Sentences with phrase «what calvin»

That is LeBron James, Greatest Basketball Player on the Planet (and perhaps Greatest Basketball Player in History of Mankind), expressing all - caps wonder at what Calvin Johnson can do on a football field.

What Calvin likes to call the historia evangelica (the «gospel story») functions as a lens that focuses a picture: in it the true image of God is presented, and through it God can be recognized everywhere else.

This is exactly what Calvin sees happening to Jesus on the cross, as he bore the penalties that were due to us.

That is, we learn what the Apostle Paul, for example, wanted to say in his letters by precisely the same method we learn what Calvin or Cicero wanted to say in theirs.

Calvinist like to talk as if Luther could be incorporated into their system by having Luther as «one of the reformers», but Lutherans (we did not chose the name, nor do we follow what Luther says, but what the confessions say) have some very big problems with what Calvin and Zwingli, etc. have to say.

When, years later, I found Calvin declaring that every Christian experiences the inward witness of the Holy Spirit to the divine authority of Scripture, (2) I rejoiced to think that, without ever having heard a word on this subject, I had long known exactly what Calvin was talking about — as by God's mercy I still do.

When sinners try to construct out of these fragments a natural theology that points to the true God, they succeed only in assembling a picture of what Calvin called an idol, a deity who is not really God but only a cheap substitute for the real thing.

This theology has led to a deeper understanding of what Calvin knew and rejoiced in — God's use of signs to accommodate himself to our capacities.

Here's what Calvin Ayre, one of the world's first online gambling entrepreneur - billionaires said last September: «The single biggest positive development in online gambling over the past decade has been the invention of bitcoin.

Not exact matches

By the time Paul Clark and Frye's husband come out, it's about 9:30 a.m. «Services like Calvin's is what keeps families together,» says Shelia Clark.

Every kid who has ever laughed at a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip has probably imagined what it would be like to be friends with the mischievous boy and his stuffed tiger.

I have no allegiance to John Calvin, one positive contribution he did make was expounding upon what is known as the doctrines of grace, i.e. the 5 points of Calvinism.

Yes, I truly don't understand why men who claim to be born - again Christians spend YEARS studying the volumes of Calvin (which is simply what a very evil man thought of the Bible), when Jesus Himself said that the Holy Spirit would teach us all things.

I have read Dave Hunts «What Love is This» and David Clouds «Calvinism Debate» and some of Calvin's institutes.

Usually, if you disagree with a Calvinist on the meaning of a particular Bible verse, rather than deal with the exegetical evidence that was prevented about the verse, they will say that your understanding is wrong, because it disagrees with what John Calvin, John Piper, or John MacArthur teaches (or some other Calvinist).

Yet tensions erupted in 1538 over what both Farel and Calvin came to see as Geneva's excessive dependence upon Berne.

What captures Jones's theological imagination is Calvin's riveting descriptions of sin's power to assault a human being «from the outside in,» co-opting the self's resources and eventually destroying the self's integrity.

On occasion I have come into contact with those Christians (and I do beleive them to be Christians) who feel that CALVINISM must be the truth from Scripture... and they look at me with what amounts to almost sorrow when I tell them that I have no time for Mr. Calvin and his «Institutes»... here are just a few reasons why:

Here is what Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, and Calvin had to say about those passages.

A man may be an expert able to pass an examination on all Christologies ancient and modern, but the real question is not what Jesus Christ meant to Irenaeus or Origen, Anselm or Aquinas, Luther or Calvin, Ritschl or Macleod Campbell, Barth or Aulen, but: «What does the Gospel mean to you?&rawhat Jesus Christ meant to Irenaeus or Origen, Anselm or Aquinas, Luther or Calvin, Ritschl or Macleod Campbell, Barth or Aulen, but: «What does the Gospel mean to you?&raWhat does the Gospel mean to you?»

Say what you will about Calvin's theology, he was not for sale.

I mean, John Calvin really seem to enjoy torturous methods to get people to fall in line, and in his later years, Martin Luther seemed to be quite literally stark raving mad judging by some of what he wrote.

The sacraments, as Luther, Calvin and Wesley knew, are what God makes of them.

