Paisley destroys the Principles of his own Church
When Rev Ian Paisley entered into the office of First Minister in the power sharing executive, his decision took the breath from his political supporters; they never imagined for one moment that their trusted leader could do such a thing. The political consequence of this momentous event was evidenced in the establishment of the TUV under the leadership of Mr Alister.
Secular leaders often make such mistakes as this, but often face tough times when the electorate question their political somersaults and u-turns at the poles. However, what Rev Paisley did in his political capacity is also born out in his church ministry.
The Free Presbyterian church declares itself to be ‘separatist in practice’ and teaches that believers should not enter into partnership of any kind with unbelievers. This doctrine of separation is pivotal to Free Presbyterian outlook and principle. Rev Paisley presented this principle from his pulpits for decades, and then destroyed it, by personally going into partnership with Sinn Fein. By occupying the office of teaching elder in his Martyrs Memorial church, he is enjoying the approval of Presbytery for his breach of church principle; this brings the entire church government into question on this issue.
To destroy one great principle is bad enough, but to destroy a second is beyond belief. Recently, in an interview on Radio4, Rev Paisley said that he forgave Sinn Fein, because in his opinion, they had repented of their sinful past; yet he would refuse to shake their hand. Rev Stephen Hamilton, a ministerial colleague in the Free Presbyterian church, questions this type of behaviour, and rightly so, because he cannot find any evidence of Sinn Fein repentance. This type of behaviour does not hold well in a church which professes to be ‘Sanctified in behaviour’.
Now if Rev Ian Paisley does not personally adhere to these principles, and still occupies a pulpit in the Free Presbyterian church, he is found as not being ‘subject unto his brethren’, a charge worthy to be examined by church presbytery. On the other hand, if the Free Presbyterian church no longer holds to these principles, an explanation is urgently required.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Sinn Fein leaves the Paisley Confessional
Sinn Fein leaves the Paisley Confessional
The recent Paisley interview with John Humphreys on BBC Radio 4, where he considered that Sinn Fein had repented and that he was honour bound to forgive them, has certainly provoked surprise and dismay among evangelical Protestants.
This whole business could well be represented by Sinn Fein entering into the Paisley Confessional, confessing their sins and alleging repentance, before receiving forgiveness from father Paisley.
After the confessional, Sinn Fein goes out to attend their Easter rallies as usual, where their language shows no evidence of repentance or contrition whatever. Clearly the Paisley confessional is of no value at all, as for the forgiveness offered; well it appears to be of little consequence, as evidently it was never really sought in the first place.
The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that God was certainly neither sought nor involved in such a political stunt. Sadly this is exactly how Biblical Christianity is discredited and frequently how many ordinary people are greatly deceived.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
The recent Paisley interview with John Humphreys on BBC Radio 4, where he considered that Sinn Fein had repented and that he was honour bound to forgive them, has certainly provoked surprise and dismay among evangelical Protestants.
This whole business could well be represented by Sinn Fein entering into the Paisley Confessional, confessing their sins and alleging repentance, before receiving forgiveness from father Paisley.
After the confessional, Sinn Fein goes out to attend their Easter rallies as usual, where their language shows no evidence of repentance or contrition whatever. Clearly the Paisley confessional is of no value at all, as for the forgiveness offered; well it appears to be of little consequence, as evidently it was never really sought in the first place.
The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that God was certainly neither sought nor involved in such a political stunt. Sadly this is exactly how Biblical Christianity is discredited and frequently how many ordinary people are greatly deceived.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Saturday, 3 April 2010
No 'Hand Shake' for the TUV
No ’hand shake’ for the TUV
I was interested to read the opinion of Rev Stephen Hamilton in the Belfast Telegraph, under the heading of ‘ no repentance from republicans’ Evidently he disagrees with his ministerial colleague Rev Ian Paisley’s view that Sinn Fein have repented of their past terrorist involvement.
Rev Hamilton points out correctly that, his former moderator could not shake hands with Martin McGuinness but that he could forgive Sinn Fein on the grounds of their repentance; if Ian Paisley could forgive Sinn Fein why then could he not shake the hand of Adams and McGuinness?
