Sentences with phrase «which human sin»

Not exact matches

The Formula of Concord, which is central to the confessional documents of the Lutheran church, declares that original sin has replaced the image of God in human beings with «a deep, wicked, abominable, bottomless, inscrutable, and inexpressible corruption of his entire nature in all its powers, especially of the highest and foremost powers of the soul in mind, heart, and will.»

Most Western Christians, especially fundamentalists, define what it means to be human by the Original Sin, not the Original Blessing — which is not only unbiblical, but puts the emphasis on the human rather than Divine action.

And as Cheever's confession to Hersey makes clear, the real stress lies more on the human choice between darkness and light than on the sovereignty of God's grace — the divine goodness which must redeem not only our grosser sins but our noblest aspirations as well.

Afterward, many conservatives realized they could show compassion in recognizing the human side and could support the antidiscrimination ordinance without compromising their theological position (viz., that the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin from which persons need to be redeemed).

Well if it's slightly more evidence of the existence of a man outside of Italy in the 1st century who was born of a virgin, died for 3 days before resurrecting himself, then explained he only died because of «original sin» which is the idea that a woman ate magical apple given from a talking snake in a garden at the beginning of time which caused all humans to go to hell when they died.

He is also fully human like us in every way, except for sin (which would make him less than human).

«If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, «Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned» (Rom.

'' If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ... let him be anathema.»

Therefore it is not affected by the profound wounding of human nature caused by the sin of Adam which happened at the origins of our species.

63 When bloody flooding killed the human race And brand - new oceans put man in his place, Except for those who carried mankind's seed, I, first of creatures, snubbed what law decreed, While I mocked yielding to the Lord's command, For which, I think, a poet would declare, «The sin....

Original Sin: A Cultural History by Alan Jacobs HarperOne, 304 pages, $ 24.95 Chesterton said of original sin that it «is the only part of Christian theology that can really be proved»» by which he meant empirically demonstrated in every era, in every culture, and in every human.Sin: A Cultural History by Alan Jacobs HarperOne, 304 pages, $ 24.95 Chesterton said of original sin that it «is the only part of Christian theology that can really be proved»» by which he meant empirically demonstrated in every era, in every culture, and in every human.sin that it «is the only part of Christian theology that can really be proved»» by which he meant empirically demonstrated in every era, in every culture, and in every human....

The finer values are withering away; the vision of a universal human family is vanishing; and Eccelsiastes which tells us: the Lord is full of compassion and mercy... and forgive the sins and saveth in time of affliction is now anathema to those who wield power, accumulate wealth and crave after sensual pleasures.

He belongs to our race, sharing our propensities and temptations, bearing our human responsibilities and enduring our human weakness; yet in him the sin of Everyman, the inward - looking self - centeredness which bars the way to communion with God because it tries to establish and justify itself over against God, is overcome.

This doctrine makes sense for her when we understand the power of sin under which we live as «the power of produced things which dominates humans».32 Such an understanding empowers and directs practice appropriately.

For Lutheran Christians, such despair in face of the universal and radical human predicament can only be overcome through the gospel, which announces forgiveness of sins and redemption of life under the conditions of an ambiguous world chained by sin and death.

It will begin a drama of sin and redemption, from which will emerge also the drama of human politics.

An» «angry Father» [contemplates] the disobedience of man in human sin, decrees to condemn [us] to eternal death... Against which sentence of divine justice the Son interposes Himself... so that in His total sacrifice «the Father is appeased».»

All the acts which I have done expressly to serve thee, and also all the acts which I believe to be neutral and purely human, and also all the acts which I know to be disobedience and sin, I put in thy hands, 0 God, my Lord and Savior; take them now that they are finished; prove them thyself to see which enter into thy work and which deserve only judgment and death; use, cut, trim, reset, readjust, now that it is no longer I who can decide or know, now that what is done is done, what I have written I have written.

Resistance to religion is based on an ineluctable fact of human psychology to which he returns again and again: No one sins without making some excuse to himself for sinning.

The theories of the Atonement so far mentioned are all sometimes called «objective», which is to say that Jesus» death on the cross made an objective factual difference to sin and to human beings» relationship to God.

God doesn't create us in sin; He creates us in the curse, that is, frail and human and (in Pauline terms) «of the flesh» (cf. Rom 7 - 8) but we then act on this frailty and break God's holy law, which, once again, renders us sinful.

Because humans are flawed, some more than others, depending on what has been learned and experienced though out life; also the kinds of sin and wounds we have been exposed to, which determine gateways that give access for evil to dwell in us.

They are not one - dimensional archetypes but people, which means that Lance Armstrong, despite his celebrity, is really one of us — a human being, made in the image of God, marred by sin and living in a broken world.

If we evolved from the lower primates, then when we reached the stage of reflection and conscious choice (when the image of God entered into that line of primates), we made the decision to «sin» — to dominate and to kill in order to serve our own ends, rather than to follow the call of that «image of God» which had entered into the human creature.

Just as ridiculous is the post modern response of «they cant change» - which if true would mean that any addiction or sin would be unchangeable despite the facts humans change all the time and I am NOT speaking of through Christ.

