Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Sorry, you may not have seen yesterday that one of my posts was deleted. All I did in that post (addressed to Kevin) was point out that a certain person here who is infamous for his mean spirit and ignorance loves to attack believers and that given the opportunity someone should contact that pastor whose details he gave as a friend of his and find out who this guy is, where he worships and to share with this pastor friend his postings here on SA so that he is aware of his true character.

Presumably my post was treated as a personal attack. Hence my post asking for clarification. I agree with you as regards fellow believers, but this fellow is no brother in the faith.

9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

Moderator Beta, John (the loving disciple) had no hesitation outting a person who was evil. Would you consider the verses above a personal attack on Diotrephes?

And Paul likewise had no problem:

2 Tim 2

16 .. shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Would you consider this a personal attack on Hymenaeus and Philetus?

Kev wrote:
Did you really have to say that Steve I was trying my hardest to get along with you.

SteveR wrote:
Unfortunately folks, there are those still stuck in the WCF dark ages that believe its an infallible document

SteveR wrote:
Chris & Nobody
Some of the political parts of the WCF went to correct too much authority of the Church granted to the sovereign, but some went too far. Don't say I'm the expert, because over the last decades, most conservative denominations have CHANGED parts of the WCF.
You can look up on the net the original, and the corrections

Which section(s) of the confession deal with the said powers of the sovereign?

SteveR wrote:
There are some flaws in the WCF, as it was a political as well as a religious document. Afterall, it was the result of a Civil War
BUT...it did a very good job in most of the document to preserve the truths of the Reformation

SteveR wrote:
Its not that unusual, all the Catholics I like are Conservative and tend to vote GOP.
Maybe you need some new friends?