Sentences with phrase «with biblical calls»

Not exact matches

Sadly, in this day and age, when someone with proper Biblical understanding tries to educate others about matters of faith, it's called hate mongering, intolerance, bigotry, etc..

America has gone insane, and Biblical literalism, fundamentalist Christianity, call it whatever you like, IMO, has a lot to do with it.

In modern societies, Weber argued, the biblical God must compete with worldly gods such as aesthetic experience, material success, nationalistic fervor, erotic pleasure, and the many other forms of self - transcendence and this - worldly immortality that call out to our inner demons.

Host of a nationally syndicated radio program and author of multiple best - selling books, Ramsey targets evangelical Christians with what he calls a «biblical» approach to financial planning, one that focuses primarily on the elimination of consumer debt.

O Holy Night, like so many of our advent songs, is beautiful, yes, but it's also prophetic and subversive, protesting with what C.S. Lewis called «biblical imagination.»

This is why I conducted so many interviews — with an Orthodox Jewish woman, an Amish family, and a woman in a polygamist marriage, a daughter of the Quiverfull movement, etc. (The fact that the organization through which I contacted the polygamist family is called «Biblical Families» reveals just how loaded the word «biblical» Biblical Families» reveals just how loaded the word «biblical» biblical» can be!)

I'm looking to eventually teach theology, but in between my personal studies, an obsessive reading habit, and spending far too much money on coffee, I started a blog called New Ways Forward as an outlet for some of my random thoughts and a way to interact with others who share a passion for theology, Biblical studies, and social justice.

Sure, there are some extra-loud voices calling for women to conform themselves to narrowly defined roles that have more to do with an idealized conception of pre-feminist America than with actual «biblical womanhood,» but I believe these cries represent the last desperate throes of a dying movement.

Surely it is with this understanding of Jesus» call that we are to read such difficult biblical passages as Colossians 3:22, which bids slaves be obedient to their masters, as though they were obeying Christ himself.

Combining the beauty of what he calls the «true gospel» with a biblical orthodoxy that will inescapably mark Christians as «strange,» Moore holds forth on the charged issues defining the 21st century.

All religious reality begins with the acceptance of the concrete situation as given one by the Giver, and it is this which Biblical religion calls the «fear of God.»

Those in that wing emphasize numbers, the SCBF charges, above faithfulness, are obsessed with bigness, use celebrities to draw a crowd, employ worldly music, destroy small fundamentalist programs for the sake of their «Super-church» and electronic empires, share platforms with nonfundamentalists, say «Whatever will get a crowd I will do it,» and then call the «biblical fundamentalist» a «nit - picker.»

In biblical times, the Jews expected a messiah who would come with flaming sword, conquering and to conquer, calling down the hosts of heaven to destroy all who did not bear the mark of God's elect, thereby purifying and clearing the earth for God's Kingdom.

Call it what you want, it is just more media hype to promote a new, imminently forthcoming book with shoddy Biblical and archaeological scholarship or historical accuracy.

The structure of the report, combined with these explicit statements, indicates clearly that what is called for is biblical hermeneutics.

What else are we to conclude when a man without any biblical training or calling from the Spirit is considered more qualified to preach the gospel by virtue of being a man than a woman with extensive training, years of practice, remarkable giftedness, and a profound sense of calling?

My problems with this book are the same problems I have with nearly all books about biblical criticism: I believe the presuppositions of most of those who engage in biblical criticism are inherently flawed, and as a result, short - circuit the creative thinking that is necessary to discover solutions to the so - called problems in the biblical text.

As business / charitable activities has led me into relationships with the Eastern Orthodox Church, Father P ***, Bish S **** introduced as Father («call no man father») as well as church leaders I see very ill informed laiety (some exceptions), with a biblical worldview supplanted by a cultural denominational world view.The concept of Grace is overwhelmed by works, sacraments, membership.

The Decade has pointed this out repeatedly to the churches - first that the veneer of silence with which violence against women is dealt with is a moral failure of the Church and secondly that outrageous biblical and theological legitimizations of violence, calling into question the authority and power of the church, as a moral community.

The vast majority of biblical prophecy is concerned with calling God's people back to a proper obedience to God.

For this reason they have retrenched into what Berkouwer calls «a biblicist misinterpretation of the church's dealings with Scripture and its confession 6 Interpretations have seemed to lead in questionable directions — directions which either have moved away from traditional Biblical consensus or have disputed current cultural analysis.

The movie's so - called sex scenes are throwaways, and, ironically, it presents biblical material with the literal - mindedness of a fundamentalist preacher from Oklahoma.

To turn now to my suggestions about reconception, I must begin with a refutation of the sharp distinction, often proposed by those who call themselves biblical theologians, between what are said to be the Jewish and the Hellenistic views of history.

after much thinking the calts called the Denisova the Elves (the children o Danu) and the Neanderthal the Fomorii (children of Danu) we were hums (the children of MIll) in their mythological text making the pretanic religion older and with a biblical story of the creation making them closer to the true religion,... what the mahabharata is an older text what the book of Tets has an even older creation

Bonhoeffer maintains that the Biblical understanding of God directs us to a powerless and suffering God who is with us and who calls us to share his suffering for the sake of the world.