This poses a greater question; if Free Presbyterianism, which is cut loose from the doctrine of separation, cannot agree on the doctrine of repentance and faith, then, what can they agree on? For years they disagreed with every other denomination which aspired to the Reformed Faith, now they cannot agree among themselves.
This disagreement in the Free Presbyterian Church is amplified by the fact that DUP members and office bearers will not extend the ‘right hand of fellowship’ to TUV members; there is no shaking of hands here as well. So, if Paisleyism is reconciled to non repentant republicans, then why can it not be reconciled to those of the TUV which are in membership of the same church?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
I was interested to read the opinion of Rev Stephen Hamilton in the Belfast Telegraph, under the heading of ‘ no repentance from republicans’ Evidently he disagrees with his ministerial colleague Rev Ian Paisley’s view that Sinn Fein have repented of their past terrorist involvement.
Rev Hamilton points out correctly that, his former moderator could not shake hands with Martin McGuinness but that he could forgive Sinn Fein on the grounds of their repentance; if Ian Paisley could forgive Sinn Fein why then could he not shake the hand of Adams and McGuinness?
This poses a greater question; if Free Presbyterianism, which is cut loose from the doctrine of separation, cannot agree on the doctrine of repentance and faith, then, what can they agree on? For years they disagreed with every other denomination which aspired to the Reformed Faith, now they cannot agree among themselves.
This disagreement in the Free Presbyterian Church is amplified by the fact that DUP members and office bearers will not extend the ‘right hand of fellowship’ to TUV members; there is no shaking of hands here as well. So, if Paisleyism is reconciled to non repentant republicans, then why can it not be reconciled to those of the TUV which are in membership of the same church?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Friday, 2 April 2010
Free Presbyterianism finally embraced the Spirit of Ecumenism
Free Presbyterianism finally embraced the Spirit of Ecumenism
With the doctrine of separation abandoned, Paisleyism entered into government, against all its former principles and pledges, with people that have never unequivocally repudiated their terrorist links in the past. There is a moral question here that Free Presbyterians have to address; if terrorism and murder is wrong then how can a minister of their church sit down and laugh together with those that have not renounced the evil of past atrocities associated with their political party?
Now that Rev Ian Paisley is no longer in political high office, this does not remove the former moral question from Free Presbyterians, it still hangs unanswered. Compromise from a former scriptural position of separation can never be acceptable; this is nothing more than wicked apostasy.
Rev Ian Paisley appears to be convinced that Sinn Fein have repented from their former ways; where is the evidence to support this notion in the absence of Sinn Fein’s repudiation of former IRA terrorism? It appears that Rev Paisley has embraced the kind of ecumenical parlance that he once condemned.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
With the doctrine of separation abandoned, Paisleyism entered into government, against all its former principles and pledges, with people that have never unequivocally repudiated their terrorist links in the past. There is a moral question here that Free Presbyterians have to address; if terrorism and murder is wrong then how can a minister of their church sit down and laugh together with those that have not renounced the evil of past atrocities associated with their political party?
Now that Rev Ian Paisley is no longer in political high office, this does not remove the former moral question from Free Presbyterians, it still hangs unanswered. Compromise from a former scriptural position of separation can never be acceptable; this is nothing more than wicked apostasy.
Rev Ian Paisley appears to be convinced that Sinn Fein have repented from their former ways; where is the evidence to support this notion in the absence of Sinn Fein’s repudiation of former IRA terrorism? It appears that Rev Paisley has embraced the kind of ecumenical parlance that he once condemned.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Paisleyism lowers the banner of Morality
Paisleyism lowers the banner of Morality
The lowering of a national flag is generally in token of national tragedy or loss; it is always a sombre occasion marked by gravity and dignity. Perhaps what is even more spectacularly moving is the way, in recent times that the banner of morality and decency has been lowered in Ulster.
In the past, Paisleyism claimed to be the sole upholder of morality in Ulster and farther a field; while Free Presbyterianism sought to uphold the morality banner as it preached separation from ecumenical apostasy, the DUP attempted to lift social and political morals.
