|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ BUCHAN ” |
|
|
| RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | More | Last Post | Total |
| · Page 1 · Found: 9 user comments posted recently. |
|
|
 12/7/11 4:58 PM |
| Buchan | |  |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
John,It seems that Presby has shown that he is a liberal Presbyterian after all, and profoundly disagrees with the actual Covenanters and framers of Presbyterianism:- Presby wrote:
the Covenanters who at least tried and succeeded for a short while. By there (sic) action ecclesiastical history found out that this was not the way God chose. Sadly, this is not a good thing as, like all liberals, he forms his theology out of experience only and not from the Bible. Feelings, opinions and experiences are their authority. How sad that he does not form his theology from the Bible which plainly teaches what these misguided men, for all their backbone, rejected (contrary to the teachings of Christ):-Presby wrote:
By there (sic) action ecclesiastical history found out that this was not the way God chose. And we today would not have known this unless courageous Christians such as Puritans and Covenanter tried it. It is a strange contradiction that he thinks you should apologise to dead men for rightly rejecting the errors of the Covenanters, when he also rejects them as well.No wonder he put RP into a tailspin. |
|
|
| 12/7/11 3:42 PM |
| Buchan | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
RP wrote:
The then Scottish Church was constantly examining themselves as to their faithfulness Why post the link and then demonstrate that you abjectly failed to read and absorb Rutherford's testimony? |
|
|
| 12/5/11 5:20 PM |
| Buchan | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
RP,My point is simply trying to unravel what your point was behind your unsupported, and therefore ad hominem, attack on my knowledge of history. The nature of the Roman political and ecclesiastical antichrist has not been a point of dispute, so rendering your scripture postings irrelevant. My previous point was that the Anglicans and Presbyterians likewise seek to fuse church and state. Accordingly, contrary to the thesis expressed on here by your fellow presbyterian the tendancy towards Popery rests with Anglicans and Presbyterians. In contrast the New Covenant testifies to the true and unique nature of membership of the Church characterised by voluntary discipleship according to the will and grace of God. Only independency is consistent with the nature of the true church. True Christians rejected the SL&C when it was written, being contrary to Scripture. Likewise I reject your desire to tyrannically impose your false ecclesiastical structure by political means, and rejoice that God has liberated the church from such evils. |
|
|
| 12/5/11 2:08 PM |
| Buchan | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Presby wrote:
Ha Ha Ha
I always love the comedy posts on here. 
Must be advocating the unBiblical Dipping, Depth of water and verbal authentication.  Perhaps in the midst of your vacuous humour you world like to seriously address the challenges of congregationalism to your false perception of 17th century hegemony? |
|
|
| 12/5/11 1:04 PM |
| Buchan | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
RP wrote:
Obviously History isn't your strong point; No matter you certainly are not alone. Surely you do not deny the fusion of church and state that is found in Popery, Anglicanism and classical presbyterianism? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
