Sentences with phrase «scriptura with»

As a Lutheran I thought of faith as the centerpiece of my religion: sola scriptura with its extra-biblical simul iustus et peccator.

Not exact matches

Theo — «Those who come up with meaning that does not agree with the Analogia Scriptura need to rethink it.»

Those who come up with meaning that does not agree with the Analogia Scriptura need to rethink it.

The analogy I had in mind with sola fide works like this: Sola fide never meant that nobody would ever do any work, and likewise sola scriptura never meant that nobody would ever repair to tradition.

I finished reading The Shape of Sola Scriptura last week, and with his emphasis on creeds and the teaching office of the church, it made me ask a few related questions as the one above.

Ultimately, it usually ends with even the most ardent sola scriptura Lutheran appealing to tradition, where I simply do not follow.

The question really is, is there truth and revelation in the Bible, and we will go with the sola scriptura, or am I going to go outside scriptura and come up with my own best like - able picture of God, my God of the day.

Sola Scriptura we declare and yet what is seen all over the place in the west is that absurd image of the man with long fair hair, simpering eyes and Greco / Roman features.

Martin Luther presented the theology of Sola scriptura that the bible is the sole source to live and understand what Christianity is all about... but the bible itself does not come with a table of contents to prove that it is correct which is why the bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth... remember that the church existed before even the bible was even put together... To understand the bible you cant just rely on your own interpretation like the protestants often say... The truth is always absolute and hence the teachings of the bible HAS to be absolute which is why the church is said to be ONE in nature (in every sense of the word), HOLY, CATHOLIC (Universal in teaching in every corner of the world) and APOSTOLIC (roots dating back to Jesus himself)... Now figure out what is that one church... The church put together the bible and the holy spirit always protected the church against false teachings and 1600 years later came about the teaching of Sola Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this scriptura that the bible is the sole source to live and understand what Christianity is all about... but the bible itself does not come with a table of contents to prove that it is correct which is why the bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth... remember that the church existed before even the bible was even put together... To understand the bible you cant just rely on your own interpretation like the protestants often say... The truth is always absolute and hence the teachings of the bible HAS to be absolute which is why the church is said to be ONE in nature (in every sense of the word), HOLY, CATHOLIC (Universal in teaching in every corner of the world) and APOSTOLIC (roots dating back to Jesus himself)... Now figure out what is that one church... The church put together the bible and the holy spirit always protected the church against false teachings and 1600 years later came about the teaching of Sola Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this teaching.

I think, for example, it is arguable that the small Karaite Jewish sect that relies upon the Bible only and rejects the Talmud and the Protestant reformers with their similar reliance upon sola Scriptura came up with standards that can be applied practically and that are rooted in the traditions they seek to reform.

For many years I have struggled with deep seated doubts about Protestantism which clings so blindly to the Reformation's Sola Scriptura overreaction which gained its foothold at a time when «enlightenment» was only just beginning to teach us how to sign our names other than with an «X».

On the Sunday morning before this year's South Carolina primary, Dr. Carl Broggi, the pastor of Community Bible Church in Beaufort, turned over his pulpit — emblazoned with the Protestant watchword «sola scriptura,» to GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

I suppose these critical remarks boil down to the following questions: Can the sola Scriptura principle coexist with a view of the Church that is truly anchored «deep in history»?

Under the slogan «sola Scriptura,» Protestants translated the Bible into the vernacular, and with the help of the press distributed Bibles to an unprecedented number of people.

Mr. Leithart claims that sola Scriptura is an epistemological doctrine answering the question, From what source do I learn how I can commune with God?

If we sit under Barth as a teacher, does this mean we have to abandon sola scriptura by replacing Scripture with Barth's ideas?

But it is one thing just to claim that theological disagreements (such as sola scriptura) are not the only problem; it's another to refute with arguments Gregory's meticulously argued claim that this did, in fact, constitute a serious problem.

In addition to this series of granite works Nauman produced fifty prints with the same phrase, «PARTIAL TRUTH», rendered in the same scriptura monumentalis font, for the Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art on the occasion of their 1997 exhibition Bruce Nauman: 1985 — 1996: Drawings, Prints, and Related Works.