John Yurich USA wrote: Five year old? I happen to be a highly intelligent college graduate.
Then how come you don't understand how sinful, arrogant, selfish and unbiblical your childish statement is. Read James 4:13-15. You gave no thought to God or His will for you, you seem to think that you can pick up a guitar and become an overnight supper star ( which is nothing but idolatry). you even appear not to have a guitar at the moment; how do you know if you have the aptitude to play it. Its all childish dreams.
The Rainbow is the sign of the covenant of God with His creation after the flood and the church needs now to start reclaiming the God given sign of His promise not to destroy His creation by a flood ever again.
She only needs them to pass the Queens speech and any budget, and any no confidence vote, after that they will probably just become a minor party that they are. Although they are socially Conservative as for their Christianity I am not so sure. We are probably looking at another election very soon.
I don't think Boris is the answer, upset too many in the party and so it would be open warfare in the Tory party which in turn will lead to Labour getting in. The UK electorate don't vote for parties which are at war with themselves.
John UK I would never tell any body who to vote for or who I would vote for. I don't even tell my wife, but I will not be voting for Labour, UKIP, Liberals, any independent that leaves Tory or Monster raving Lonny party. Its a hard choice.
John UK wrote: Theresa May spoke very well, after the Cobra meeting, but she is still referring to an extreme ideology, and Islamic Extremists. However, it will be interesting to see what she means by "enough is enough".
I fear John this is as always meaningless platitudes; she is still in the midst of an election in which she as snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. She was a very poor home secretary and sadly she is not much better as PM.
John UK I know we are mixing up different threads but in response to the other I should have said that I think the FPCS are the only church that by a synod decision that the only version allowed is the KJV. I think (again I could be wrong on this)that both FPU and the Free church continuing allow other translations to be used mainly the NIV. If I am wrong somebody will correct me.
When they say that only the KJV is to be used they are not saying that the KJV is inspired English but that they believe it to be the most trust worthy version in English.
John UK wrote: BRF, thanks for the answer. Just one more, please. You said that the FPCS still adheres to the original and unmodified Westminster Standards. For example, does that mean that the WCF we know today is an altered confession, and that it is altered to the dislike of some churches?
John I nearly missed this. In a earlier post I used the word 'true' when I should have said 'faithful'. Many churches that claim to hold to the WMCF in reality only give it lip service. Others have modified it to bring in music and hymns. others have given room for evolution,others don't want to call the Pope the Antichrist. You would have to read and compare each churches standard. Different churches wanting to keep the name Presbyterian have sought to modernise their confession to suite themselves so much that through out the world there probably is as many versions of the WMCF as there are churches that keep the name Presbyterian. The FPCS are to my knowledge (I could be wrong on this)are the only one that retains the original and complete Westminster Standards.
John UK wrote: I would be interested in why certain ones (like the FPC of Ulster) are not regarded as "true" Presbyterians.
The main differences between the FPU from the FPCS are as I understand it are:-
FPCS hold to the whole of the original and unmodified Westminster standards. It was the Free Churches weakening of the Westminster standards that brought the FPCS into being. The W/M standards are hardly known among FPU.
They are Pedo Baptist. FPU are Baptists.
The FPCS do not use musical instrument or human composed songs in their worship service. They certainly would not allow their women to sing solos in church services. They sing exclusively the Psalms. The FPU allow both.
Presbyterians are on the whole Post Mill, the FPU are Pre mill.
Church government is a big issue in Presbyterianism; Mr Paisley held to being the permanent Moderator (chair man of the synod) this is against Presbyterian church government principles. which requires that the Moderator be changed yearly.
There could be other issues but these are the main ones to my understanding.
John UK wrote: But certainly the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) is the only one left holding on to scripture and the old paths. May the Lord bless them.
Actually John there is the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland which left the Free church over a hundred years ago because of the declension back then. This is not to be mistaken with the Ulster FPs who in reality are not true Presbyterians. The Free church continuing because of their continual protest which brought them into existence are actually going against the whole concept of Presbyterian church government and should have done as Rev H Cartwright did and join what is still the most faithful church in Scotland to the West minster standards.
John for Jesus wrote: BRF... Way off! Many on this site wouldn't be here if it weren't for the love of God and Jesus Christ.
Now read my first post I clearly stated that Luther was the man God used to begin the Reformation. The reformation was Gods work and I never implied anything else. If the most High had not raised up Luther then we might still be under the hand of Rome and its false doctrines. And we would all be on a Roman Catholic site.
John Yurich USA wrote: False. Every religious doctrine that Luther held was scriptural as he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why would anybody believe that some of Luther's religious doctrines were not scriptural when he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Luther's view of the Lords Supper was not mush different from the Mass. His hatred of the Jews. His hot temper towards anybody who did not agree with him about doctrine even among Protestants. But your constant saying he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as if he had direct revelation about every thing would even make Luther say (as he did) I slap your spirit on the snout. Recently you said you held to all the doctrines of the Puritans, yet they viewed Luther's doctrine of the Lords supper to be in error. Who was right Luther or the puritans.
No matter what we think of some of Luther's doctrine; and some of it was not scriptural, he was still the man God used to start the much needed Reformation of the church. Many on this site would not be here if it was not for Luther's own struggle with his sin and Gods Righteousness. He began the Reformation; he did not complete it. We are all called to reform daily our lives according to Gods word. This require that we have the Berean spirit of daily searching the scriptures to see if the things we are taught in our churches is true and not just be spoon fed by mere men.
Chris G P wrote: Oh dear, I just hope that when our beloved queen goes the way of all flesh, this chap somehow gets passed over, and his son inherits the throne. I dread the day that he becomes king. We must indeed pray for his conversion to true Biblical Christianity!!
Father like son; there will be no difference which of the Royals takes over they are all of the same stock. William as never made any positive statements of his beliefs because like his father he has none.
John Yurich USA wrote: Wrong. The Pope is not the Anti-Christ. What is wrong with you stating such a lie that the Pope is the Anti-Christ when the one and only Anti-Christ will not come on the scene until the Great Tribulation Period?
The word Anti means both against and in place of; the Pope claims to be in the place of Christ therefore he by his own confession is Antichrist.