Romans 8:6.....What is it getting at.

[Van]

Unsaved can see God in the natural creation, but cannot understand special revelation of scriptures unless illuminated by the Holy Spirit to do such!

God's divine attributes as spiritual things. Thus the bogus claim the lost cannot understand any of the spiritual things is proven to be false doctrine, the sum and substance of Calvinism.

 

[JonC]

Here is a classic John Owen quote to consider:


"I have demonstrated before that all spiritual truth which God has revealed is contained in the Scriptures, and that our true wisdom is based upon spiritual understanding of these Biblical truths. It will, therefore, be granted on all hands that diligent reading of the Scriptures and holy meditation upon them, is of absolute necessity for all aspirants to theology. Sadly, although a good deal of lip-service is paid to this principle, daily experience will show how few there are who really apply themselves to it with due application and a correct frame of mind. For the rest, a neglect of this is not a drawback to their studies but rather a death-blow…

…Perhaps the excuse is that they have immersed themselves in the works of ancient and modern theologians, and so learn from these guides as they painstakingly explain the Scriptures? I do not despise such means. I applaud their diligence. But still this is not to study the Scriptures!
It is one matter to listen to these authorities and a very different matter to read the Bible itself after begging the illuminating aid of the Spirit, through faith in Christ, and to so meditate upon it as to be filled with that Spirit which indicted it and lives in it. What a difference this is to merely looking out through the eyes of other men, however learned and truthful they may be."

—John Owen, Biblical Theology, pp. 694-695.

 

[Iconoclast]

A good quote, but off topic.

 

[JesusFan]

No. They cannot speak at all. We read their works. And we can gain from what we read (we can also mislead ourselves).

God gifted John Owen, John Wesley, and Charles Finney as teachers in the past. But God still gives teachers. God is immutable.

Finney was a heretic

 

[JesusFan]

No, again you misunderstood my post brother.

In theology (and any research) the theologian uses sources that are within 10 years. It is not my rule, but standard practice to ensure theological development is current.

The idea is not novel (as any college graduate, regardless of discipline, can painfully attest).

I am not interested in discussing the standard. I only mentioned it in passing because it emphasizes the importance to rely on contemporary research as applying antiquated sources can be very problematic.

More to the point - if one cannot understand Scripture without reading Owen then one simply does not understand Scripture. They only hold a borrowed faith.

The proper way is to read Scripture, prayerfully, without commentary and form an opinion. Consider what the passage means in its own context (not 17th century Puritanism). What are the similarities and differences between the original audience and ourselves? What are the principles taught? What was the passage itself communicating?

After that is worked out then consider the beliefs of other men - not to adopt their views but to understand then, the context in which those men wrote, their worldviews and ideologies, etc. Then weigh what they have written against Scripture. Consider their points against your own.

But don't reach back a few centuries to apply their understanding to your situation.

You have criticized my use of Biblical Theology, but I do believe that is where we must begin.

Ask yourself how you like up with the passage. Are you setting your mind on the flesh, which is death (insulting, strife, etc.) or on the Spirit, which is life (kindness, love, gentleness, patience)?

First things have to come first. Afterwards consider the opinions of men.

I do not agree with all of their theology, but you would be very hard pressed to give to us current versions of a Calvin or Gill!

 

[JesusFan]

JonC,


Any one who has actually read John Owen knows how he takes a long time to exhaustively teach on a topic. You have made claims that He is not relevant today, and I have noticed you have failed to engage any portion of what he wrote??? No, I do not think your claims are consistent. Any who read Owen would know what was coming.
Why do you seek to turn every thread into"the thoughts of JonC"?

Those reading want to see and consider these ideas and verses offered, yes even before your "10 year curfew".
Start your thread, present your thoughts and see how many view it!

Its not just Owen, as pretty much any writer on scripture back then was very :long winded", due to them being really exhaustive in their regards to understanding the scriptures, not like the fluff pienes of a Joel Olsteen today!

 

[JonC]

A good quote, but off topic.

Not really. Since we introduced Owen it is only fitting to understand from Owen how he would have his words taken.

 

[JonC]

Its not just Owen, as pretty much any writer on scripture back then was very :long winded", due to them being really exhaustive in their regards to understanding the scriptures, not like the fluff pienes of a Joel Olsteen today!

Language is a lost art.

 

[JonC]

I do not agree with all of their theology, but you would be very hard pressed to give to us current versions of a Calvin or Gill!

