The longing to move out of time (which involves change and so is «bad») into a state of timeless permanence (which is therefore «good»)-- characteristic of most post-Aristotelian philosophy and much contemporary Christianity — is thus seen to have more in common with Platonic dualism than
with biblical witness.
God's immutability has been disputed by the preferability of a divine nature that is open to, and responsive to, new developments, in continuity
with the biblical witness.
It never did fit well
with the Biblical witness, where God is in constant interaction with the creatures and is affected by their decisions — hardly the picture of a God devoid of contingency (see Rice's contribution to Pinnock et al. 11 - 58).
More serious for evangelicals is the fact that these two culturally derived models seem at odds
with the Biblical witness concerning «social justice.»
The other possibility — and the one I believe makes much more sense and is more in accord
with the biblical witness — is that in Jesus the energizing and indwelling activity of God in human creation reaches a climactic stage.
My concern at this juncture is
with the biblical witness itself, as crucial springboard for — and basis for judgment of — subsequent developments in the church's theologizing.
Not exact matches
The subsequent centuries have
witnessed endless conflict over the Christian cultus, but one element in the long development of
Biblical experience and thought concerning fellowship
with God has remained as the common and unifying gain of all — «Thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret.»
From what I understand, evangelicals also value the
biblical witness to the ministry of Jesus and bringing people closer to relationship
with God.
For this reason conservative Christians maintain that if we dispense
with the concept of God as a supernatural being dwelling in heaven, we are rejecting the
biblical witness.
What imperatives for concern
with hunger and poverty are given to the community of faith in the
biblical witness?
But since the New Testament itself contains various kinds of social
witness — as its use both for and against slavery and patriarchy, for example, shows — debate can degenerate into mere thrust and parry of proof - texts
with no possibility of resolution, or of even honest concession that both sides can claim
biblical warrant.
He points out, for example, that while strict Whiteheadian thought does not allow for any «true end (finis) or beginning the
biblical witness, on the contrary, is pervaded throughout its length and breadth
with the concept of a movement of God's grace toward an end that is both teleos and finis» (111).
If our concern is peacemaking — particularly the special urgency given that task by the nuclear threat — then we shall have to come to grips
with those portions of the
biblical witness in which the community of faith has been forced to deal
with the violence and pain of conflict between peoples.
There is an immediate problem
with the two remaining «eyewitnesses,» however and virtually no
biblical scholars think they
witnessed anything.
The twentieth century was destined, however, to
witness a resurgence of interest in
biblical eschatology, and this we shall deal
with in the next chapter.
«One can easily become deaf to
biblical judgement, gradually replacing the presence of the ever - astonishing Christ,
witnessed to in Gospels,
with a closed system of Christology or ideology».
is to understand why the evangelicals could have come to the view that their own emphases were more likely to be conserved and stated
with a more positively
biblical note on such matters as proclamation and
witness by the Roman Catholic Church than by the WCC».16
In my book «American Jesus,» I demonstrated how American views of Jesus, rather than adhering strictly to the unchanging
biblical witness, have shifted
with the cultural and political winds.
Magister went on to point out how rarely we hear of the subject, despite its centrality to the
biblical witness: «In the preaching of Pope Francis,» he wrote, «there is one subject that returns
with surprising frequency: the devil.
He also maintains that
biblical theology should deal
with both the Old Testament and New Testament
witness on a given question and then grapple
with the reality that brought them both forth.
With the modern return of interest in the meaning of history, it has been common for some biblical scholars to recognize the important role that history plays in the Bible, but to limit the Christian's concern with history to those events to which the Bible witnes
With the modern return of interest in the meaning of history, it has been common for some
biblical scholars to recognize the important role that history plays in the Bible, but to limit the Christian's concern
with history to those events to which the Bible witnes
with history to those events to which the Bible
witnesses.
If our concern is peacemaking — particularly the special urgency given that task by the nuclear threat — then we shall have to come to grips
with those portions of the
biblical witness in which the...
The full - blown championing of Greek categories of static supremacy has denied utterly the
biblical witness to a God sublimely interactive
with the cosmic forces God set in motion.
Suddenly Hays electrified the crowd
with the announcement that the Defense wished to call Bryan to the stand «as a
biblical witness.»