Dear Ladybug, and other sisters who love our Savior Observer wherever you are now Saint John UK Wales Helps UK and so many other Saints as well
It is indeed a pleasure to be part of standing up and earnestly contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints with all of you (or you all 'Sountern English') even with all our imperfections, mine especially God bless Got some projects to attend to
The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
For the rest, You won't really know what you are missing until you repent, please do so soon, it is infinitely more important than pretending to know God
Your accusations are false...as usual. You claim "Infant Baptism was long accepted in the Reformed Churches before the WCF." So what? The Bible does NOT teach baptismal regeneration. So who's right, your beloved doctines of men or the word of God? I'll go with the Bible; you can keep your doctrines that save no one. That is the common bond between the RCC and the Reformed - infant baptism. It cannot be found in Scripture and is a works-based salvation, which is no salvation at all. Both Reformed and RCC churches do in fact adhere to their doctrines of men and exalt them above the holy word. My advice to you and all who hold fast to works-based salvation is to fall on your face and cry out for mercy, forgiveness, and salvation. Your continual defense of false teachings prove your heart is still stony. I will NOT engage you, or WDW any longer, for the Bible clearly commands God's true children - "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him." Titus 3:10 This command holds true concerning you Steve R., as well as WDW and John Y.
Observer, I will indeed no longer engage those who cause division, thank you and blessings to you.
Observer wrote: I asked you to prove it not re-iterate it Brains! Duh! Since no one has asked me to prove my point, I'm real surprised that you would ask for it. Oh wait, you're illiterate and struggle with comprehension, or is it that you really are an inmate in a lunatic asylum. Hmmm - keep taking the meds. Wait again... Since you've not made good any other lie you've ever posted up and you are a recognised internet Troll, I'm gonna take my own advice and stop feeding you. Bye Bye Chimera!
I underestimated your ignorance of the Reformation. The oldest of the Reformed Confessions, the Begic Confession in 1567, confirmed infant Baptism as a doctrinal standard. That is three generations before the Westminster Assembly.
Whatever study guides you are using should be thrown away
SteveR wrote: Infant Baptism was long accepted in the Reformed Churches before the WCF.
The only vote I know that was close was whether to allow 'private' infant baptisms. All see you cant authenticate the one vote win you falsely claimed
I asked you to prove it not re-iterate it Brains! Duh!
Since no one has asked me to prove my point, I'm real surprised that you would ask for it. Oh wait, you're illiterate and struggle with comprehension, or is it that you really are an inmate in a lunatic asylum. Hmmm - keep taking the meds.
Wait again... Since you've not made good any other lie you've ever posted up and you are a recognised internet Troll, I'm gonna take my own advice and stop feeding you. Bye Bye Chimera!
ladybug wrote: Today's Christianity loves to adhere to denominations, creeds, covenants and documents written by men. We need to get back to the old paths
I travel quite a bit, and find your statement in error. Churches today do not like to follow creeds, confessions and catechisms. Further, its becoming more a more difficult for me to find Confessional Churches to worship at when traveling. Too many Churches say they only follow the Bible, yet beguile their followers with anti Biblical doctrine. I found that to be the case at too many 'independent Baptist' churches. Granted, Confessions can be a crutch for the lazy, and even misused by the wicked, but those like the WCF have been very helpful for Gods Elect, especially when they expose false teachings(like those of the RCC).
Obstinate Infant Baptism was long accepted in the Reformed Churches before the WCF. The only vote I know that was close was whether to allow 'private' infant baptisms. All see you cant authenticate the one vote win you falsely claimed
Thank you all for your prayers! May you all be blessed from heaven's bounty and may God cause your health to prosper even as your souls prosper! May God fill our mouths with good things, that our youth be renewed as the eagle's!
"Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name.
Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;
Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.
The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed."
SteveR wrote: Agree edit: I noticed one of those attacking the WCF claimed infant baptism was in question. Infant Baptism was well established in the Reformed Churches prior to the WCF, the only disagreements were in the mechanics and if private baptisms were acceptable. It seems the enemies of the WCF only have lies and deception as their tools
Want to prove your cheap lie?
Ladybug and Michael H
WDW (aka moniker man) is an unthinking internet Troll. My advice, follow bro Lurker's advice and don't feed the Trolls.