In terms of scholarship, not really. You just have to look. We are, as a "Christian" culture flooded with shallow opinions. But there are still some very good theologians and Christian thinkers (even if we wouldn't agree with all they say).

People like dead writers for several reasons. One is perhaps the fact they are not here to clarify their writings or to engage contemporary circumstances.

 

[JesusFan]

God's divine attributes as spiritual things. Thus the bogus claim the lost cannot understand any of the spiritual things is proven to be false doctrine, the sum and substance of Calvinism.

So you still disagree with the Apostle Paul on this?

 

[JesusFan]

In terms of scholarship, not really. You just have to look. We are, as a "Christian" culture flooded with shallow opinions. But there are still some very good theologians and Christian thinkers (even if we wouldn't agree with all they say).

People like dead writers for several reasons. One is perhaps the fact they are not here to clarify their writings or to engage contemporary circumstances.

Who would you see as being as theologically astute as those men were then?

 

[JonC]

Who would you see as being as theologically astute as those men were then?

He passed away in the 60's, but the Reformed theologian Karl Barth was perhaps more astute. Paul Tillich was at least as astute (he passed, I think a few years before Barth).

There's Story, Lochman,

Today N.T. Wright, another Reformed theologian, is perhaps more astute (even if we disagree with some of his doctrines). There is also Wolfes, Lyons, Bowker, Schäfer, Christopher Hall, Bolt, Muller, Ferguson, Packed, Rowland, . . . The list goes on.

God has given our times with many scholars and theologians just as gifted as Owen's, Hill, Wesley, and Calvin.

 

[Van]

So you still disagree with the Apostle Paul on this?

Calvinism disagrees with Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Jude, and the author of Hebrews.

 

[Silverhair]

Van stop posting your made-up Greek translations on here, it shows your ignorance of the language!

here is the verse, now show how you get "mind set on the" from?

τὸ γὰρ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς θάνατος, τὸ δὲ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη·

Rom 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
Rom 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, NASB

Rom 8:6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace;
Rom 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. NIV 1984

Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. ESV

Notice, SBG, that different bibles translate the Greek differently but all convey the same thought. Your comment to Van was unwarranted an you should apologize.

 

[kyredneck]

Notice, SBG, that different bibles translate the Greek differently but all convey the same thought. Your comment to Van was unwarranted an you should apologize.

@SavedByGrace likes to show off his ability to copy and paste Greek text to this site. It's very impressive. Never mind that it's 'Greek' to most of us, he just wants us to know that he can do that.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Rom 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
Rom 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, NASB

Rom 8:6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace;
Rom 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. NIV 1984

Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. ESV

Notice, SBG, that different bibles translate the Greek differently but all convey the same thought. Your comment to Van was unwarranted an you should apologize.

when YOU know Greek grammar for YOUSELF, come on here and post!

 

[JesusFan]

He passed away in the 60's, but the Reformed theologian Karl Barth was perhaps more astute. Paul Tillich was at least as astute (he passed, I think a few years before Barth).

There's Story, Lochman,

Today N.T. Wright, another Reformed theologian, is perhaps more astute (even if we disagree with some of his doctrines). There is also Wolfes, Lyons, Bowker, Schäfer, Christopher Hall, Bolt, Muller, Ferguson, Packed, Rowland, . . . The list goes on.

God has given our times with many scholars and theologians just as gifted as Owen's, Hill, Wesley, and Calvin.

Barth seemed to teach Universalism though, Tillich more new age then christian, and NT Wright right on resurrection of Christ, dead wrong on Pauline Justification!

 

[SavedByGrace]

@SavedByGrace likes to show off his ability to copy and paste Greek text to this site. It's very impressive. Never mind that it's 'Greek' to most of us, he just wants us to know that he can do that.

dude, why don't you prove that I am wrong then? IF you can! There are many instances that the Bible translations get it WRONG!

 

[JesusFan]

Calvinism disagrees with Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Jude, and the author of Hebrews.

Would say we agree with all of the inspired writers!

 

[SavedByGrace]

KJV, "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."

NKJV, "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace"

AJKV, "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace"

Webster, "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace"

Tyndale, "To be carnally mynded is deeth. But to be spiritually mynded is lyfe and peace"

Bishops, "To be carnally mynded, is death: But to be spiritually mynded, is lyfe & peace"

Heweis, "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace"

Worsley, "Now to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace"

Lasma, "To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace"

Godbey, "for the mind of depravity is death: and the mind of the Spirit is life and peace"