Darren Thomas wrote: All knowledge/understanding is man's interpretation...
Brother Darren ,the implication that the doctrines of grace are simply what the Bible teaches is all that I am addressing.
You stated in your 6/15/19 10:53Â AM post the following
Those who hold the doctrines of graceâŚ.preach the Bible from cover to cover
The doctrines of grace are a product of the Canons of Dordt, not a direct result of wording found in Scripture.
Not all Bible students would agree (see the debate between Dr. Tim and Ladybug)
Let me put it this way, it would be like Jim from Lincoln saying those who hold to dispensationalism preach the Bible from cover to cover. You would read that statement and say, ahhhhhh, no you donât. Because what it is, is the teaching of man giving their interpretation of Scripture.
The debates will go on until we reach glory and what you and I see as clear Biblical teaching is not so clear to others who read the same Bible.
The other topic was IMO addressed in what you stated in later posts and I thank you for your clarification and wonât rehash.
I would wish all the Dads out there a Happy Fatherâs Day.
Just wanted clarity as you implied that the so called doctrines of Grace are just what is found in Scriptures when they are in fact man made interpretation of them. I am not disputing them but there others here who would
Darren, just pointing out that these things are man made interpretations of whatâs in Scripture and to claim otherwise is misleading. Anything to do with lapsarianism is nowhere found in Scripture but purely the speculation of man
Also Darren, if you mean by the term reprobation the completely am made doctrine of supralspsarianism that is nowhere found any place in Scripture but is totally the speculation of fallen man. If youâre not familiar with the terminology please take time to look it up.
Darren, your statement about the so called doctrines of Grace and teaching the whole Bible cover to cover are incongruous. (Not speaking against them, just st pointing out they are manâs interpretations via the Synod of Dort)
Give me where in between the covers of your Bible you have the following terms
Doctrines of Grace Total depravity Unconditional election Limited atonement Irresistible grace Perseverance of the saints
Darren Thomas wrote: Thanks for your post. I would respectfully point out that this is not the subject matter of the dispute with John UK.....
Thanks for your response. Currently my answer is to lengthy and I need time make it more succinct. It is late and I am heading to bed (which I probably should have done before I started this process . ). Will answer Lord willing later today. Thanks for your patience.
Thank you kindly for your response sister ladybug. I am not sure how that changes what the verse is saying. No one that I know of is saying that John 3:16 says
that alll should not perish but have everlasting life
It was always a statement about those who believe
That whosoever believeth should not perish.
Not even sure why saying whosoever means anybody takes away from the work of God in redemption or election. Can we not truly that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved? That whosoever believes on Christ shall not perish?
Conner7, I can guarantee you that dear sister ladybug. doesnât believe one must be a Calvinist, she does not claim to be one and you will not find a post where she even hints that one should be one or speaks in praise of Calvinism. She made that crystal clear in two earlier posts in this thread. You might want to rephrase your question to clarify what you information you are trying to ascertain.
Still waiting for Darren to answer my question, this thread, 6/13/19 10:42 PM post
Darren the death of our Lord on the cross is clearly a demonstration of His love for the His people.Â Â Now, you are telling a sinner that he stands condemned and must flee the wrath to come.Â Â You point him to the cross as his only hope and tell him he needs to repent and call upon the name of the Lord for salvation.Â Â Just wondering, how do you make sure you only give sinners who are elect that information in sharing the gospel?
ladybug posted It's interesting to note from John 3:16, 'whosoever'- there is no Greek equivalent for this translated word.
Interesting observation sister, I assume you meant no English equivalent.Â Â My research found the following
The KJV translates Strong's G3956 in the following manner: allÂ (748x), all thingsÂ (170x), everyÂ (117x), all menÂ (41x), whosoeverÂ (31x), everyoneÂ (28x), wholeÂ (12x), all manner ofÂ (11x), every manÂ (11x), noÂ (withÂ G3756)Â (9x), every thingÂ (7x), anyÂ (7x), whatsoeverÂ (6x), whosoeverÂ (withÂ G3739)Â (withÂ G302)Â (3x), alwaysÂ (withÂ G1223)Â (3x), dailyÂ (withÂ G2250)Â (2x), any thingÂ (2x), noÂ (withÂ G3361)Â (2x), not translatedÂ (7x), miscellaneousÂ (26x).
Â Â Strong definition
including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:--all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
More detail at
Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,everything
2a) some of all types
Not trying to challenge what you are saying just wondering where you got this research that it means "all the believing"?Â Â Â
Obviously, Phil Johnson has no clue what heâs talking about and confuses evangelism and politics. He misthinks that true born again Christians operate with their minds in neutral and donât consider all that they do is to be done for the glory of God and in obedience to what is taught in Scripture
ladybug wrote: How do they hear and how/why do they respond? 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' 1 Cor. 2:14
No one denying natural inability, Scripture clearly teach the work of the Holy Spirit to quicken the sinner and grant needed repentance and faith. But sister that is not part of the message given, the command from our Lord was Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. These truths of which you speak were unknown to you at the time of your conversion and even your early Christian walk.
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
the sinner must respond, we know he won't apart from Divine intervention, comprehension of that truth is not necessary for one to call upon the name of the Lord for salvation.
Making your calling and election sure is not the job of the sinner but the saint.
the unregenerate must hear the gospel and respond. You can't site an instance in Scripture where the Lord, Peter,James, John said if your elect then the Holy Spirit will grant you repentance and faith in your heart and you will be saved, no need to do anything now that you've heard the message. They are commanded to repent and believe. (Acts 2:38;14:15;16:30,31)
If God is working you won't need to lead them in a prayer, walk them down a prescribed process, etc. but we do need to plant and water the seed, the increase in God's hand.
A saved person of any theological bent will give God and Him alone glory for his salvation. In fact the only "testimony" I have ever seen where a persons bases the hope of their salvation in what they did is John Yurich. (that should speak for itself)
1Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
If God chose to save every living individual and then went into the depths of hell and redeemed everyone who ever lived before hand; there would be no need for the Lord Jesus to shed anymore of His precious blood to accomplish this. It is sufficient for the sins of the whole world.
However given this is not a scenario that will ever happen, one also would not say His blood thus makes salvation possible for all the afore mentioned. We rejoice that the Lord Jesus loved the church and gave Himself for it.
âItâs a deal worse than even we imagined possible,â said Weekly Standard editor William Kristol. âItâs a deal that gives the Iranian regime $140 billion in return for âŚ effectively nothing: no dismantlement of Iranâs nuclear program, no anytime/anywhere inspections, no curbs on Iranâs ballistic missile program, no maintenance of the arms embargo, no halt to Iranâs sponsorship of terror.â
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official "Thereâs no reason it needed to be paid now. After all, successive administrations..., have delayed payments so as to avoid funding Iranian terrorism," Rubin said. "Likewise, if the United States freezes accounts linked to al Qaeda or Hamas, releasing it and saying, âItâs their money anyway,â would not be a tenable explanation.."
The Iranians have been clear that they "perceived the payment to be a ransom" despite the administrationâs protestations, Rubin explained. "Not only has the delivery of the millions of dollars been perceived as a ransom, provided as an incentive to seize more hostages âŚ. but because the money was delivered in cash the payment bolstered the strength of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and augmented its ability to finance and conduct terrorism," he said