Plainess of speech. Thank you for sticking with the truth and the Authorized English Bible 1611, rightly divided and keeping in remembrance the fact that USA has certainly gone down since asv 1901 opened the door to the hellish corruptions misleading Christians today.
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?
I'm trying to understand the guidelnes and would appreciate your help. Thank you.
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
Pretty ignorant statement.
Which section(s) of the confession deal with the said powers of the sovereign?
The brief given to the Assembly was to formulate a confession on Scriptural grounds, and specifically to advise on the issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. The attendees were invited by the English parliament because they were "learned, godly and judicious Divines" not because of their political views nor were they allowed to interject their political views.
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
Me and a buddy at work love Bro. Peacocks messages both old and new! Most folks today will not endure the sound doctrine and expository preaching at BBBC jACKSONVILLE.In this final hour of smiling apostate preachers, His MINISTRY STANDS AS A pillar of truth, while providing spiritual, scriptural comfort to the afflicted brethren in our midsts.