Sentences with phrase «over scripture as»

If we are not united over Scripture as the final authority, then we are not united.

This is, however, to set humanity over Scripture as the final arbiter of what is inspired and authoritative for Christian practice.

Not exact matches

As Christians wrestle through issues like this in the 21st century, we need to remember these kinds of developments are not addressed explicitly in Scripture — there are only general parameters to ponder, wonder about, pray over and wrestle through.

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.

I don't want to gloss over the historical difficulties of the «phenomena of Scripture,» as I agree with Smith that it's important to take those into account.

This led Luther eventually to conclude that the Roman Church was irrevocably committed to the claim that the authority of the pope stood even above Holy Scripture and it was in this context that he came, over the next several years, to believe that the papacy was the prophesied Antichrist of the last days, a conviction he then held to his dying day with a literalistic fervor that his modern interpreters have rarely been willing to take as seriously as he did.

Burning of flags is a political thing but burning of Holy Books such as Torah or Bibles is not an act of a Muslims to do such a wrong thing since our Quran tells us to respect elder holy books because it is (confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.)

True, there are themes that will be familiar to anyone who has followed the work of Ratzinger - Benedict over the years, and, as one would expect from a pope, the document draws deeply from Scripture and the Church's tradition.

On the level of authority, the Scripture is set over against reason and tradition (understood both ecclesiastically and as the cumulative and collected wisdom of personal experience).

Thompson explores the Psalms, the Synoptic Gospels as well as John, the Wisdom literature, the current debate over the «astonishing exchange» in Christ, and the image of the child in Scripture and modern spirituality.

As a parent of two small children, I understand why we want to skip over embarrassing passages of Scripture.

Liberal Protestants in the last two centuries also claimed to use Scripture as their sole norm, and over time came to distinguish revelation from the words of the Bible.

If we want to sit in judgement over scripture we are obviously not taking it seriously as a true witness.

It seems as if people are always in debate over scripture due to relying on their own understanding to comprehend it.

This is what we find over and over again within the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures, and which, if we are honest, we find in our own hearts as well.

Over the years, as I have tried to discern where this mentality comes from, I always end up at the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture.

Darryl like you i also know that without him i can do nothing i am weak but in him we are overcomers its a good place to be dependent on him he can use us when we are in that place i believe God has plans for you that is why the enemy is playing mind games i had a season of that he does nt bother me now as i fire scripture back at him.Like greater is the lord in me than he that is in the world.Sin shall not have dominion over me.In my weakness i am strong in Christ.Weakness is not an excuse to give in or give up its our opportunity to trust God and walk in his strength and power.You are a mighty man of God you tell the devil to flee in Jesus name and he will.

The teaching that men are to be the «spiritual leaders» of their homes is found nowhere in Scripture, and yet I — along with far too many young evangelical women — spent hours upon hours fretting over this in college, worrying I'd never find a guy who was more knowledgeable about the Bible than I, who was always more emotionally connected to God than I, who was better at leading in the church than I, and who consistently exhibited more faithfulness and wisdom than I. (In fact, under this paradigm, I came to see many of my gifts as liabilities, impediments to settling down with a good «spiritual leader»!)

the other curious thing is when theists go after the atheists over our knowledge of scripture, most atheists were once theists so we would have some idea of scripture like you all however with the onslaught of attacks from religious folks in the real world when they discover we're not «one of them» has the same effect as the villian in the comics unwittingly creating the superhero.

To this day there is controversy over whether Dante actually wrote the «Letter to Cangrande,» whose author overtly claims that he wrote the Comedy making use of the four senses of Scripture, almost exactly as these are defined by St. Thomas near the beginning of the Summa (I, i, 10).

It seems that ultimately, what this does is set humans up as judge over Scripture to determine what is «true» and what is «error.»

A couple years ago, as I was reading through Scripture, I began to notice that there were numerous jokes, allusions, and euphemisms all over Scripture for the male sexual organ.

(Exodus 3:13 - 14) In consonance with this traditional attitude, the Jews, from reverential motives, substituted adonai, meaning «lord,» for the sacred name in their reading of the Scriptures; as a consequence, in the thirteenth century Christian Hebraists mistakenly used the consonants of the name jhwh with the Hebrew vowels of adonai, thus getting Jehovah; but behind this later mystification lay in primitive times the recognized unwillingness of any god to surrender possession of his secret name, lest the possessor thereby gain control over him.

More exactly, they are rooted in those texts as they have been conventionally used over long periods of time within the communities» common life; they are rooted in scripture - in - tradition.

Stark dishonestly tries to skip over this, as he does when he misrepsents scriptures that he says god wants human sacrifice.

Close study shows it to match other Scriptures that picture the ascending Jesus declaring his victory over Satan to fallen angels who once influenced the world to sin, but who now are being held in spirit - prison as they wait for their day of judgment.