In recent times, Paisleyism’s Samson like strength has been showing signs of weakness; after the shaving off the locks of separation, Paisleyism sat down in government with those that never repudiated the paramilitary violence of the past. When the expenses scandal broke, Paisleyism had been legally claiming the maximum allowance, while at the same time preaching high moral values to others.
Once the DUP claimed the moral high ground; now this has been washed away by a torrent of scandals. The Free Presbyterian church now honours those that have a mere appearance of repentance, while in reality they have never renounced past wrongs.
It is a very tragic situation in Ulster, to witness the lowering of the banner of morality, by those that claimed in the past to have known better.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
The lowering of a national flag is generally in token of national tragedy or loss; it is always a sombre occasion marked by gravity and dignity. Perhaps what is even more spectacularly moving is the way, in recent times that the banner of morality and decency has been lowered in Ulster.
In the past, Paisleyism claimed to be the sole upholder of morality in Ulster and farther a field; while Free Presbyterianism sought to uphold the morality banner as it preached separation from ecumenical apostasy, the DUP attempted to lift social and political morals.
In recent times, Paisleyism’s Samson like strength has been showing signs of weakness; after the shaving off the locks of separation, Paisleyism sat down in government with those that never repudiated the paramilitary violence of the past. When the expenses scandal broke, Paisleyism had been legally claiming the maximum allowance, while at the same time preaching high moral values to others.
Once the DUP claimed the moral high ground; now this has been washed away by a torrent of scandals. The Free Presbyterian church now honours those that have a mere appearance of repentance, while in reality they have never renounced past wrongs.
It is a very tragic situation in Ulster, to witness the lowering of the banner of morality, by those that claimed in the past to have known better.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Uturn by Paisleyism leaves followers baffled
Paisleyism U-turn leaves Followers Baffled
Like most leaders who change their mind, Rev Ian Paisley’s past actions has left his followers with a major problem.
For Free Presbyterians, the situation since political power sharing, is one of confusion and division. Confusion, because they once adhered to the doctrine of separation which prohibited such a power sharing arrangement with law breakers; now they find themselves part of that compromising arrangement. They witnessed their founder and former moderator condemn anyone that compromised with Roman Catholicism and Irish Republicanism over the period of the troubles, then suddenly turn and embrace all that he originally condemned. The question must be asked; was Free Presbyterianism wrong regarding the doctrine of separation in the past? Is Free Presbyterianism wrong now regarding the doctrine of separation? This is the dilemma for Paisley’s followers today, the issue cannot be buried in silence, and neither can it be explained away by clever tricks.
For all that followed the political aspirations of Paisleyism, their dilemma is just as poignant. How can they now support a party that has lost the moral authority which it once claimed? Secondly how can they support a party which sold out all their political principles? How can they support the TUV without incurring the wrath of the Free Presbyterian DUP?
The present Free Presbyterian moderator has promised to carry on the fight against Roman Catholicism, ecumenism and apostasy; how can this be done when his church is found to have compromised the doctrine of separation? Clearly he has a major problem on his hands when two Free Presbyterians are fighting for the same Westminster seat; some of these two people have compromised the doctrine of separation and therefore must be disciplined as Rev R Johnston is well aware.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Like most leaders who change their mind, Rev Ian Paisley’s past actions has left his followers with a major problem.
For Free Presbyterians, the situation since political power sharing, is one of confusion and division. Confusion, because they once adhered to the doctrine of separation which prohibited such a power sharing arrangement with law breakers; now they find themselves part of that compromising arrangement. They witnessed their founder and former moderator condemn anyone that compromised with Roman Catholicism and Irish Republicanism over the period of the troubles, then suddenly turn and embrace all that he originally condemned. The question must be asked; was Free Presbyterianism wrong regarding the doctrine of separation in the past? Is Free Presbyterianism wrong now regarding the doctrine of separation? This is the dilemma for Paisley’s followers today, the issue cannot be buried in silence, and neither can it be explained away by clever tricks.
For all that followed the political aspirations of Paisleyism, their dilemma is just as poignant. How can they now support a party that has lost the moral authority which it once claimed? Secondly how can they support a party which sold out all their political principles? How can they support the TUV without incurring the wrath of the Free Presbyterian DUP?
