You absolutely do not understand Reformed doctrine and your constant attacks on a dead saint that cannot defend himself is pathetic. It is only out of kindness that Irishtenor does not rant on and on about some of the wicked Popes that you call Apostles. You might try a little kindness if you want to debate with Irishtenor instead of constant taunting. Just being a mom.
That's not out of charity, but because the popes are not apostles.
And you have the kindness of a mother.
My drinking days are in the distant and dusty past of college and divorce; hemachromatosis has taken care of that. But I occasionally indulge in a Guinness.
I find it interesting that some people cannot separate beliefs from the person holding them. For instance, I work very closely with a devout LDS member. I like, respect, and trust this man. At the same time, I regard his beliefs as completely wrong and anti Christian.
In his posts, irishtenor exhibits evidence of being a righteous and good man. I regard his beliefs as completely wrong, as well.
My LDS friend and I get along well. We have not had direct debate because we are in a professional environment; if we did so out of that environment, then as far as I am concerned, our discussions would remain on a different level or plane and not reflect upon our professional relationship.
What you regard as taunting, I regard as making a valid point. So be it.
You cannot possibly be intimating that I am attacking St. Paul. I put him as the second greatest of the Apostles. I do however, go after those who would misread his works and misapply them to where they should not be applied. I suspect that attacks on St. Paul would be met with some severe spiritual judgement. I do not attack him.
We have had bad Popes - do you hear me defending them? The Church history is well documented. Do you hear me defending abuses? Popes are also not Apostles. Why would you say that I call them Apostles?