Sentences with phrase «someone interprets the scriptures»

And we seem to have some differences as well — in what we believe, in how we interpret Scripture, and in how we define truth.

Grace and mercy must be included in how we interpret scripture and look at our fellow man.

They may disagree on how best to interpret scriptures and the world around them, but not about what god they worship.

He didn't say make sure someone believes as you do, votes the way you do, or interprets scripture correctly (God knows how many teachers of the law thought Jesus» interpretation of Scripture was WAY off base).

(Based on experience, I interpret scripture to mean any work that resonates the sacred — not just the Bible.)

The ELCA is a large and diverse community (currently twice the size of the LCMS) that has chosen to interpret Scripture to allow for the inclusion of many previously marginalized by the church.

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.

The Jews interpret their Scripture much differently than we do.

You have declared yourself an expert and have constantly claimed you do not «interpret scripture» but say someone is an amateur if they do not know hermeneutics, you are a hypocrite.

No man on this earth has the authority to interpret scripture except a prophet of God.

It is only the Atheist that comes in and feels that they are the first to question or interpret the scripture differently.

It is the same concept adopted by this «Pastor» of a lady trying to interpret the scriptures to suit her own intentions.

Jim, what you say gives insight into how challenging the matter of correctly interpreting Scripture is; but it is even more complex than that.

One of the so - called tools that goes along with this hermeneutic principle of using scripture to interpret scripture is to favor clear scripture over less clear scripture when comparing similar themes and concepts.

Then your use of scripture to interpret scripture is a failure.

What you are asking for here is that we would ask the millennial generation how we should interpret the scripture.

I was at a church retreat where one guy suddenly said in response to my asking a legitimate question about how they were interpreting scripture that Satan was in me and got the whole group to pray that Satan leave.

I have been privy to only a few occasions of the pastor of my community being contacted by homosexuals who interpret the Scriptures differently.

Because everyone interprets scripture differently than everyone else, to a greater or lesser degree.

«Scripture interprets scripture», so it is very easy to distinguish between what is the Word of God and what is not.

There is therefore a sound basis for the use of the allegorical method in interpreting the Scriptures.

If you think reading a single verse isogetically and out of context is the correct way to interpret Scripture... well, you go right ahead.

The framework which forms the foundation and basis for all theology is Bibliology (and the accompanying Hermeneutics, which are the rules of interpreting Scripture).

This means interpreting Scripture to support this idea.

If you agree with a person's view of Scripture, and you agree with their rules of interpreting Scripture, you will also agree with them in almost everything relating to their theology.

One's view of Scripture (Bibliology) and one's rules for interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics) form the foundation on which the rest of theology is built.

I also wonder about the way we interpret scripture, if we don't force things to fit where they are not meant to fit.

It takes a certain level of human and spiritual maturity to interpret a Scripture.

If «Scripture is to interpret Scripture» and all the other references to an «unquenchable fire» in the OT and NT are fiery judgments on the Nations / Peoples... either Israel or the Enemies of Israel... does that mean «the Lake of Fire» is to be interpreted likewise?

We all interpret Scripture a little differently.

We may assume that at least some forms of black theology and Minjung theology are thus affirmed, for they both interpret Scripture in just such ways as these.

It really helped us realize the real - world implications for how we read each other's texts, and how vulnerable we feel when others are interpreting our scriptures in certain ways.

This perspective would not undercut the importance of interpreting the Scriptures.

Scripture must interpret scripture!

The Pope puts into practice the methodological principle found in Dei Verbum, 12: he reads and interprets the Scripture «in the sacred spirit in which it was written».

To be fair, both sides of the gender debate have been guilty of sliding down a slippery slope, which in my view is unnecessary, given the wealth of excellent resources available to help us accurately interpret Scripture on issues related to gender, sexuality, and faith.

Of course, process theology can not fulfil this responsibility without interpreting Scripture, and the separation of process theology in recent decades from the close involvement in Biblical scholarship of the earlier Chicago school has led to critical weaknesses which are only now being addressed.1 Nevertheless, for process theology the appropriate relationship to the Bible can not be exhausted by hermeneutic.

Without the Magisterium any attempt to interpret the scriptures inevitably falls into fundamentalism or liberalism.

This is part of the approach abolitionists and first wave feminists propose as they developed a method of interpreting Scripture that exposed both theological errors and the self - interest of slave - owner.

The basic motivation for denying evolution is fundamentalism — the tendency to interpret the scriptures completely literally, refusing to allow any symbolism or figures of speech.

In other words, Bonhoeffer was trying to interpret the scripture from the church's point of view.

In James» view, the Reformation led to a chaos of doctrines, as independent authorities began interpreting scripture for themselves, thus proving the value of Catholicism's centralised body of teaching centred on the authority of the Pope.

Did King Josiah close his eyes so he would forget she was a woman as she read and interpreted Scripture in his presence, explaining, directly and personally, how that Scripture would affect Israel and its king?

You interpret the scriptures and believe that to be the standard by which everyone else is judged.

On the one hand, by our historical amnesia we break our continuity with historic Christian faith as did the liberals and, on the other, we accord to some preachers a magisterial authority in interpreting Scripture not unlike Roman Catholics do!

Obviously, the author interprets scripture differently than you do.

And then we interpret the Scripture based on this wrong belief that it was written by a later author with a different audience and for different reasons.

Principles of interpretation (Hermeneutics) 1) Literal Principle — Scripture is to be understood in its natural, normal sense, read literally 2) Grammar Principle — Deal with what it says in the way it says it, be it using metaphor, simile, narrative, etc. 3) Historical Principle — Read the Bible in its historical context 4) Synthesis Principle — No one part of the Bible contradicts any other part (Scripture interprets Scripture) 5) Practical Principle — It contains a practical application 6) Illumination of the Holy Spirit — It is the job of the Holy Spirit to enlighten the child of God to the meaning of Scripture, without Him, one is without the ability to interpret Scripture

That person would surely acknowledge (even if wincing while doing so) that preachers, in attempting to interpret Scripture and guide the faithful, are free to draw on a variety of resources to make their points, and that such attempts will not always please everyone.

YET they frequently do JUST THAT VERY THING as they interpret their scriptures for their own purposes.