|
| Page 1 | Page 2 · Found: 304 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 6/5/17 4:55 AM |
| BRF | | UK | |  |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
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. |
|
|
| 5/27/17 9:30 AM |
| BRF | | UK | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
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. |
|
|
| 5/27/17 6:16 AM |
| BRF | | UK | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
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. |
|
|
| 5/23/17 1:27 PM |
| BRF | | UK | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
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. |
|
|
| 5/23/17 1:13 PM |
| BRF | | UK | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
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. |
|
|
| 5/18/17 8:50 AM |
| BRF | | UK | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
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. |
|
|
| 2/27/17 3:26 PM |
| BRF | | UK | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
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. |
|
|
| 2/24/17 3:54 AM |
| BRF | | UK | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Youth in Asia wrote:
If this continues, Christians won't be able to watch any NFL football. Just goes to show our God does work good in all things Rom 8:28.
Our calling is to love God with the whole heart, mind, soul and strength if we did that there would be no room for the false gods of sport etc.. |
|
|
| 2/21/17 6:51 AM |
| BRF | | UK | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Dave wrote:
I think the actual term anti Christ is used only once in scripture, the better translation would be pseudo Christ not anti I believe in the Greek the word Anti can mean both 'against' and 'in place of'.
So when the Puritans called the Pope Antichrist they had both ideas in mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
