Dear sister ladybug I have not stated anywhere that DOG is inaccurate in and of itself. I would never elevate the words of man to the level of the Word of God.
I have read literally thousands of pages of Reformed theological works and listened to hours of Reformed preaching. So I also know that many in their camp intricately tie them to the Covenant of Works, Redemption, and Grace.
If we are going to state that the words of an ecclesiastical/governmental body are now the same as the Word of God then maybe I am in the wrong place.
I missed where I said all interpretation is on equal footing. It doesnâ€™t change the fact that the so called doctrines of Grace are manâ€™s interpretation of Godâ€™s Word and not the equivalent of Godâ€™s Word.
Sister ladybug whether or not you wish to acknowledge it or not the so called doctrines of Grace are a result of the Canons of Dordt. Their language is not found specifically in Scripture. (For instance depravity is not a Scriptural term). This makes them an interpretation of Scripture. We may hold them to be accurate but we dare not take the word of man to be equivalent to the Word of God.
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 graceâ€¦.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 donâ€™t. 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 wonâ€™t rehash.
I would wish all the Dads out there a Happy Fatherâ€™s 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 whatâ€™s 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 youâ€™re 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 manâ€™s 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. doesnâ€™t 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 heâ€™s talking about and confuses evangelism and politics. He misthinks that true born again Christians operate with their minds in neutral and donâ€™t consider all that they do is to be done for the glory of God and in obedience to what is taught in Scripture