Sentences with phrase «views on scripture»

Of course their views on scripture are as fallible as anyone elses.

I only defend my own, which includes my views on scripture.

Again, if you've got an ally here, it's me, it sounds like you and I have similar views on Scripture and in theology; and I'm not trying to attack you; I'm just trying to offer some constructive criticism: the tactic you seem to have chosen does not seem to me to be a very effective one if your goal is to persuade people to change their opinion.

Not exact matches

This being said, when gay and lesbians want to promote their views as normal or that would be permissible for a priest or bishop to be a practising homosexual, I disagree based on the clear statements of Scripture.

And since some 40 % of scripture regarding alcohol has a positive view on drinking it, then i don't see a problem here (as opposed to the 10 % that is against drinking and the 50 % that is neutral).

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.

Though this is the most common view of these chapters, there are numerous clues left by the text itself, by the surrounding context, and by other passages in Scripture which indicate that something else is going on in the flood account.

So in looking at the Scripture passages on baptism, we will first try to determine in context what kind of immersion or re-identification is in view.

Again, other Christians do this with our favorite beliefs: We'll claim our views are wholly based on scripture, but in fact our favorite proof - texts are cherry - picked, and least - favorites are dismissed, wholly based on our theology.

Greg Boyd's view on the violence of God in Scripture sounds shockingly similar to the view I have been writing about on this blog.

At the same time, when proposing an alternate understanding, we must never accuse those who believe in the traditional view of believing in «Scripture plus tradition» while we believe in «the Bible alone» for even a «new view» is based in some way on previous traditions, and as soon as it is taught, becomes a tradition itself.

So David, did you read the link on «Tahrif» — were you aware of this pejorative way orthodox Islam (and even much of moderate Islam) views Christian and Jewish scripture?

(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.

it has often bothered me that two devout Spirit - filled Christians can have opposing views on the same scriptures.

Although, the various orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy have different views about the nature of Vedic revelation, they accept the authority of the Vedas and claim that that their thinking is based on these scriptures.

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.

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.

This has a bit of merit from Scripture (depending on how you understand Abraham's bosom in Luke 16:19 - 31, and the statement in 1 Peter 3:19 about how Jesus preached to the spirits in prison), but again, this view is highly speculative.

In Part 2, Christians Smith goes on to provide three suggestions for helping us view, read, and study the Bible in a way that allows for the complexity of Scripture while maintaining its authoritative role in our lives.

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.

Some Christians might believe this, but it is not explicitly taught in Scripture, and there are many other views on how the «atonement» worked and what the death of Jesus accomplished.

Your view is based on a deliberate perversion of scripture.

Our denominations are built on views and decisions made by human beings and we cling to those decisions claiming we're clinging to Scripture.

I thought straight away this is a joke as scriptures tell us only the father knows the time of his sons return and hes keeping it to himself he hasnt even told his son yet.Mark 13:32 This a mystery isnt God all knowing and isnt Jesus God it is a mystery.Yet I like that that is the case because it proves that the father is not the son and the son is not the father they are separate yet they are one just like the holy spirit.I have come across denominations that believe the father son and holy spirit are the one person i asked them how they can say that when Jesus was baptized we see 3 separate persons.We have enough information to know that we are in the last days the signs are present and increasing.Ever since Israel became a nation the countdown has begun.The verse the enemy will come like a thief in the night i have heard preached many times and i believe the preachers have got it wrong because they preach it from the view for the church to get there act together or you will miss out.This view is incorrect because if you are a born again believer following him in obedience and relying on the holy spirit you are not walking in darkness but are walking in the light so you will not be caught unaware as those who are sleeping this is a warning for those who are sleeping or walking according to the flesh they are in darkness.Remember the 10 wise virgins the ones who were alert and keep refilling there lamps went in with the bride those who slept were left behind and so it will be when the Lord returns.Now is the time to prepare our hearts and lives to be ready for his return.It is an exciting time to be living and we are to live in the expectation that the Lord could return at any time brentnz

you believers babble on about nothing, get angry when non-Christians tell you your «scriptures» or your view of what Jesus (supposedly) said mean nothing to us.

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?

In my own teaching of theology I find it best to use, rather than a single textbook with a single point of view, a reader which presents several angles of interpretation on specifics and on the whole because it forces students confronting a plurality of systems to decide for themselves what the Scriptures say.

