Sentences with phrase «sense of scripture»

Returning to Augustine and the early Church, Steinmetz shows how the famous theory of the fourfold sense of Scripture, an approach widely used in the Middle Ages, was a way of taking seriously the words and sayings of Scripture, including implicit meanings that extend beyond the original intentions of the human authors.

They understand, among other things, what they call and take from the Reformers to be the «plain sense of scripture.»

At other times, what the Church teaches is either puzzling or undeveloped, but the plain sense of Scripture seems perspicuous and compelling.

I think this is a good way of reading Scripture, as it helps make sense of Scripture, and helps us see Jesus as truly the supreme revelation of God.

Frei argued that during the Enlightenment this sense of scripture as realistic narrative was lost.

In both cases, the sense of scripture as canonical narrative was abandoned.

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.

Another distinction that has helped make sense of Scripture for me is the word «salvation.»

If he is arguing as a systematic theologian, with a sense of both Scripture and tradition, he should have no doubt that the reality and the essential importance of Eucharistic presence is central to Christianity even though each and every Christian might not agree.

«When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise» (Dr. David L. Cooper)

The properly theological and revelatory sense of Scripture, which was always an essential part of traditional exegesis, could never be considered as «religion within the confines of pure reason» and was therefore unacceptable.

It is, say many, quite contrary to the plain sense of Scripture.

The cultural and linguistic barrier between you and the original writer likely means that much of time, their original intent will will not be what seems to you to be the «plain sense of Scripture» or the «primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning».

As he puts it, when it comes to determining the sense of Scripture, «there is some assembly required.»

No appeal to Scripture could stand unless it harmonized with the tradition; and no recourse to tradition was viable unless it squared with the literal sense of Scripture.

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).

[22] The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a magisterial endorsement for this call: «According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses.

Scholars of the Middle Ages also had a fine - tuned methodology in their exegesis, expressed as the four senses of Scripture.

[26] The Pope confronts the notion of marriage as the remedium concupiscientiae [27] saying that it must be understood in the integral sense of the scriptures which also teach of the Redemption of the Body and point to the sacrament of matrimony as a way of realizing that Redemption.

Not exact matches

it makes sense, read your bible... but this time, try starting at the beginning and finish at the end instead of jumping thru the birth of jesus — he isn't special enough to believe in the god you claim yet not read the part that came before the man as he himself tells you to know the scripture!!!

A believers motivation is high and shaped by a strong sense of purpose in life, their motivation is rooted in the scriptures as evidenced by those high performers.

When that scripture is understood in the context of the parent - child relationship as taught in the NT, then that scripture makes sense.

There is truth, and then there is Christian truth, being that version of things that can be forced to kinda, sorta make some sense with a particular rendering of scripture mixed with old - fashioned bigotry and chauvinism.

The key question for theology is whether Kant can make any sense out of who the scriptures say Jesus is rather than abjuring the task and simply correcting the apostolic witness in light of some higher «religious» principle.

Given all this, Kugel, if I read him correctly, opts for treating the Scriptures as the starting point for a continuous process of interpretation and reinterpretation rather than as statements that are true in themselves in any obvious sense.

After his conversion through prayer and the reading of Scripture, he aimed his quill at the foundations of modern philosophy and became, in many senses, the Johann Sebastian Bach of philosophy: «a true pan of harmony and discord, light and darkness, spiritualism and materialism» (as Schelling so perceptively called him).

might be compared with the hermeneutic of Reformation theologians, who appealed to the «plain sense» of Scripture.

There is a sense in which the intention of early biblical criticism was an effort to restore a «biblical theology» in which the Scriptures were freed from their dogmatic imprisonment.

Because of this ambiguity we need to give some attention to the question of in what sense the Wesleyan way of using Scripture in theology represents an «evangelical option.»

It also makes sense to hold every piece of Scripture to the whole of Scripture, and interpret every single passage according to the Spirit of the passage's context, the book in which it is found, and of the entire Bible.

«From this history of the Bible in early American history,» Noll writes in his concluding chapter, «the moral judgment that makes the most sense to me rests on a difference between Scripture for oneself and Scripture for others.»

