• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
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!
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
when YOU know Greek grammar for YOUSELF, come on here and post!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Silverhair said:
Don't be so arrogant. It just shows that you are insecure.
Click to expand...

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!
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
JesusFan said:
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!
Click to expand...
Not, Barth did not teach universalism (although anti-Barth folk often used that claim). There were good things.....and bad things....about his theology. NT Wright did question the traditional Calvinistic view of Justification. Some of his points are good, but he did not provide an adequate solution.

Same with Owen. He taught that the children of the elect are elect based on God's covenant with the parents. Hill taught that Michael the Archangel is Christ.

My point is astute scholarship did not die in the 17th century. God still gifts the church.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JesusFan said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Martin Marprelate said:
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.
Click to expand...
Karl Barth was Reformed. Barth was the leading Reformed theologian to combat the liberalism of his day. So was Charles Finney and John Darby. At the start Dispensationalism was primarily in Reformed circles.

Even N.T. Wright is Reformed (and a Calvinist). Like John Owen his denomination is not technically Reformed but came from the Church of England (Wright is Anglican, Owen was Puritian).

Today many Reformed people like to deny this because they only see "Reformed" as being "Reformed like me".
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
Not really. Since we introduced Owen it is only fitting to understand from Owen how he would have his words taken.
Click to expand...
Yes Owen and the other Puritans always put scripture first but if you notice in the middle of the quote he did not despise those who looked to other teachers and read their material as well
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Iconoclast said:
Yes Owen and the other Puritans always put scripture first but if you notice in the middle of the quote he did not despise those who looked to other teachers and read their material as well
Click to expand...
I suspect most of us consider what other people have said. God gives teachers to local churches for a purpose (to teach).

I like his distinction (his separation) between reading ancient books and contemporary theologians verses really studying Scripture.

And he is right, many do read Scripture through the eyes of other men ("however learned and truthful they may be"), which is a "death blow'.
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
"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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top