Women in the Church representative Sally Barnes articulates a view shallow on scripture and steeped on popular political correctness.

My constant purpose was and is to adumbrate on every subject I handle a genuinely canonical interpretation of Scripture - a view that in its coherence embraces and expresses the thrust of all the biblical passages and units of thought that bear on my theme - a total, integrated view built out of biblical material in such a way that, if the writers of the various books knew what I had made of what they taught, they would nod their heads and say that I had got them right.

One can lay out all the evidence and build (and have built) an airtight case against every single religion on Earth past and present, but still believers will not budge from their point of view, even when presented with the lies and contradictions in the very scriptures they they base their beliefs on.

It is based on us seeing scripture from COMPLETELY different points of view.

You won't agree with his conclusions, his take on various passages, his theology of God, or his morals, but you will learn to view Scripture in a new light — the unadulterated, unprocessed Bible which God has given to us.

It's easy for people who are more liberal on this issue to claim the pastoral high ground (indeed, Chalke's piece is partly pastorally motivated), but that ignores many who will be hurt to read his change of view, and what they will regard as a sharp shift from scripture.

Since we are bombarded daily by the mass media with news and views on the economy and economic policies, it is necessary to be trained to demythologize the claimed orthodoxies of economists, academics, policy makers and media programmes, as it is necessary to be able to demythologize the stories of the scriptures.

Please don't listen to these people on here they have so many different views and ideas of their own but don't listen to them they have closed their heart to God and are doing Satans work of misleading people away from the Almighty they look for men who like to have their ears tickled so don't take mine our anyone else's word for it look it up for your self history attests to the bible as true and The writings of Moses is far older than anything they have ever found thats right Moses wrote the first parts in the bible 3,500 years ago The scriptures weren't inspired by Pagan stories Pagan stories was inspired by actual events just like those in the bible because if you notice that a lot of the stories found in the bible have a lot to do about people worshipping false Gods.

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.

In another editorial he argues that the church should promote such concrete programs as Social Security, Medicare, the Jobs Corps, and the massive attack on the intolerable slums of our great cities.35 These are concrete applications of Scripture's moral principles, viewed in light of contemporary social and economic reality.

Lindsell, in his book The Battle for the Bible, contends that the Bible itself and the history of the Christian church support a view of inspiration that insists on the inerrancy of the autographs of Scripture in every detail of chronology, geography, astronomy, measurement, and the like, even when such details are incidental to the central intent of the passage.»

For Beasley, who left TEC in the early 1990s, it was liberal views on homosexuality — though he downplays that now and emphasizes issues of scripture and doctrine.

Much of how we view scripture and see Jesus and react to the Word is based on how we see Jesus and his attributes and God side as he walked this earth.

And for this reason, the question of whether this view is correct or not shouldn't be argued on the basis of conformity with the church tradition but on the basis of Scripture, reason and experience.

He has a take on angels, Satan, and demons which I have never heard before, and which seems to fit the biblical text in a way that, if true, would cause me to read much of Scripture in a whole different way, and which would cause me to view life, and governments, and cities, and politics, and animals, and plants and pretty much everything in a whole new way also.

One can lay out all the evidence and build (and have built) an airtight case against every single religion on Earth past and present, but still believers will not budge from their point of view, even when presented with the lies and contradictions in the very scriptures they base their beliefs on.

But the normativeness of Scripture should still take seriously the reality of a spectrum of other views among listeners, ranging from the Bible as an imprimatur on the preached word to the biblical text as having little inherent authority (Allen).

On draws attention to the fact that the introduction of typography in many ways helped produce the modern age (8 - 9) and contributed to the Protestant Reformation's view of Scripture (265 - 74).

When there is a such a wide array of opinions and beliefs on what a particular passage means, and there is very little chance for the average student of Scripture to gain clarity or certainty on which view is right, most people think «Why even try?»

However, if they truly want to bridge the gap, I would suggest that they remain neutral (which, considering their view of scripture, would mean remain silent) on the issue of celibacy vs. gay marriage.

I have some recommendations on books representing, in my view, good and sober theology about the Holy Spirit, får from Benny Hinn, close to Scripture.

What I gather from that is that there exists a fundamental difference in how we view God and that in turn affects how we interpret Scripture and where we fall on the Side A / Side B debate.

In the first two parts of this series (part 1, part 2) I've hopefully responded to Bell's view of God and judgment with a faithful reliance on the Scriptures.