Sentences with phrase «understood atonement»

The Christian church has not consistently understood atonement in cosmic terms.

Just as the Crucifixion can not truly be known as the mere negation of transcendence, it is necessary to understand the atonement as a negative process of reversing every alien other, a process of negating all negations.

The human analogy of the father and the prodigal son is taken as the key to understanding the atonement.

We have come to the question of suffering in human experience as we try to understand atonement.

Not exact matches

It has been suggested that satisfaction theories of the Atonement and the correlative understanding of the Christian life as a life of interiority became the rule during the long process we call the Constantinian settlement.

We understand the statement that «we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ» in terms of the substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ, leading to full assurance of eternal salvation; we seek to testify in all circumstances and contexts to this, the historic Protestant understanding of salvation by faith alone (sola fide).

This understanding of the atonement relates to biblical nonviolence in several ways.

If you want to see how today's foundational truth is applied to our understanding of theology, Scripture, and culture, I highly recommend you get my book on the Atonement from Amazon.

We're completely confident that we understand what it means to be «saved,» how atonement works, and what happens to those who chose not believe or follow Jesus.

It's called The Atonement of God, and in it, I present 10 areas of theology that were affected in my own life when I came to understand the truth I am about to present to you today.

By saying there is no room for «personal salvation» in your understanding of Jesus» teaching and then claiming that personal salvation gets us to the topic of atonement theory — what was it that you were wanting to say if not making a link between atonement theory and salvation?

I have always understood this to mean that Song of Songs corresponds to the inner sanctum of the Temple in Jerusalem, where only the high priest entered on the Day of Atonement.

I also find it importnat to realise the early church held a different view of the atonement in my understanding.

My disagreements with the five points of both Calvinism and Arminianism iare not exactly with their theology or understanding of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc, etc..

Biblical ideas of atonement root back in this basic soil and stem out from it; and while the development later carried them to branches far distant from the roots, there is no understanding the topmost twig — for example, «as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive» --(I Corinthians 15:22.)

People continue to not understand what beliefs and standards are and I've never heard him preach moral standards, atonement of Christ etc..

This may be because the accepted understanding of that aspect of the atonement makes this a both / and discussion rather than an either / or.

I read your post (but not the book, yet) on the non-violent atonement, and I am unsure how to understand verses such as «Without the shedding of blood there is no remission» in the light of your «non-violent» concept; it's unclear to me.

But there is an alternative understanding of atonement.

We simply do not know what the doctrines of atonement, incarnation and redemption mean until we understand what they mean for persons shaped by this historical milieu.

Our concern is to see within the history of the atonement metaphors what happens to the understanding of God's love.

Such an apocalyptic and dialectical understanding of the atonement, however, demands a new conception of atonement or reconciliation: a conception revealing not simply that God is the author and the agent of atonement but is himself the subject of reconciliation as well.

People may not know or understand much about grace, repentance, rebirth and atonement, but everybody knows about water.

Could we not say that this understanding of God is grounded in Christ, and not only in the sayings of Christ but also in the Cross, and in the Cross as a universal and forward - moving process of atonement?

Be happy to listen to the broadcast, but have already provided a lot of information about atonement, that if you can't explain, would suggest your understanding may not be what you think it is.

One's view of the atonement will reflect one's understanding of the plight of humanity and what needs to be done to effect human salvation.

Paul's understanding of trust not only shapes his view of atonement; it also informs the apostle's own hermeneutical theory and practice.

Shailer Matthews once accurately described most theories of atonement as «transcendentalized politics».3 It is God who redeenns man, and what God does can not be identified with any human experience or form, though it penetrates human understanding.

This interpretation of the scriptures and understanding of Christian anthropology gave Christian spirituality a view of God as a harsh judge who wanted the sacrifice of the life of Jesus as expiation and atonement for the sins of humanity.

For Albrecht Ritschl, Christ saves man by fulfilling his vocation to establish the universal ethical community in which the spirit is victorious over the resistance of nature.2 Thus every theology seeks a pattern in which the atonement can be understood.

But look... your long comment reveals that you have simply failed to properly understand what the non-violent view of the atonement teaches.

The most recent study, and one of especial insight, is F. W. Dillistone, The Christian Understanding of Atonement (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1968).

Denying the substitutionary blood atonement aspect of Jesus» death really runs contrary to the Scriptures and the historical understanding of the Gospel.

The traditional doctrines of atonement understand Jesus» suffering as penal or sacrificial.

You spend a whole chapter talking about global warming and nuclear disarmament, but you never try to help young people understand the Trinity or the Atonement.

The three offices may be summed up as revelation, atonement, and kingship, and these in turn may be understood as three mutually related aspects of one work, in which each includes the others.

One finds the words «atonement» or «sacrifice» and assumes that they are to be understood in the context of the Satisfaction - Doctrine.

The Incarnation becomes meaningful, said Niebuhr, when it is understood in relation to the Atonement.

If you want to learn more about this and how these insights help us understand God, Scripture, theology, current events, politics, and even your very own life, I recommend you get started with my book The Atonement of God.

The following chapters explain how this understanding of Christ sheds light on the intra-relations of the Trinity, political theology, atonement and sacrifice, and the working of the Spirit in the world.

In a down - to - earth and intensely practical writing style, Sharon Baker shows the problem with traditional understandings of the atonement and the violence of God, and reveals an alternative way of looking at the cross of Jesus and the violence of God in the Bible.

If you want to understand the violence of Scripture, or mimetic theory, or the Christus Victor view of the atonement, or what Jesus accomplished on the cross, this is one of the books you absolutely must read.

We recognize the absurdity of taking that sentence as a bare, literal statement of fact, although one conspicuous «theory» of the atonement was based upon such an understanding of it.

In reviewing different metaphors and images of the atonement in the New Testament and the works of Brunner, Aulen, Luther and others, the author posits that the best approach is through an understanding of God's reconciling love as seen in Christ and as experienced in disclosure, suffering, communication and community.

The mystery of atonement can be approached with new understanding if theology and psychology will look together at the same reality, however difficult it may be to do so.

Further, it makes no sense in that verse to understand repentance in that context; how would an inability to turn from sin be analogous to re crucifying Christ, the ultimate atonement for sin?

In the two chapters on soteriology we find a number of them, for example, a denial of the redemptive dimension of the Incarnation, a purely forensic understanding of the doctrine of justification, and a narrow focus on penal substitution in the doctrine of atonement.

Reconciliation, atonement, forgiveness, and understanding can not be a one - way street.

In a different mood, as in his sonnet to Baudelaire, he understood that his own failures caused his sufferings, and he even rejoiced in his sin because it brought him the happiness of atonement.

Lutheran theologian Gustaf Aulén describes this understanding as the «classic» theory of the atonement.