Sentences with phrase «views of scripture»

Third, Brueggemann rejects a systematic (or dogmatic) approach to Old Testament theology, not only because of the obvious pluralism of the texts within the canon and the cultures that interpret the Bible, but also because this approach tends to fall in line with the church's views of scripture.

There have been other ways of framing the issue of the fundamental tension that exists between the views of Scripture as content and / or as address.

This interpretation fits well with the claim of Ernest Sandeen that fundamentalism should be viewed theologically as a strange coalition between the rising tide of premillennialism that found expression in the prophecy conferences and Bible schools of the late 19th century and the views of Scripture articulated in the high Calvinist theology of.

Yes, these are both possible views of Scripture.

4, Is it possible for a community to be composed of people of all kinds of levels of faith and even of no faith at all, or for those who hold a vastly differing views of scripture to keep fellowship?

The question is whether those who would condemn homosexual acts should be able to force their views of Scripture on those who disagree any more than those who affirm gay relationships should be able to force their view of Scripture on those opposed.

The commitment to an evangelical view of Scripture seems secure, but some of the other concerns that fueled the Controversy in the first place have surfaced again» and this time, with a vengeance.

But rather than continue the order in which I began my critiques, allow me to reverse them, for one simple reason: my worries about Smith's view of Scripture are worries that extend beyond the scope of Desiring the Kingdom.

But having migrated from one side of the secular / religious divide to the other, I can say for certain that trends can be reversed; even the orneriest, least receptive nones can be reached — and all without sacrificing a rigorous, orthodox view of Scripture.

«Seems like you take the Jeffersonian view of scripture — that is, the Bible is true if you first take all the miraculous stuff out of it.»

Niebuhr wouldn't fall neatly under this definition of what a Christian is, nor would his view of Scripture meet this criteria.

Also, I couldn't quite get this into words as I was writing before, so: I am believe that I am correct in my view of Scripture as it has been handed down to me from teachers, preachers, writers and others; I believe that I am correct in my beliefs about who God is, and about His self - revelation, in the same way that all people believe that the opinions they hold are true.

SeaVik, Seems like you take the Jeffersonian view of scripture — that is, the Bible is true if you first take all the miraculous stuff out of it.

Its presence there, however mistakenly justified, serves as a continuing corrective particularly to ascetic Christian tendencies, and to an otherworldly view of Scripture and biblical faith in general.

I have a very high view of scripture, though I wouldn't consider myself a biblical literalist.

Could it be that you have been experiencing some cognitive dissonance with being a believer and a high view of scripture whilst advocating the pointing finger where the bible here places such action in the same light as oppression.

(Yes... It IS bigotry) When one seeks to deny others the same rights they themselves enjoy, based solely on a very narrow and privileged view of scripture, they become an abuser.

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.

Does this view of Scripture make it frustrating to «debate» with other Christians, which can often lead to verse slinging?

I believe that in time, this will become the prominent view of Scripture.

No less however, does the anti-Calvinist infect their view of Scripture, because the whole concept of election is repugnant to the human mind.

You further dismissed that there could possibly be any scholarship that might disagree with your particular view of scripture as mere «rationalizing».

They have a similar sociological background, a high view of scripture, a passion for evangelism and church planting, a vision for the future.

Calvinism has a bias that infects the view of Scripture.

If you truly believe that your view of Scriptures is what is most orthodox, then instead of trying to conk each other over the heads, as brothers and sisters, we should be submitting our orthodoxy to the mercy seat.

In general, this view of the Scriptures has become the common property of the well - informed, but it still remains, in many minds, a mere framework without substantial content.

That's for getting a broad view of Scripture.

While we are on this subject, how is it that those who take a high view of the Scriptures are known to produce less by way of creative biblical interpretation than those who either bracket the question or treat the text as a human document?

But perfectly expressing the sacramental view of scripture is what is said after the lectionary reading in the New Zealand Book of Common Prayer: «Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church.»

I love the Greg has stuck with a high view of Scripture and biblical infallibility (which is related to, but distinct from, inerrancy).

If you hold to an inerrant / literal view of scripture, you create huge problems for your faith in reconciling certain inconsistences.

A more conservative party of feminists attempts to offer new exegesis of traditional passages while maintaining an older view of the Scriptures.

They view God as capable of supernatural intervention in our lives; hence, they have no difficulty affirming the miracles described in the Bible and they hold to a fairly literal view of scripture.

The determinative feature of the view of Scripture conveyed in this tradition is found in a seldom articulated «suppressed premise» grounded not so much in exegesis as in the rationalist and scholastic tendencies of post-Reformation orthodoxy.

These institutions were founded self - consciously to perpetuate a view of Scripture very close to Lindsell's.

This a priori leads rather directly to an immediacy and absoluteness of inspiration which, despite Lindsell's protests to the contrary, result in a «dictation» view of inspiration and ultimately to a «docetic» view of Scripture in which the human element is present (supposedly!)

At the same time Wright is no woolly liberal — he maintains a high view of scripture, doctrine and sexual ethics, and wants to see people converted to Christ.

Week by week she fought for an evangelical view of scripture, in spite of the liberal disposition of her tutors, having to work harder than her fellow students in order to defend her position in one - to - one tutorials.

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

No, this view of Scripture doesn't help, because if Scripture is read in such a light, we are nowhere nearer to the «true truth» than we were before we read a single word.

«The Bible Made Impossible» shows how the traditional view of Scripture is can not provide the accurate and authoritative truth which it promised.

The problem with these elders are a narrow minded view of scripture, but the issue is in their stubborness, not in the scriptures.

In fact, one can defend a high view of Scripture without recourse to the term «inerrancy» as I shall argue in this chapter.

This is not to adopt a «low» view of Scripture or an «uninformed» approach to theology.

Clark Pinnock, in a perceptive paper entitled «The Inerrancy Debate Among the Evangelicals,» warns that men like Francis Schaeffer and Harold Lindsell «tend to confuse the high view of Scripture with their own interpretation of it, so that unless one agrees with their reading of the text he may be described as an unsound evangelical or no evangelical at all.

Then when I say I don't agree with their view of scripture,...

He's entitled to that opinion, of course, but I do wish he would stop accusing Christians who don't interpret Genesis 1 as a literal, scientific text as having a «low view of Scripture» when his piece reveals that his own literalism is as selective as the next guy's.

Seeing such divergence as evidence against Christianity is based upon the Protestant - Islamic view of scripture (and in any case the gap is gradually closing).

I have a high view of Scripture and the Spirit.