Search results

Neither can.

Indeed. But DHK thinks that Cathars were Christians (see Trail of Blood thread), so it's hardly surprising that he lumps Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and JWs together.

The Phelps news is nothing particularly new, but Michael Savage being banned is. Personally, as long as someone doesn't incite violence or otherwise breaking the law, I have no objection to them coming to the UK; that said our free speech laws are more draconian than those in the US as a rule...

Story here. Whilst I rejoice that this guy - and apparently his rival - have come to Christ, I'm just a tad concerned about the provenance of the baptiser - does anyone know anything further about him?

So? Exactly the same can be said of the Muslims during the same period (that they were a movement intensely opposed to the Catholic Church and were killed by Catholics for that). That doesn't mean that Muslims are evangelical Christians, does it? So why do you think that that conclusion applies...

I tried to call my doctor to ask whether I was likely to get it and all I got was crackling...

Or wearing mixed-fibre shirts?

So how do you account for the fact that (in so far as anyone is able to judge the salvation of another) they are saved, then?

Ah, so you're saying we're not saved by faith alone, then? According to you we are saved by faith and 'right doctrine'. And, pray tell, how does one determine the latter?

The Hosius quote is notoriously a hoax - I can't believe that some are still falling for that! DHK, just for you I've read Chapter Five of Christian's book on the History of the Baptists, although I fail to see the relevance as a book written by someone who lived from 1854 to 1925 is scarcely...

Er...they do both. Explain that...! So there is no value in personal testimony? So value in preachers since they are mere 'personalities'?

:eek: Dont you realise you sound like an Islamic fundamentalist when you say things like that?

Historyb, I pray the Lod through the Holy Spirit will change your heart on this one...

A few more points from a non-American POV: 1. Most of the Christians over in the UK are pro-Obama and were not too keen on Bush 2. The main reason for this is that Obama and Bush are/were judged outside of the US far more for their foreign rather than domestic policies. Thus UK Christians...

The point of the matter is that if a primary source document contains material with which you disagree then it is up to you to adduce other primary source documents to refute that otherwise all we are left with is your assertion that the material with which you disagree is "lies" and "slander"...

So how then do you explain that I have two uncles who are Catholic priests and yet who love the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Saviour?

Yes - I know many including members of my own family who are both in the Catholic Church and who love the Lord Jesus.

Wycliffe didn't and Luther didn't want to; he was excommunicated. [cp with EdSutton]

Thank you for clarifying your question, DHK. CA has now saved me the trouble of answering it for me. You don't like the primary sources he has adduced (whether you like them or not, whether they're Catholic or not* is beside the point - they are primary source documents) - fine, produce your own...

Thanks! I was wondering what happened!:confused: