Sentences with phrase «of scripture on»

And the ones that do make it there offer no challenge to the authority of scripture on matters of faith and practice.

They even have a verse of scripture on the back of every bag.

The fact that Nicene views prevailed, and have been defended over and over again by great theologians and biblical scholars down the centuries, only confirms the conclusion that the Nicene Fathers correctly discerned the meaning of Scripture on the vital issue of the nature of Christ.

Couple of applicable pieces of scripture on the inappropriateness of labeling someone «not a Christian» who claims faith in Jesus Christ and especially who does not show specific violations of the requirements of such faith:

Next, you object to «varying» interpretations of Scripture on pragmatic concerns — something you evidently define apart from CORE theological convictions... but the PRIMARY teaching of Scripture is theological.

Theologians discounted the witness of Scripture on a wide variety of issues by claiming the teachings found there were culturally conditioned.

Examining the successful use of Scripture on the part of Bill Clinton and George Bush, and the unsuccessful use by Joe Lieberman and John Kerry ¯ not to mention Howard Dean's absurd excursion into the New Testament book of Job ¯ Berlinerblau demonstrates that biblical citations are most effective in American political rhetoric when they are (1) sparse, (2) positive, (3) vague, (4) shallow, and (5) veiled.

(By the way, Observant Jews are commanded by scripture to put the word of scripture on their doorposts, so this is not a «choice of decor» for them, it is obedience to God) Do you really want to hinder someone in that way?

Considering the subject of the film is more or less an interpretation of Scripture on the big screen, Paul earning $ 12 million is not only surprising, but perhaps another future signpost for Hollywood to sit up and take note.

Since all scripture is given by inspiration of God, why would you not look at the entirety of scripture on a given subject instead of what did Jesus say about it?

The question is whether those who would condemn homosexual acts should be able to force their views of Scripture on those who disagree any more than those who affirm gay relationships should be able to force their view of Scripture on those opposed.

If you are looking for other devotional ideas on the theme of Christmas, try some of my Scriptures on Christmas.

What we have seen throughout this survey of Scriptures on baptism is that water baptism was a symbolic ritual in biblical times which everybody understood, even those who were not followers of Jesus.

Not exact matches

In these moments of heartache and darkness, we hold on to God's word in Scripture: «I have heard your prayer and seen your tears, I will heal you.»

The other part of me also knows that if you do believe by Scripture, tradition and your own internal barometer that homosexuality is a sin (let's say), then you are not going to wish to give the thumbs up to someone being on staff who is openly living that lifestyle.

This being said, when gay and lesbians want to promote their views as normal or that would be permissible for a priest or bishop to be a practising homosexual, I disagree based on the clear statements of Scripture.

The scripture goes on to say that those who gratify the flesh «will not inherit the kingdom of God.»

In one response you have referred to me as silly, accused me of being unable to reconcile my beliefs to scripture, accused me of stalling, rambling on and on, (love the irony in this one... grin), likened me to a tween, insinuated I do not know or rightly divide scripture, referred to me as sensitive, and implied my post was immature.

Come on, I have had debates with Atheist but I have also had to pretty much break up potential fights between two persons of Faith over an interpretation of a scripture.

However, Church officials have responded, saying: «The objectives of the Shared Conversations on Sexuality, Scripture and Mission were set out in June 2014 by the Bishop of Sheffield in GS Misc 1083.

I am betting lack of education on that one and lack of actually reading religious scripture.

Meanwhile, the believers have to follow the moralistic codes based on tradition and scripture lest they may become a «bad witness» to the truth of redemption by Jesus the Christ.

You're a literalist and stop at the basic reading of words on a page... you refuse to go deeper into the connotations of many a scripture because it ruins your basic reading of the passage.

I mentioned just some questions on the canon of scripture.

Heck I just the other day finally got a new take on the idea of «two become one» in Genesis, the gospels, and Paul — and that's 14 years after the fact I first heard that scripture.

I came out of the Methodist tradition which is based on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which demands that faith be based on four elements — Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

My aim is to take scriptures at their most obvious, and I am not bending or breaking a single thing from any passage in Genesis (most of this is based on Rabbinic interpretations).