«All religious reality begins with what the Biblical religion calls the «Fear of God.»

In the third paragraph I, upfront, indicated my bias as to what I believe is the Biblical precedence which is that fallen mankind has the inherent - free - will capacity to accept or reject God's call / drawing, commands, instructions, teachings, promises and gifts which biased my interpretation of John 6:25 - 71 — and my interpretation indicates that section of Scripture can be understood (interpreted) to be consistent with the precedence I mentioned.

The alleged subordination of the gospel to Karl Marx is illustrated, for example, by charging that «false» liberation theology concentrates too much on a few selected biblical texts that are always given a political meaning, leading to an overemphasis on «material» poverty and neglecting other kinds of poverty; that this leads to a «temporal messianism» that confuses the Kingdom of God with a purely «earthly» new society, so that the gospel is collapsed into nothing but political endeavor; that the emphasis on social sin and structural evil leads to an ignoring or forgetting of the reality of personal sin; that everything is reduced to praxis (the interplay of action and reflection) as the only criterion of faith, so that the notion of truth is compromised; and that the emphasis on communidades de base sets a so - called «people's church» against the hierarchy.

Both sides, however, have been coming to a growing appreciation of each other's concerns, with mainline denominations placing more emphasis on biblical hermeneutics and theological conservatives sounding the call to contextualize theology.

The call of Walter Wink is for followers of Jesus to return to a proper and biblical understanding of the powers that are around us, in us, and through us, and which share creation with us.

The problem with calling things Biblical is that it means nothing to non believers.

The only thing that would put us in «good standing» with the ex-gay and similar folk would be to admit we are gay and always will be («reparative» therapy doesn't work and denial ends in repression taking the form of promiscuity), and most of us aren't called to celibacy (in the only Biblical sense of the term, as Jesus makes reference to and Paul discusses at length).

so - called «critical» scholarship — especially the biblical variety, with its ideological stridencies — I am, more.

His criticisms of the technological mindset are powerful and convincing, and his calls for a spirit of «waiting» and «harkening» chime with a biblical view of man in relation to God, allowing post-Christians to evoke a theological sensibility without appealing to theology.

Speaking on a conference call with far - right pastor Rick Scarborough, Gohmert warned listeners that the nation could be coming «toward the end of [its] existence,» as evidenced by its leaders and citizens allegedly neglecting to remain true to biblical teachings.

An interview with Catholic Islamologist Michel Cuypers earlier this year with Il Regno, has highlighted this and that today a growing number of Islamic scholars are calling for modern Biblical - like exegesis.

Have you come across anything about it being acceptable for so - called «godly» men to beat their wives when their wives are not perceived as being «submissive» in accordance with so - called «biblical» principles?

More especially, it has to do with the enterprise known as «de-mythologization», in relation to what the father of that enterprise calls existenzialinterpretation of the biblical material and most importantly of the material that has to do with the kerygma or the Christian gospel to which faith is a response.

Participate in the «Stay Woke» movement, which invites participants to reflect and act on the lectionary readings from Advent with visual art, literary and biblical reflections, music, podcasts, calls to action, and more.

When the writings of Wallis and other evangelicals long associated with the Christian left (yes, there was an organization called «Evangelicals for McGovern») are offered up as a «radical biblical way that transcends the highly politicized agendas» of the Christian right and the PC left, one can't help but think that the whole thing is more than a little disingenuous.

But Tillich's acknowledgment of the fundamental difference between what he calls «God» and his understanding of the biblical God implicitly, at least, gives support to my assertion that this use of philosophy is in severe tension with biblical faith.

Confronted with this kind of reality, our present concern calls for a perspective on baptism which differs from the more usual biblical or theological approaches.

They argue that a truly biblical and Trinitarian understanding of God is compatible with, and calls for, a metaphysical approach that makes use of philosophical concepts.

There are problems with the conclusions drawn by many of the archeologists and so - called Biblical scholars.

And what biblical scholars have called literary criticism — source analysis, the search for the author and his intention, redaction criticism as usually practiced (with some recent exceptions), etc. — are really forms of historical criticism.

For us as Americans, Locke's ambiguity may have been fortunate, for it allowed biblical Christianity and classical republicanism to coexist with what we might call radical liberalism, that is, secular atomistic individualism.

That biblical story is the bedrock of my faith and the faith of my church, and always I, with my church, am called to hear that history and respond to it, pass it on and live by its promise.

While it is true that these issues have occasioned much controversy in American politics and that we ought to engage civilly and respectfully with those who dissent from Christian teachings, it is not true that God might or might not want us to kill unborn babies or that God might or might not call us to live by biblical sexual norms.

Those are not beliefs — not in the biblical sense of the term «belief» — or if they are a form of belief they are disconnected from any relevance to you and I. None of these «so called» beliefs affect much of what you do with your life — knowing about a virgin birth won't give you the tools to be a better parent — these «beliefs» do not function like that — they are more suppositions about the character of God.

Destructive biblical criticism, exemplified for years in the work of the so - called Jesus Seminar, eviscerates the gospel narratives of all theological power and leaves us, at best, with a Jesus made in our own image — political agitator, cynic sage, new age guru, etc..