The Three - Fifths Compromise — a moral failure which defined a whole class of human beings as less than persons — was America's original sin the moment it was ratified.

In their book Pentecostalism and the Future of the Churches, Richard Shaull, emeritus professor of ecumenics at Princeton Theological Seminary, and his colleague Waldo Cesar, a Brazilian sociologist, argue that Pentecostalism may represent a new paradigm of salvation in which the problem of human sin and the solution of repentance and forgiveness have been reconfigured along more hopeful, even joyful lines.

Even religions which teach that humans are basically good still recognize that we occassionally sin, and something must be done about this sin.

A claim to human independence is in a way the root of our troubles; in the language of traditional moral theology it is the pride (superbia) which is the root sin of humankind.

As Mrs. Eddy said, «The physical healing of Christian Science results now, as in Jesus» time, from the operation of divine principle, before which sin and disease lose their reality in human consciousness and disappear as naturally and as necessarily as darkness gives place to light and sin to reformation.»

Kierkegaard defends himself against the apparently Pelagian implications of this thought by stressing that even though each individual sins through his own disobedience (sin is not a category of necessity), nevertheless, in this act of disobedience he reveals his solidarity with Adam and Eve and all other persons in history, who together make up the collective human race which, in Adam, stands guilty before God.

In the language of The Concept of Anxiety, she only sees the «quantitative determinations» of sinfulness in human history, without seeing the «qualitative leap into sin,» which is human evasion of God in the present moment in time.

At the human level, there is what we style «sin» — willful choice, with its consequences, of that which is self - centered, regardless of other occasions, content to remain stuck in the present without concern for future possibilities — and this is an obstacle which is like an algebraic surd.

On the other hand the Church developed another view of God and human life in which original sin was the all enveloping condition of human existence, and the ministrations of the Church were essential for salvation and sanctification.

At best it has been regarded as a reluctant concession to human sin and frailty, a painful reminder of our failure to fulfill the exalted standards which God holds for marriage.

But God has some coming here which are NOT reprobates, and it is for them that we come here and share the Gospel of salvation, giving them hope, and preaching the Word of God to convicts human hearts of SIN, RIGHTEOUSNESS and JUDGMENT.

But on the other hand, when in talking about sin one talks only of such sins, it is so easily forgotten that in a way it may be all right, humanly speaking, with respect to all such things up to a certain point, and yet the whole life may be sin, the well - known kind of sin: glittering vices, willfulness, which either spiritlessly or impudently continues to be or wills to be unaware in what an infinitely deeper sense a human self is morally under obligation to God with respect to every most secret wish and thought, with respect to quickness in comprehending and readiness to follow every hint of God as to what His will is for this self.

«The cross, which stands at the centre of the Christian world view, reveals both the seriousness of human sin and the purpose and power of God to overcome it.

First Christianity goes ahead and establishes sin so securely as a position that the human understanding never can comprehend it; and then it is the same Christian doctrine which in turn undertakes to do away with this position so completely that the human understanding never can comprehend it.

This is in part a pagan view which is content with a merely human measure and properly does not know what sin is, that all sin is before God.

Although this is not the place to discuss at greater length the nature of evil, human sin, suffering, death and the relationship between them, they must find mention here for they constitute the chief problems which continually confront man and make him question whether there is any justice or meaning to be found in life.

As humans in a broken sinfilled world we often struggle with «The Desires of The Flesh» found in Galatians 5:16 - 26, which are: «Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,...» Because we are human, but we CAN CHANGE, because Christ forgave us at the cross of EVERY sins as Jeremy states over and over in his message.

Even though Heidegger talks about such human phenomena as «fallenness» (which sounds remarkably like a Christian conception of sin), he repeatedly emphasizes that his account is scientific, not religious.

It is one of the great merits of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought that while he regards the doctrine of «original sin» as a myth which is absurd to reason and necessary to faith, he has given us one of the most astute analyses of the source of sin in human nature which Christian thought has ever achieved.12 His account is this.

The salient features of Niebuhr's doctrine of sin, then, are the universality of sin, sin's existence as an objective fact in human experience, sin's tendency to perpetuate and aggravate itself, a meaningful sense in which there is bondage of the will, and the inability of man to extricate himself from the situation of unbelief.

In doing this he «has given us one of the most astute analyses of the source of sin in human nature which Christian thought has ever achieved.

How in this case man can be said to be free is one of the paradoxes which Niebuhr holds defies rational understanding.11 But if we accept the paradox, while we may say there is an ideal possibility that we could assert our human will to power in history without sinning and thus bring in the Kingdom of love, this is no actual possibility.

Niebuhr's antipathy toward any form of inherited sin reflected his fear that it would mitigate responsibility; hence he writes: «the theory of an inherited second nature is as clearly destructive of the idea of responsibility for sin as rationalistic and dualistic theories which attribute human evil to the inertia of nature» (NDM 262).

Niebuhr's inordinate emphasis on the doctrine of sin derives from the anxiety inherent in the paradox created by the conflict between man's freedom and his tendency toward the prideful self - dependency which is a universal human tendency.

A belief system which blames all of the human sins on your kind... it labels women as property... tells women they should be silent and tells men that do what they wish to you including killing you.