Trey said, on February 10th, 2010 at 12:51 pm Societyvs, I would expect fishon to bow out of this dialogue since you are adequately exposing that it is his personal bias against gays that is influencing his interpretation of Scripture.

It's not that I don't feel like I can, I can... but is that in the vocabulary of the one who I worship, if it's not then why would I as His Son want to take on what is not His, my Father's nature... The versions of the Bible I've read seem to think that words are powerful and speaking them is an action and can even change physics if used properly... Again, the scriptures speak for themselves and circumventing the topical study with christiany cliche come - backs doesn't answer or annul anything that the Word has to say on the matter.

There is a long history of interpretation that has been going on about the scriptures since at least 200 years prior to Jesus (and probably longer).

Now the pressures of the sexual revolution are tempting the Church to loosen her claim on the bodily act that Scripture consistently treats as most deeply implicated in spiritual things — sex.

If you think of law like scripture — the same thing is going on.

And since some 40 % of scripture regarding alcohol has a positive view on drinking it, then i don't see a problem here (as opposed to the 10 % that is against drinking and the 50 % that is neutral).

So, by your reasoning, if «People put so much importance on words» (implying that they don't matter and we shouldn't take thought of how we use them) then I ought to be able to sing along with the lyrics from pac's «hit»em up» with my black friends, curse in a kindergarten class as well as a corporate meeting for my boss... what impression would a client have of my boss if I were cussing in a professional meeting or at a charity event... it doesn't add up, it's a cop - out rebuttal... trying to find loopholes or applying «human reasoning» like» ll take a swearing guy who's helpful» doesn't change Jesus or scripture it's just setting up a what - if scenario and trying to allow that to in some way justify your stance when again, that doesn't change The Holy Spirit or His heart in those who have been born again... the verses (inspired by His own Spirit) speak for themselves.

Many on here may think that I take offense with anyone who holds to a traditional interpretation of scripture stating that * all * homosexual expression is sinful.

People don't behave the way we do, good or bad, because of ancient scripture or the voice of burning bush in the desert or the face of the messiah on French toast.

By the evidence of the scripture (if you were to actually study it instead of making broad assumptions about it based on what you read somewhere else) God set this earth in motion.

«For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was RAISED on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve.

Based on their scriptures and traditions Jews, Christians (of ALL types, including Mormons) and Muslims all worship the one god of Abraham.

Amen TB, and regardless of how you interpret scriptures on the subject of sin, we have all sinned and if we say we have no sin, then we lie.

It is one thing to offend by speaking truth, that'll happen, but any other type of offence is unnecessary and against the teachings (which show God's heart on the matter) in scripture for those who claim to «know Him».

On Luther's side, the final break with the Church authorities came in the wake of Leo X's bull of November 1518; in that document, as Luther saw it, Leo arrogated to himself the power of defining Church teaching without accountability to Scripture, the Fathers, or the ancient canons.

But my worry is that focusing on Scripture's effect within the worshipping body of Christ obscures Scripture's position over the Church as its rule for faith and practice.

Scripture gives us many examples and words of wisdom on maintaining and deepening relationships.

Ever since the call for prophethood first came to Muhammad, the son of «Abdallah» approaching the age of fortieth on the month of Ramadan, it is related the Angel Gabriel came to Muhammad and he slept in solitude on Mount Hira and said, «Recite» what Muslims known as the first four verses of the ninety - sixth chapters of the Muslim scripture, known as the Qur «an.

Rohr's pretty strong on scripture; it's a key part of his studies; this article just doesn't highligh it.

The scripture dealing with Judas having been better off not being born, simply relates to the shame he will feel in due time when he is resurrected on earth to find earth's billions acknowledging him as the betrayer of the world's saviour, yikes!!

Revisiting late medieval biblical interpretation, we may consider the delicacy of the hermeneutic circle formed by Scripture and tradition, appreciating the fragility of a synthesis that refuses to impose on ancient consensus a linear, hierarchical path to truth.

Some actively encourage meditation on Scripture, and Pentecostalism has long been known for its tendency to privilege the inner voice of the Spirit over all other ways of knowing.

This fake rapture theory goes against Jesus» truth that He returns to His favorite place on earth, that we are to endure to the end, the meek shall inherit the earth for examples of some of his scriptures that contradict that teaching.