I think Michael has already pointed out your error in exalting a doctrine written by men to the status of holy Writ. Yes, we can use tools as study guides along with the Bible, but they should never be relied upon as a sole source of truth, nor should they be exalted as equal to the status of God's word. This is exactly what the RCC does, exalting their doctrines to a status even higher than that of God's word. What is the end result? They chuck the word of God in favor of their own teachings. You claim the WCF is based on the Bible; are you insinuating it is equal to the Bible? Must we have BOTH in order to receive truth and be saved? What about those who live in remote areas who may have nothing more than the word of God - is it possible for them to be saved and grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ even though they have no WCF? I do not believe the WCF isn't biblical, with the exception of the false teaching of infant baptsim; however, it is not the word of God. Today's Christianity loves to adhere to denominations, creeds, covenants and documents written by men. We need to get back to the old paths, following Christ, hearing Him as He speaks through His holy word, and rely upon the Spirit to teach us; and keep the creeds, etc. at a secondary level.
works dont work wrote: LB Tell me what is the difference you perceive between these quote "man-made doctrines" and Biblical doctrines. The WCF is based on the Bible so can you point out a WCF doctrine which disagrees with Scripture. BTW: We will leave "infant baptism" out of this discussion since I know that Infant baptism is part of the Covenant of Grace and the Baptist rejects God's original tenets for His Covenant. And since we Presbyterians adhere strictly to Sola Scriptura we keep the Covenantal rules of God. So we will disagree in the interpretation of Scripture on that one.
Dear WDW Before Ladybug answers you back Please explain why to you â€¢Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone (First, because it is impossible to have faith before/independant of, hearing the word of God) is not good enough for you, as you communicate quite clearly you actually believe (essentially insist) you must have Scripture plus something. In this case the WCF
And again the Faith once for all delivered to the saints, the Faith God Himself gives His own elect born again of the Holy Spirit children is already there in the Bible unless of course you want to read 2 Tim 3:16,17 and say it really doesn't mean what is written.
Too bad, Penny, there was an interesting story on "Timothy DeFoggi, a former acting director of cyber security for the U.S. Department of health and Human services, was convicted Tuesday on federal charges of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, conspiracy to advertise and distribute child pornography, and accessing a computer with intent to view child pornography" on "Mail Online" but I thought it was surrounded by rather obnoxious stories, so I won't put up the URL here. Hmm, the convicted criminal sounds like a person who was raised Catholic.
However, I don't see where he had anything to do with this Indiana U., search program "Truthy," which is what the article that SA wanted us to look at. As I said, the right-wingnuts are much more active in smear campaigns than left-wingnuts.
ladybug wrote: Sola Scriptura is foreign to those who uphold their doctrines as equal to the Bible; this is a practice found in the Roman Catholic church as well as many Reformed churches. They MUST exalt their man-made doctrines to the same status/level as God's word in order to justify their faulty teachings, like infant baptism.
LB Tell me what is the difference you perceive between these quote "man-made doctrines" and Biblical doctrines.
The WCF is based on the Bible so can you point out a WCF doctrine which disagrees with Scripture.
BTW: We will leave "infant baptism" out of this discussion since I know that Infant baptism is part of the Covenant of Grace and the Baptist rejects God's original tenets for His Covenant. And since we Presbyterians adhere strictly to Sola Scriptura we keep the Covenantal rules of God. So we will disagree in the interpretation of Scripture on that one.
Wikipedia wrote: ...Posner was mentioned in 2005 as a potential nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor because of his prominence as a scholar and an appellate judge. Robert S. Boynton has written in The Washington Post that he believes Posner will never sit on the Supreme Court because despite his "obvious brilliance," he would be criticized for his occasionally "outrageous conclusions," such as his contention "that the rule of law is an accidental and dispensable element of legal ideology," his argument that buying and selling children on the free market would lead to better outcomes than the present situation, government-regulated adoption, and his support for the legalization of marijuana and LSD...
John Yurich, that is great that you pray to Christ, because He is the mediator to the Father, not any men. However, if those around you are practicing paganism, to participate with them communicates something entirely different. A typical church goer may not be in any better position, with so much compromise in 501c3 churches today, but right here at SA are many who have left their churches when they teach false theology. Why would you want to participate with their false testimony? Your story has never made sense to me. Why not be forthright about the whole thing? I am unsure what point you are even trying to make? -- certainly you know and have read the scriptures and know that salvation is not just a prayer but a new man?
Good for you Chris in not going to an idolatrous, blasphemous 'mass'. We have not set foot in a roman catholic pagan worship building since being saved. Not even for parents or family funerals and weddings. CHRIST is daily blasphemed in those superstitious, devilish, pagan places of worship where necromancy is practiced.