If you truly believe that your view of Scriptures is what is most orthodox, then instead of trying to conk each other over the heads, as brothers and sisters, we should be submitting our orthodoxy to the mercy seat.

Jeremy thanks for taking the the time to go over your notes from seminary and reevaluate what you were taught as opposed to what scripture really has to say.

'» (90) The prevailing attitude, he shows, is heavily influenced by the Platonic concept of an evil material world and a perfect immaterial soul, as well as a misunderstanding of Scripture in which heaven, (as a kind of final resting place for the soul), is emphasized over the clear biblical picture of a new heaven and new earth for which believers will be physically resurrected.

Many works are consciously designed to accommodate «selective» reading, and most readers over the centuries have experienced the Bible in just this way (including Jesus, who frequently quoted Scripture» even as he hung on the cross).

I have lived in church circles too long... ALL the «true believers» TM believe that «I can tell you that the God of Scripture is exactly as I described Him» is a common comment, and when the great true believers disagree, then they get into theological fights over who is the greater «true believer» to listen to.

And since the Bible is God's story, concerned primarily with who God is, we will find that over time, as we read, live, and breathe in the story of Scripture, we will become ever more like God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Overall we are on the same page, but as we present a different understanding (though not a new understanding of scripture — just hidden in the presupositions built up over time), sometimes it takes a while to get through all those years of presupositions till we see what the other has been showing from scripture.

This scripture does nt conflict in these verses we see the truth exposed as God allows satan to have limited power over his people to test them as in the story of Job.So was it God who tested job by allowing satan to bring trails upon him.Or was it satan who was the one testing him.Both are involved but the motivations are completely different Gods purposes are to build up his people.Satan on the other hand wants to destroy there is this conflict at work all the time.brentnz

Its amusing that so many «christians» will bash someone over the head with a bible to point out their supposed «sins» as contained within holy scripture and yet ignore one of its greatest commandments: render unto NO ONE evil for evil.

Scriptures such as Isaiah 41:17 - 20, 55:10 - 13 and 60:13 name two to three species of evergreen trees as prophetic signs of God's promise to reverse the curse over the land and usher in an age of blessing.

I argued with Christians over the existance of God and constantly studied scripture so I could uncover as many biblical contradictions as I could.

Humility requires submitting ourselves to scripture, rather than setting ourselves as judges over it.

The claims of any other so called messiah are false and have been proven to be so over the past 2000 years as it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has spread to end parts of the earth which is also a fulfillment of scripture.

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 affiOver 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 affiover 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 affiover 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 affiover 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 affiover 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 affiover 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.

All these scriptures / Biblical teachings created a problem for me as over the years when I would experience psychotic symptoms and psychic phenomena as a result of intense / deep prayer and meditation, I actually thought that God was trying to show me a sign or tell me something or he was leading me in a particular direction.

For as long as I can remember, the Christian response to conflicts within Scripture has been to try and explain them away, to smooth over the rough spots and iron out the kinks.

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.

Some proponents of the old orthodoxy (such as Gordon Clark and Carl Henry) favor a metaphysical - deductive over an empirical - inductive approach, seeking to deduce the concrete meanings of Scripture from first principles given in Scripture.

As I look back over my life, becoming a Christian is nothing compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Jesus on a day to day basis, sitting at His feet to learn from Him, and letting Him speak to me by His Spirit and through Scripture.

As I look over the last couple decades of my life, it is when I am studying, teaching, and writing about Scripture that I feel most content, most fulfilled, most at home, most connected with God and with who He made me to be.

In some fascinating paragraphs he wades into the controversy suggesting the «projection of Tradition over Scripture» so that it is clear that «there can only be one source, Revelation itself...» «Sacred scripture is the regola of the faith in so far as it is divinely inspired; Tradition itself divinely assisted... allows the scriptures to be always contemporary for humanity» and for «faith to be able to have in itself a solid basis for those truths which it bears in itself...» (pp. 43Scripture» so that it is clear that «there can only be one source, Revelation itself...» «Sacred scripture is the regola of the faith in so far as it is divinely inspired; Tradition itself divinely assisted... allows the scriptures to be always contemporary for humanity» and for «faith to be able to have in itself a solid basis for those truths which it bears in itself...» (pp. 43scripture is the regola of the faith in so far as it is divinely inspired; Tradition itself divinely assisted... allows the scriptures to be always contemporary for humanity» and for «faith to be able to have in itself a solid basis for those truths which it bears in itself...» (pp. 437 - 438).

If I say that I am right, and everyone who agrees with me is going to heaven, and everyone who disagrees with me is going to hell, I have just placed my interpretation of Scripture above Scripture itself, and placed myself in the role of God as the judge over all humanity.

By contrast, the traditional Catholic (and Orthodox) conception of the relationship does have the Church standing in judgment over Scripture in some sense, for as the Catechism forthrightly states, «the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of sacred books» (emphasis added).