Message from @MR VLAK
Discord ID: 481231563754045441
The British Presbyterian Churches subscribe the Westminster Standards which encompass the teaching of the Canons
Said Paul,
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
But if he was a TULIP'er, he would have acknowledged that the gospel is completely ineffectual and the real power is God's secret election, and only the elect can believe. He didn't.
Election refers to WHO God saves, not the HOW
But the gospel is to all.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
There's a lot of whosoever.
But not all who hear will be saved
And not everyone hears the Gospel either
Revelation 22:17 ... And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
The offer is to all.
They don't hear, because TULIP teaches that the gospel is ineffective to save.
You need something extra, that magic um.
They don't hear because they live in places of the world where the Gospel hasn't been preached
Anyway time to go home from work.
Thanks for the chat.
Go and tell them.
They're in the township 😃
"Whether or not Wilson wants to identify with the name federal vision, in the end, means little. The name is of minor importance. What is important is the content of his teaching. And that hasn’t changed. It is still false doctrine. Sure, there may be differences between Wilson and other men of the federal vision on certain points. But in the fundamentals they continue to promote false doctrine."
https://rfpa.org/blogs/news/doug-wilson-federal-vision-no-mas
Federal Vision 🤦🏻♂️
We don't know what Christ looked like which is why images purporting to be of him are a breach of the Second Commandment.
We do know that Christ who is the glory of God did not shame his head with long hair
@Daniel van Straaten Exactly.
@Derde That would be my thought. Did he have a crew cut though? Who knows? We certainly don't.
It's worth pointing out that what is considered an acceptable length of hair for a man has changed over the generations. In our day and age very short hair is considered manly hair. However, if one were to look at the portraits of men in the 16th and 17th centuries one might find something different.
Bunch of queers
But I also see no evidence that *short* hair was ever considered the norm for women, but *longer* hair for men than today.
Well I'd like to see what happened if you went up to King William of Orange and called him that
Could he not read?
He was too busy overthrowing the Papist tyranny in Britain and installing hundreds of years of Protestant rule.
I guess
I'll bet he didn't anticipate his portrait showing up his small sins hundreds of years later.
Or armchair theologians
Most are. Few have dusty feet.