Either the doxological core of what makes a congregation will be subordinated to information communication (preaching as lecturing: «What John Calvin thought about this text was...»), to moralizing, and to posturing («See, this is how to perform the liturgy with real ritual expertise&raquwhat makes a congregation will be subordinated to information communication (preaching as lecturing: «What John Calvin thought about this text was...»), to moralizing, and to posturing («See, this is how to perform the liturgy with real ritual expertise&raquWhat John Calvin thought about this text was...»), to moralizing, and to posturing («See, this is how to perform the liturgy with real ritual expertise»).

(And conversely, what do you appreciate most about Calvin?)

For those who didn't know much about Calvin, what are your initial impressions from this brief account?

Here, for example, is what John Calvin wrote about Genesis 12:1 - 3:

What do you wish the rest of us knew about Reformed theology that's bigger than just Calvin, Five Points, etc?

Not only that, but you assume that Calvin was the bearer of all truth, but you and the rest of his followers can't even all agree on what that exactly was, so that makes each Calvin follower equally wrong, all based on the ramblings of a random religious agitator who lived centuries ago.

I think John Calvin was more of a mystic than what many know of him today.

Calvin asked whether human beings have a natural knowledge of God (his answer was yes); whether they can arrange what they know from nature into an intelligible pattern known as natural theology (his answer was no); and whether redeemed — and only redeemed — human beings can construct a legitimate theology of nature by reclaiming nature as a useful source of the true knowledge of God (his answer was yes).

On the other hand, Calvin offers what is probably a better account of the role actually played by intelligent design among its advocates.

If our notion of free will is the ability to chose to do what is good without the impediments of desire, fear or ignorance, then Calvin is right.

I suppose I should admit what I haven't read: Calvin's Institutes, Barth's Dogmatics, Tillich's Systematic Theology.

how energetically Calvin, having first established what stands in the text, sets himself to re-think the whole material and to wrestle with it, till the walls which separate the sixteenth century from the first become transparent!

What the Reformation ends up with is not a God whose very Nature is Unconditional Love; but a Father God whose Love can never be immediately experienced by the believer; but only through a scape - goated Son cruelly sacrificed in our stead — Calvin's Cosmic Bully!

Calvinists can not be drawn beyond what was revealed and imparted to Calvin.

It is true, perhaps, that Calvin was guilty of deciding prior to his interaction with the wider culture what was to be considered Christian truth.

Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree (Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiii.7).

Her theological inspirations include John Calvin, Serene Jones, Oscar Romero, Teresa of Avila, and the countless everyday theologians who ask questions and «ponder anew what the Almighty can do».

In defining what we understand the word «evangelical» to signify, I adopt the perspective of Luther and Calvin as they interpret the New Testament through the ecumenical creeds and the influence of Augustine.

Coolidge There has been a rush to resurrect Calvin Coolidge as the antithesis of Obama, but one should be a bit careful what one wishes for.

John Calvin similarly interpreted the concept of original sin so that what we inherit becomes prominent.

But Calvin rejects this, because «they think the whole course of Christ's kingdom is here described,» but instead God is showing to the prophet «what should happen up to the first advent of Christ.»

And it was this doctrine, in turn based on the doctrine of justification by faith, which made it possible for Luther and Calvin to say what it means to live the Christian life of service to the God of love in the midst of the tragic necessities of this world.16

Pinsky and Riess have written what amount to commentaries that are not unlike scholars» commentaries on books of the Bible or on Aquinas's Summa or Calvin's Institutes.

This is also where we differ from Calvin in regards to sacraments and what they mean and what they give.

When I read about Calvin and others ideas on what Gods Word says, the Arminian, Lytheran, Wesleyan, Unitarian and various Church denominations and their interpretations, particularly when they hang their whole idea on one part of the Bible to prove how right they are, it affirms what I have always thought since before I was saved by God as well as after that amazing act of grace on His part, that man values and honors the mind far above the heart.

Calvin understood that doubt was a part of the faith experience, because human nature itself finds ideas about God and His goodness so outside of what we can understand: «For unbelief is so deeply rooted in our hearts, and we are so inclined to it, that not without hard struggle is each one able to persuade himself of what all confess with the mouth: namely, that God is faithful.»

Calvin thought the Institutes had «so embraced the sum of religion in all its parts, and... arranged it in such an order, that if anyone rightly grasps it, it will not be difficult for him to determine what he ought especially to seek in Scripture, and to what end he ought to relate its contents.»