SITE NOTICE | MORE..WordPress Widget v1.6! New, CSS-friendly version of the Sermon Browser is now available with further customization. Please note that updating from the previous version will reset all of the saved widget settings. .. click for more info!
The petition to let Texas secede from the U.S. to be reviewed by the White House
As of 3:40 p.m. ET, more than 25,000 Texans have already signed the petition on The White House website to let Texas peacefully secede from United States of America and “create its own NEW government.”
The petition, created on Nov. 9, argues for secession.
I don't know of any Bishops in the Presbyterian Church. Also, I've heard that the American form of government with its checks and balances is based on the Presbyterian style of church government. As far as the Presbyterians taking over - only if God gives them the increase. As for me, I need to find out where Larry Kilgore is since I've nominated him for President of Texas.
My guess is that religious leaders in Texas are already in preparation for the takeover, when the Texas Republic launches. And I also guess that the Presbys will be first in line to make it a church/state, with Bishops ruling the roost and getting rich on the Texan oil wells.
Just finished listening to Pastor Matthew Trewhella's post election sermon posted here at SermonAudio - I highly recommend it for those seeking truth. Also, here's a link to his article Pietism: The Religion of Governments - http://www.mercyseat.net/pietismgovart.html
history reveals wrote: The poor old Baptists being a newly invented religion from 1521 (birth of the anabaptist heresy) needed to find some authentication so as they developed their unorthodox convictions they borrowed from here and there. ---
Who's the more in error, the Anabaptists who finally learned to read the Bible, or the baby sprinklers, who couldn't let go of some of Mama Rome's bad habits? And what has that to do with Texas secession?
history reveals wrote: The poor old Baptists being a newly invented religion from 1521 (birth of the anabaptist heresy) needed to find some authentication so as they developed their unorthodox convictions they borrowed from here and there.
Amazing! To speak about Reformed Baptists and Anabaptists in the same sentence, as if there was any truck between them.
See what I mean about subterfuginal posts?
history reveals wrote: The poor old Baptists being a newly invented religion from 1521...
Oh, and when was the Free Presbyterian Church of North America invented?
John UK wrote: Presbyterians have never forgiven the Baptists for amending, correcting, and generally bringing the WCF into line with scripture, in their 1689 Confession, held by all Reformed Baptists ever since.
The poor old Baptists being a newly invented religion from 1521 (birth of the anabaptist heresy) needed to find some authentication so as they developed their unorthodox convictions they borrowed from here and there.
This is really where the 1689 confession came from. They took the entirely Biblical Westminster confession and because they yearned to be different from orthodox Christian doctrine they manipulated Biblical facts especially excluding parts of OT doctrine and fabricated their new philosophies accordingly to manifest their unorthodox approach.
Developing over these recent centuries the Baptist denomination have sought to establish a neo-biblical interpretation simply to underscore their hypothesis which graduated away from historic Biblical doctrine. Baptists seek first to begin with baptist idologies and thence adjust Scripture accordingly - Instead of first beginning at Scripture and teaching precisely what it states.
Baptists also love to rewrite history with a view to provide them with a longer reach.
Angela -- you seem to be doubtful of Calvin's teaching. I could be entirely incorrect.....its just if you were in full agreement, wouldn't you want it to come to light?
If you follow Calvin's gov form, then you are a sacralist, meaning you believe in combining church and state and giving the church the power of the sword to execute judgment on all believers or non-believers according to their religious acts.....such as disbanding home groups, forcing Jews to baptize their babies in the name of Christ, forcing the reprobate heathen to sit in a pew on Sunday and forcing the called out believer to sit next to him.
If this is what you believe, then explain it to us!
Yes church-state is on trial here. why? because the NWO is based on sacralism. merging religion and state power into one centralized conglomerate. and the topic above has to do with the rght of Txns for self-rule.
Christopher000 wrote: I have to read up on what I should be referring to myself as, I guess. I've been calling myself a Baptist. I was full blown Charismatic at first...not anymore though.
Christopher, there is little doubt that all shapes and sizes of religion will try to get you on board and become an adherent with them, even though probably none of them did you any good while you were on the outside. It is a tricky one, but the Lord will lead you to a good fellowship in due course. And in the meantime, this non-denominational site has good sermons from Presbyterians, Baptists (Reformed and Fundamentalist) and Evangelical churches and others, all of which adhere to the site's confession, which is found at the bottom of the page.
