Sentences with phrase «scripture as authoritative»

Thinking of Jesus as the fulfillment of scripture helps resolve potential tensions that may arise when speaking of how Jesus saw scripture as authoritative, Wright says.

Given evangelicalism's common loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and to Scripture as authoritative, such reevaluation is possible.

I can not understand how anyone who regards Scripture as authoritative can argue against the personhood of the fetus.

The acceptance of a scripture as authoritative goes with adherence to a faith community.

Not exact matches

Together we affirm that Scripture is the divinely inspired and uniquely authoritative written revelation of God; as such it is normative for the teaching and life of the Church.

One reason we trust the Bible is this: Scripture demonstrates to evangelicals that it is absolutely authoritative and trustworthy as we engage it.

By the same token, some Anabaptists allowed Scripture (the externum Verbum) to be authoritative in practice only insofar as its teaching was authenticated by inner experience (the internum Verbum).

What it revealed was their conviction that Christian theology in its form and substance as well as its function in the church must be determined by God's authoritative Word, the written Scriptures.

Richard B. Hays identifies our central problems in trying to use scripture for moral guidance today: With such diverse voices in the text, which voices do we take as authoritative?

There are three main ways in which this view of scripture — as God's inspired, authoritative and truthful word — can get distorted by Christians.

Gary Dorrien, the prominent liberal Protestant scholar, describes it like this: «Christian scripture may be recognised as spiritually authoritative within Christian experience, but its word does not settle or establish truth claims about matters of fact.»

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 affirms.

The Scriptures of the New Testament, or in other words, the documents of the New Covenant, are the authoritative record of that act of God by which He established relations between Himself and the Church; and they are the charter defining the status of the Church as the people of God, the terms upon which that status is granted, and the obligations it entails.

'30 That is, although specific sections of Scripture might need to be rejected, one must still take as authoritative the overall message of the Biblical text.

Rather than accepting as authoritative Scripture's total witness, the interpreter uses either his subjective experience with the Christ, or his contemporary sensibility, or the church's traditional understanding of the gospel, or perhaps some combination of these to judge what reasonably the «whole Bible» might be saying.

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

There he is free to make explicit the Christian claim that Isaiah 53 was a text, «as authoritative scripture, that exercised pressure on the early church in its struggle to understand the suffering and death of Jesus Christ.»

«9 The fact evangelicals want other Christians to face is that Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, accepted Scripture as divinely authoritative.

Introduction Scholars such as John B. Cobb and David R. Griffin have developed the Christological implications of Whiteheadian process - relational thought in a number of widely read works in recent years.1 «Evangelical» Christians, holding the Christian scriptures to be the uniquely inspired and authoritative charter documents of their faith, and finding in these scriptures a Christ...

What we have now is canon, a body of work recognized as authoritative Scripture in its present complete form.

Lutherans accept these books as authoritative because they understand them to be faithful witnesses to the teachings of Scripture.

Although scripture derives its authority from God, in a sense it is the community that regards a text as authoritative that bestows authority upon it.

But evangelicals are included in the «others»; no less than liberals they seek to understand Scripture according to the particular historical contexts in which biblical texts were written ¯ with the one difference being that they consider themselves bound to receive what they conclude the text to say as authoritative rather than open to improvement.

The revelation of God, given in Scripture, is regarded as authoritative only insofar as it provides clarifying images which illuminate experience as it is critically interpreted by reason.Theology within this framework articulates the meaning of the inherited tradition of the Christian community in the light of empirical knowledge supplied by the sciences.

And as a matter of fact, the history of the Church's use of Scriptures in her preaching and teaching has tended to move in an either / or pattern, there being periods of strong emphasis upon the Scripture as the body of authoritative tradition, provoking a reaction in favor of an understanding of Scripture as address to the hearers.

And here and elsewhere, in explicitly authoritative teaching, Scripture teaches patriarchal, male - dominant marital relationships as the norm.

This does not mean that it is the preacher's responsibility to hand down a more or less authoritative interpretation for them, but as pastor - preacher he will lead them into the experience of hearing the message of Scripture for their situations.

Scholars such as John B. Cobb and David R. Griffin have developed the Christological implications of Whiteheadian process - relational thought in a number of widely read works in recent years.1 «Evangelical» Christians, holding the Christian scriptures to be the uniquely inspired and authoritative charter documents of their faith, and finding in these scriptures a Christ whose divine humanity defies explanation in terms of any general metaphysical scheme, have had for the most part little interest in or even contact with these process - relational Christologies.2 That revelation presents to us this Christ is sufficient warrant for believing him; his being is, at any rate, incommensurate with ours.

Whatever the delineation, however, the question remains: how are we to move reasonably between our present context, the widest possible Christian tradition, and an authoritative Scripture, while allowing the Spirit to witness definitively to Jesus Christ as savior and Lord?

These are anabaptist, holiness, missional, generously orthodox leaning evangelicals (like myself) who see new perspectives on an authoritative scripture and new incarnational ways of doing church as the only way forward in a post-Christendom world.»

How do we continue to relate to Scripture as inspired and authoritative, even when it reflects these (and other) cultural norms that no longer apply today?

Since I do not believe it is possible to genuinely describe God (Though I believe 1 Corinthians 13 comes the closest) and I do not accept any scripture as fully authoritative, I find it impossible to accept an argument as anything more than incomplete human perspective.