from the community, I considered showing up at the courthouse with a sign that included Exodus 22:21, «Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt» — mainly because June prides herself on being a strict biblical literalist.

It is clear then why the question of biblical authority is so important to evangelicals: belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures is the pillar which supports our theology - without it the edifice would surely crumble.

I am, of course, aware of a host of objections to my continuing to lean for support upon biblical infallibility.

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..

They find biblical support for the traditional roles of women and say it not oppressive but God's order, which those liberals are looking to destroy.

Above, I presented just a hint of the biblical scholarship that supports this conclusion.

If we build theologies and mission strategies, that fail to operate against a biblical backdrop large enough to encompass our brothers and sisters in these galaxies, and that fail to relate our concerns to theirs, we sever ourselves from mutual support and divide the body of Christ.

If it is so easy to ignore a major and substantial religious practice repeatedly uplifted, enshrined and required by the Torah and by all the scripture that follows, why is it so hard to let go of two verses that have substantially less biblical mention and support and no contemporary justification?

Thirdly, if it did support the biblical view of creation, it would equally support ANY religious view of creation that has the Universe popping into existence at a discrete point in time, including the richly diverse and inconsistent Hindu, Norse and Aboriginal Australian and Native American creation myths.

And not the tiniest thread of evidence to support biblical creationism.

The author insists on a literal reading of the biblical accounts that would seem to support his quasi-Unitarian Christology while skipping over passages that contradict his views.

We will discuss this concept of being «dead» in future posts, and especially the biblical texts which are used to support this idea (which is based not on Scripture, but on Greek philosophy and fatalism).

The question is, how do you view the concept of confession, and is there any Biblical support for that view?

Fifteen percent of those surveyed said that theology's main role with respect to science is to «support the biblical account of the human creation and fall.»

A great deal of very solid biblical support for the rapture.

All of this blue - chip evangelical clout is brought to bear in support of the doctrine of biblical «inerrancy» against a growing party of theological compatriots inclined to speak more of the «authority» of Scripture with regard to «faith and practice.»

Because last I checked there was still not a single shred of tangible, measurable, empirical evidence in support of any form of Theism, let alone something as backwards, corrupt, and atrocious, morally reprehensible (historically), and specific as Catholicism, which isn't even a very accurate form of Christianity when compared to the oldest Biblical scripts we've yet found.

The fact that people are tempted to abuse Scripture by calling upon it to support whatever they believe is one of the reasons it is inappropriate most of the time to think that the primary theological debate is about whether the biblical text is authoritative or not.