Christopher000 wrote: I have to read up on what I should be referring to myself as, I guess. I've been calling myself a Baptist. I was full blown Charismatic at first...not anymore though.
Christopher000 from Rhode iIsland, Acts 11:26 last part of verse. And the disciples were called Christians first In Antioch. Denominations not found in Scripture.
I have to read up on what I should be referring to myself as, I guess. I've been calling myself a Baptist. I was full blown Charismatic at first...not anymore though.
Angela Wittman wrote: Well, one thing is for certain - if the good Lord wants to break up the united States, He will and none can thwart His plans. The arguments of John in the UK remind me of the beliefs of the Anabaptists and they aren't going to be resolved at SermonAudio. As for me, I will stand with the Reformers as His-Story proves they were right. I recommend John check out a series Pastor Brian Schwertley has here on SermonAudio on National Covenanting and take his objections to him. Now I think I'll listen to a sermon...
Dear Sister Angela. Now you are at it, aligning me with the heretical anabaptists. And I will tell you why you do that.
Presbyterians have never forgiven the Baptists for amending, correcting, and generally bringing the WCF into line with scripture, in their 1689 Confession, held by all Reformed Baptists ever since.
You see, just like the Catholics, Presbys have held their documents and writings as "popish-style bulls and pronouncements. This has led to the Presby faithful toeing the line instead of studying the scriptures for themselves. This is easily proven by debate, as instead of original thought coming out, it is reference to someone in the past, who wrote down his beliefs.
Well, one thing is for certain - if the good Lord wants to break up the united States, He will and none can thwart His plans. The arguments of John in the UK remind me of the beliefs of the Anabaptists and they aren't going to be resolved at SermonAudio. As for me, I will stand with the Reformers as His-Story proves they were right. I recommend John check out a series Pastor Brian Schwertley has here on SermonAudio on National Covenanting and take his objections to him. Now I think I'll listen to a sermon...
marty wrote: A lot of people here bring up Romanism, but that's not fair since the RCC doesn't even pretend to base their theory of law on the Scriptures alone. Romanists openly admit to the use of tradition. Truly, I see no Scriptural support for forced baptism or forced church attendance. But, the government is created to be a terror to evil, and evil is defined to us by God. Evil can't be a relative term, open to interpretation. Some governments do a pretty bad job with respect to their Romans 13 duty, but that doesn't change the need for a righteous government. With respect to why people believe that this is the role of the state, there are tons of sermons on this website that you could use to hear the various Scripture-based arguments. It isn't as though Reformed people haven't put this type of material out into the public forum. Also consider visiting Reformed webpages.
Marty, it is noticeably absent in the NT. When the ungodly rule of the day commanded the disciples to do something contrary to what God told them, they disobeyed the guv. In our present day, maybe this is why the former moderator of the Free Presbys of Ulster, Ian Paisley, became a jailbird for a season. Methinks there are not many, even Presbys, who would do that.
John UK wrote: Given half a chance, the Presbyterians would like a piece of that action, enforcing Protestantism on the hoi-polloi against their will, making church attendance compulsory, baptisms of all babies etc etc.
A lot of people here bring up Romanism, but that's not fair since the RCC doesn't even pretend to base their theory of law on the Scriptures alone. Romanists openly admit to the use of tradition. Truly, I see no Scriptural support for forced baptism or forced church attendance. But, the government is created to be a terror to evil, and evil is defined to us by God. Evil can't be a relative term, open to interpretation. Some governments do a pretty bad job with respect to their Romans 13 duty, but that doesn't change the need for a righteous government. With respect to why people believe that this is the role of the state, there are tons of sermons on this website that you could use to hear the various Scripture-based arguments. It isn't as though Reformed people haven't put this type of material out into the public forum. Also consider visiting Reformed webpages.
Roman Catholics rejoiced with whooping and hollering when Queen Mary sat on the throne in England, to enforce Catholicism by law. A right little dictator, she had put to death multitudes who would not accept the Catholic doctrines.
Given half a chance, the Presbyterians would like a piece of that action, enforcing Protestantism on the hoi-polloi against their will, making church attendance compulsory, baptisms of all babies etc etc.
Now if anyone wants to defend their Presby, please, please, please, come out with some scriptural arguments for your position, instead of subterfuginal comments designed to make people feel bad.
So is there ANY Presby here who would care to give either the regulative principle, or even the normative principle, for Mr Calvin's experiment in Geneva, with biblical proofs, please.
COMMENTS | 