Wright notes that «we need to note carefully that to invoke «the literal meaning of scripture,» hoping thereby to settle a point by echoing the phraseology of the Reformers, could be valid only if we meant, not «literal» as opposed to metaphorical, but «literal» (which might include metaphorical if that, arguable, was the original sense) as opposed to the three other medieval senses...»

If Scripture reveals the heart of man instead of the heart of God, then this helps us make sense of the conflicting statements in Scripture about sacrifice.

Lots of verses thrown out, and I can not respond to them all, though I do have explanations for all of them that make sense in light of the full testimony of Scripture.

One of our children, though very knowledgeable about Scripture, went through an extended period of private doubt in the late teens, struggling to make sense of Christianity and life.

As I said last week, this general guide for interpreting and applying the Bible makes sense to me.It's not about discounting the historical / grammatical method in favor of forcing a Jesus message into every last page, but simply looking at Scripture through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ just as Christians should look at everything through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The human writers of scripture certainly though so, and they also thought God felt this way too, but does it «make sense?»

Even in earliest days, the Church distinguished among what were known as the «senses» of Scripture.

«When we take the phrase «the authority of Scripture» out of its suitcase,» Wright says, «then, we recognize that it can have Christian meaning only if we are referring to scripture's authority in a delegated or mediated sense from that which God himself possesses and that which Jesus possesses as the risen Lord and Son of God, the ImmanueScripture» out of its suitcase,» Wright says, «then, we recognize that it can have Christian meaning only if we are referring to scripture's authority in a delegated or mediated sense from that which God himself possesses and that which Jesus possesses as the risen Lord and Son of God, the Immanuescripture's authority in a delegated or mediated sense from that which God himself possesses and that which Jesus possesses as the risen Lord and Son of God, the Immanuel.»

The remaining ecumenical contribution is what we ought to call «Lutheran culture,» one filled with blessed pieties, a love of Jesus Christ and Sacred Scripture, a sense of being a company of saints that is often lost in Roman Catholic parishes, and other collateral graces stemming from the passions of the Reformation.

None of it was making any sense to them, John says, because no one who was there that morning understood the scripture, that Jesus must rise from the dead.

In this sense, «the diversity of Scripture — and the tensions that this diversity introduces — bears witness to God's revelation rather than detracts from it.»

Last week, we discussed the thesis of the book — Wright's assertion that «the «authority of Scripture» can make sense only if it is shorthand for «the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through Scripture.

A «THUS SAITH THE LORD» IN SCRIPTURE of the ACTUAL HISTORIC TRUTH of the LORD»S Passover is all that counts and makes sense in whichever detail large and small.

Wright notes that «Israel was thus constituted, from one point of view, as the people who heard God's word — in call, promise, liberation, guidance, judgment, forgiveness, further judgment, renewed liberation, and renewed promise... This is what I mean by denying that scripture can be reduced to the notion of the «record of a revelation,» in the sense of a mere writing down of earlier, and assumedly prior, «religious experience.»

Rice «methodically tied Blanchard in knots over how to interpret the proslavery implications of specific texts» while «Blanchard returned repeatedly to «the broad principle of common equity and common sense» that he found in Scripture, to «the general principles of the Bible» and «the whole scope of the Bible»» rather than specifics.

The fact is, most of the defenses of American slavery were written by clergy who quoted Scripture generously and appealed to a «clear, plain, and common - sense reading» of biblical passages like Genesis 17:2, Deuteronomy 20:10 - 11, 1 Corinthians 7:21, Ephesians 6:1 - 5, Colossians 3:18 - 25; 4:1, and I Timothy 6:1 - 2.

We can discover a reversal of the kenotic movement of the Word in the very insistence of the religious Christian that faith has for once and for all been given, that it is fully and finally present in the Scriptures, the liturgies, the creeds, and the dogmas of the past, and can in no sense undergo a development or transformation that moves beyond its original expression to new and more universal forms.

A privately studied reading of scripture: «For all of this to make the deep, life - changing, Kingdom - advancing sense it is supposed to,» Wright says, «it is vital that ordinary Christians read, encounter, and study scripture for themselves, in groups and individually.»

She knows the heart of God more than anyone else I know, and so while she may not know all the logical arguments or Scripture passages for various theological views, she senses rightness and wrongness in various theological positions.