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

you mean Finney is in hell?

 

read #140 and apologise to me!

 

read #140 and apologise to me!

 

The Greek noun, "φρόνημα" is cognate to the verb "φρονέω", in verse 5, where it is rendered “do mind”. The idea here includes choice, or engrosement, towards something. It is not the Greek noun "νοῦς", which is "mind". So the readings as in the KJV, etc, are more accurate to what the Greek is actually saying!

 

you are just RUDE and ARROGANT!. The Church sadly has many like you!

 

Don't be so arrogant. It just shows that you are insecure.

G5427 φρόνημα to think, have a mind set. The tendency or inclination of the mind, its bent. WSD
The Complete Word Study Dictionary Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D.

If your a native born Greek then you have some standing but I do not think that you are but Spiros Zodhiates was. I do not have to read Greek to be able to use a dictionary. I know that will surprise you but it is true none the less. Context is what guides us to the proper words to use in the sentence.

 

Read this and don't expect me to apologize for pointing out something I think you need to hear.

 

I have read ALL these versions, now show that what I have said in #144, to be wrong!

 

'RUDE' often gets it's point across when other avenues fail.

 

Show your knowledge of Greek here, by proving that what I have said in #144, to be wrong, and the older versions that I have quoted in #140, not right!

It is one thing to make accusations and quote from "versions", but another thing to really KNOW what you are on about.

Van is WRONG. You are WRONG and kyredneck is WRONG!

 

In your opinion.

 

all you and Van and Silverhair need do, is to PROVE what I have said in #147, and the Bible versions in #140, to be wrong!

Put up or shut up!

 

I take it that you CANNOT!

Typical mudslinger!

 

When you come on here daily and make a spectacle of yourself opposing the very meaning of your moniker, I don't think I need to prove anything, I don't care how much Greek you're able to copy and paste. You've proven time and again the extent of your understanding and the deep hatred you have for the doctrines of grace, which you claim to have been saved by.

 

The term "Reformed" seems to be being devalued these days.
I find it hard to believe that any Reformed scholar would call Karl Barth "Reformed" although he is enjoying a bit of a revival today. While he was living, Cornelius van Til called him out. Here is a critique of his (Barth's) theology in the Reformed Forum. Read the next article as well as the one I've linked:
The Essential Van Til – The Absolutely Other

Also, Barth's view of Scripture marks him out as less than orthodox, which is why he is usually classified as neo-orthodox.
Here is something by Don Carson in What Should Evangelicals Make of Karl Barth?

Barth says many things that shows him affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, the reliability of Scripture, the authority of Scripture and if you take those things at face value, without reference to anything else that he says, then it is easy to imagine that he is essentially an evangelical in the history and tradition of the whole mainstream of the church. But he really isn’t. Part of it is because when he talks about inspiration and the truthfulness of Scripture, he wants to integrate both how God gave the Scripture, as Scripture, and how that Scripture is received by human beings, which requires the Spirit’s work in us to illumine us. He puts all those things together in one package and refuses to separate them.

By contrast Calvin separates them so that he insists that the Scripture is true and given by the Spirit of God even if nobody accepts it. Whereas they are so tied together in Barth’s thinking that he is uncomfortable talking about the truthfulness and reliability and Spirit inspiration of Scripture simply as Scripture without integrating it, as well, into the need for that Scripture to be accepted and received as it is the Word of God by virtue of the Spirit’s work within us to see that it is the Word of God.

And that has led many Christians trying to formulate Barth’s view as something like: The Scripture becomes the Word of God when it is received. Well, that is not quite what Barth says, but I understand why they want to say things like that. Moreover, there are a few passages — I listed some of them in the FAQ section of the book of Scripture — where Barth does say explicitly that there are concrete errors in Scripture. So on both of these fronts he is really different from the mainstream of the Church of Jesus Christ across the ages in affirming the truthfulness, reliability and inerrancy of Scripture.

Now I don't agree with everything Don Carson says, but Barth's understanding of Scripture makes me doubt if he was evangelical, let alone Reformed. Having said that, he did a great job in the early 20th Century debunking liberal theology.

 

"The Bible, It's just for people fluent in Koine Greek!"
(Is that the message? I guess the RCC was right about not translating the Bible into the vernacular.)
... but I respectfully disagree.