This is what I meant by quoting Paul and writing "Paul testified he is your teacher and apostle. You already wrote you will neither believe nor obey him if it is inconvenient."
I invited Springfield Reformer here to see how far the faith which was once delivered to the saints has be re-formed, or if he holds that Paul's teaching is binding on Christians.
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
He said no such things as you accuse him of having said.
Face it -- those are not his words, but instead is your own interpretation of what yourself and others may have thought he intended to be implied (which I do think is quite possibly mistaken assumption).
His intending meaning in #16, has yet to be established.
In addition to that, there is evidence of you having gone from one incident of mind-reading, to yet another, to reach the place where you put words in his mouth.
And what is this all about, anyway?
Is it about trying to now save face for elsewhere having mistaken Elsie for being "Mormon"?
Yes, I saw the other thread, and backtracked that mess. I need no further explanations for it.
But what better way to distract anyone (including yourself?) from having made ill-founded assumption in regards to Elsie, than to now shove upon him whatever it is which can be found to divert attention from your own previous mistaken assumptions?
These yet more assumptions which you seem to have gone to a bit of effort to manufacture --- still don't work. It's too late.
If there be no corrections forthcoming from Elsie ---- lack of anything satisfactory to yourself or any other interested party, still does not give you or anyone leave to put words which they did not say in someone's mouth.
You made accusations. Those fail. He said no such thing as you claimed.
Speaking of
One may be able to say similar for other (other-than-'Catholic') Christians venue or setting likewise. But it is God Himself who does the real and actual 'converting' isn't it? I mean...when such a thing (or event) actually proceeds & progresses.
I am fairly certain those whom do encounter Him -- put aside much of what they hear of or were taught, focusing directly upon Christ and His own sacrifice -- for us.
I do not know if that is the same A.A. Phelps who was the famed abolitionists reverend in Boston in the 1840's or not, but it could be so...
This next one, even as Spurgeon is serious, at the same time can be rather tongue-in-cheek hilarious
Selected from several paragraphs down from the beginning;
In the Bucks Herald a serious complaint is laid against the zealous Vicar of Winslow, by a Churchman, which we shall use as an illustration of the quarrel between Christianity and Churchianity. The allegations appear to us to be very justly brought by the writer from his Churchianity point of view; the vicar is a Christian, and has no right in the Anglican church, and when his vestry condemns him, it is simply the voice of the church with which he has unhappily allied himself protesting against the religion of Jesus, which shines in his course of action. If an honest Englishman enlists in the French army in time of war, he must not wonder if his British manners are offensive to his Gallic connections; he should not put himself in so false a position, but range himself on the side to which, by lineage and loyalty, he belongs.It is curious to note that the great sins which the Vicar of Winslow has committed against Churchianity, are precisely the very acts which, under Christianity, are accounted as virtues. His good before the Lord of hosts is evil in the judgment of perverse men. "In Winslow," says the Churchman, "there is a most decided church feeling. Many of us, with the greatest regret, leave our parish church, who have never done so before; others, who from circumstances are unable to do so, feel the want of good services, but submit to what they get. Our vicar, I believe, thinks himself sincere and right; but he forgets that other persons may (as in this instance they do) hold contrary views to his, to which views he will not yield in the slightest degree, although it would be for the benefit of the church of which he is a priest, and of which we are the true and loving people." Of course he is a priest, and his own prayer book calls him so, and yet we venture to guess that he disowns the title. His parishioners are right enough in murmuring at his want of churchmanship, but he is more right still, though very inconsistent, in putting Christ before the church.
Now for the gross transgressions of the vicar, which are chiefly threefold. Item the first. He has been guilty of Christian love. He has committed against Churchianity the high crime and misdemeanor of loving his brethren in the faith, whereas he ought to have denounced them all as schismatics and heretics. The charge needs no comment from us, all sound judges will see that the case is parallel to that against Paul and Silas, at Philippi, "these men, being Christians, do exceedingly trouble our city, and teach customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, being Churchmen." Here are the very words of the accusation—"the holding of prayer meetings, at which all denominations of Christians were invited to attend, and to offer up prayer in alphabetical order, regardless of sect, and under the presidency of the vicar." Horrible! is it not, O bitter bigot? Lovely! is it not, disciple of Jesus? Item second. He has vindicated, as well as he could, a weak point in his teaching, and has been anxious to win over those who differ. He is accused of preaching "special sermons upon such subjects as Holy Baptism, and inviting the Baptists to attend, when that denomination of Christians had just established a new place of worship." Churchianity does not think those vile Baptists to be worth powder and shot. To preach to them is as bad as Paul preaching among the uncircumcised Gentiles. It is useless to try to convert them, and it is dangerous to ventilate the subject of Baptism, because the church is so very fond of Infant Baptism, and the matter is so exceedingly doubtful, that it is better not to stir in it. The Baptists, mark you, reader, do not complain; they are glad that every Paedobaptist should declare his own views, and they feel so safe in their own entrenchments that they look for converts whenever the subject is brought before the public mind; but the churchman complains grievously because Baptists are even bidden to come and be rectified by the vicar; let them alone, they are heretics and arch enemies of Churchianity; let them go to their own place, both here and hereafter.