Biblicist wrote:
This is a cheap shot and frankly nasty. Typical Presby. mud slinging. So Guiness the Presby corner smells of roses, eh?
In reality the Presby courts are even more dictatorial than any Baptist pastor. At least in Independent churches the pastor can be removed by the people. Try doing that in a Presby church and you'll soon feel the weight of the entire court system descend on you.
If you want an insight into dictatorialness in Presby. circles from a couple of Presbys. then read:
[URL=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/255_Inquisitions_Confessionals_Courts.pdf]]] Inquisitions, confessions or courts [/URL]
[URL=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/277-Imperious_Presbyterianism_Reed.pdf]]] Imperious Presbyterianism [/URL]
Do also remember the failure of the court system in the now infamous case of Professor McCleod and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
The Presbys. are not exempt from sin just because they think think they are more scriptural!!

justmyopinion wrote:
I was a member of Independent, fundamentalist, separatist, Baptist churches for about five years and found that the pastors of these churches were a one-man show, dictatorial, judgemental, self-righteous and mean spirited.

[URL=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2009/jun/05/home-education-badman/print]]](Home) school's out forever?[/URL]

It's a perceptive and balanced piece and sympathetic to the legitimate concerns and aspirations of homeschoolers.

"We'll have to wait and see how far any new legislation will go, and how hard home educators will resist it, but let's hope we don't end up with a situation like that in Germany, where the ban on home education means for many parents the only option is to emigrate."

Did you read the rest of that edition of Founders Journal you linked to?

[URL=http://www.founders.org/journal/fj29/contents.html]]]Founders Journal 29[/URL]

Do Doctrines Really Lead to Dunghill? A Response to Dr. William Estep's Article
Tom Ascol

Doctrines Lead to `Dunghill' Prof Warns
William R. Estep

The Reformation of Doctrine and the Renewal of the Church: A Response to Dr. William R. Estep
R. Albert Mohler

An Open Letter to Dr. William R. Estep
Roger Nicole

Three Reasons to Hope for Further Reformation in the SBC
Mark Dever

I think we are agreed on the key thrust of this news article.

My comment was in response to your analogy and reference to Americans getting refund cheques. I assumed you therefore meant American refund cheques (which btw are primarily driven by systematic over deductions from payroll through the year. UK PAYE by contrast does not do this).

Therefore you correctly note that refunds in the UK are primarily driven by other causes, Gift Aid being one example. Gift Aid in the UK, as you will recall, was preceded by Deeds of Covenant which better explains the origins of the tax principles at work. This was a legally binding promise by the donor to transfer income for many years effectively declaring "this is no longer my income but this other person's/organisation's income".

The tax rebate DOES ultimately go to the donor, partly by an indirect route. The government has no lawful right to tax the donor on income that is not their income. So in the UK refunds are likewise for the return of money the government has no lawful right to.

Stephen Hamilton wrote:
Don't Americans who pay their taxes get REFUND checks? Why? Because they are entitled to a refund under the law. The funding of such schools in the Netherlands comes under this category.

Once taxes have been lawfully levied it is the government's money.

Refund cheques are for the return of money the government has no lawful right to.

There is no meaningful analogy to be made between direct government funding of education and tax refund cheques.

Jim,

Notwithstanding Stephen's analogy above breaking down, the simple fact is that schools of many religious persuasions have long been government funded in the West and the Bible does not forbid it.

HYH wrote:
How would you answer if he affirmed that the unbelieving spouse is also elect by virtue of the Covt. of Grace?

Let's deal with that if he begins to engage with his own fallacious argument.
I don't think it will ever happen ....

HYH wrote:
How would you answer if he affirmed that the unbelieving spouse is also elect by virtue of the Covt. of Grace?

RtG wrote:
"God takes care of HIS Church" is - false witness???

Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocence; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

Hailsham wrote:
"Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17)

A believer's children and unbelieving spouse have the SAME standing in the source proof text - i.e. in this case holy/sanctified.

So what you argue for children, you have to argue for unbelieving spouses.
By your reasoning therefore from the same text YOU also "have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of" unbelieving spouses.

If you were consistent you would "judge of the will of God from his Word" for the election of all unbelieving spouses as well as all children.

Agnes wrote:
This really concerns me. How can judgement be averted, in light of America's voracious appetite for sin?

Hailsham wrote:
Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks.

RtG wrote:
????
God takes care of *HIS* Church in all providence and mercy. If you are asking to compare the True Church with the Liberal heretics then I'm surprised YOU can't see it.......Unless you are.......???

Please also note again what I said below:-
"there are so many valid and biblical reasons to criticise apostate liberals subverting the church".

Mike wrote:
The one posting as Hailsham uses interesting monikers. Quite imaginative for one addicted to the Canons.

Hailsham wrote:
'Can' you doubt anybodies election/salvation?

Hailsham wrote:
I reiterate
"Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17)
Not all can receive this covenant teaching. But the Dordt Synod was correct in making the statement. Paul in Romans reminds us of the codicil which brings explanation to the outworking around us. But the promise and election are Biblical and factual.

After posting earlier I found a blog posting by someone who used to post regularly on these forums. I found it very balanced and expressed an appropriate lament over both the state of Tiller's soul, and past omissions from both spiritual and temporal powers removing opportunities for him to repent.

"... There is also a state that failed to adequately prosecute Tiller's crimes, and at least one church that failed to recognize that Dr. Tiller was not just an abortionist; he was a doctor who was ignoring state laws about fetal viability verification and statutory rape. I would have hoped that even the most liberal of pastors would realize that when such laws are ignored, everyone's daughter (and son) is at risk.

Had the state and his church (or either one) risen to the occasion and disciplined Dr. Tiller, he might have had a chance to repent, and might have a decidedly different eternal outlook from the one he now suffers.... "

Walt - welcome back, it's good to hear from you again.