The present Free Presbyterian moderator has promised to carry on the fight against Roman Catholicism, ecumenism and apostasy; how can this be done when his church is found to have compromised the doctrine of separation? Clearly he has a major problem on his hands when two Free Presbyterians are fighting for the same Westminster seat; some of these two people have compromised the doctrine of separation and therefore must be disciplined as Rev R Johnston is well aware.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Paisleyism and the Papacy.
Paisleyism and the Papacy
For decades Paisleyism blasted the Papacy, together with all its ecumenical associates, with the torch of Scripture; steadfastly affirming that the entire system of Roman Catholicism was antichristian at best and overwhelmingly sinful at worst. Standing on the doctrine of separation, Rev Ian Paisley was scathing in his denunciation of Roman Catholicism and on all that sought ecumenical association there with; such strong denunciation in the name of evangelical Protestantism, poured from pulpits, press releases, public platforms and from various publications, while a special kind of vilification was reserved for the Irish Presbyterian church and its members.
Mr Paisley senior, called all the protestant churches, outside his own, apostate, while at the same time, his college, branded dispensational church assemblies as mere cults. These tactics were adopted, to empty long established protestant churches and to fill Free Presbyterian churches, all under the guise of ‘earnestly contending for the faith, once delivered to the saints’. There was also a strategy employed, whereby Free Presbyterians were so conditioned into thinking that there was no where else that preached the gospel outside of their churches; this tactic holds fast to this very day, when discouraged or disaffected Free Presbyterian church members, remain in attendance, even though they see through the hypocrisy and sham.
So Paisleyism claimed to stand for all that the Bible taught, while at the same time, branding the Pope as an antichrist, and insisting that the final Antichrist, ‘the man of sin’, would without doubt be a Roman Pontiff. Parallel teaching from the Free Presbyterian church branded the European Union as the Kingdom of the beast, (antichrist); interestingly Rev Ian Paisley took his MEP seat there, it was strange that his church did not discipline him for such defiant duplicity and grievous compromise of original principles.
At the commencement of the troubles here, Paisleyism carried the doctrine of separation onto the political platform and created a particular brand of unionism which destroyed all other unionists; this particular destructive tactic, was having success in church circles, so this uncompromising position was adopted in the political arena as well. Paisleyism had widened the theatre of operation against the Papacy and Irish Republicanism, to include the spiritual and political armaments. Paisleyism blamed the troubles in Ulster on what it called Popery, which it saw attacking, what appeared to be a corrupted and weak form of Unionism. Any interference from Dublin was viewed by Free Presbyterianism, as another inroad of Popery. Such was the strength of feeling amongst Free Presbyterians that, anyone associated with south border trade was frowned upon, southern goods were even boycotted, and cooperation with Dublin was out of the question.
Whether by design or mere accident, what Free Presbyterianism had accomplished over the duration of the troubles, was for itself to have become a model of the Papacy; a combined political and religious establishment, with its own rules, codes, courts and disciplines; declaring everyone outside as heretic, estranged, misguided or apostate and having a hierarchy under a sole ruler. When Paisleyism entered into power sharing government, its entire structure began to fragment; many in the Free Presbyterian church saw power sharing as an abandoning of scriptural principles, but objection for them, was not an option. Things were different in the political wing of Paisleyism; Mr Alister had the courage and conviction to raise a creditable voice of opposition to the detriment of the DUP.
Now, in this new political dispensation in Ulster, secularism is handed pride of place while religious and spiritual matters are considered as less than relevant. In recent days both Paisleyism and the Papacy have been hung out to dry on the line of hypocrisy under the scorching sun of accountability. Both these, seemingly blighted organisations are being examined under the spot light of public opinion. Both parties must be made to give account of inflammatory statements or actions which provoked trouble in the past, if it was wrong then, it must be put right now; these things just cannot be swept under the carpet of secrecy. It appears that both these organisations encouraged people into taking wrongful actions in the past, it is time for these same organisations to publicly renounce their wrong doing and then help those that they encouraged to go astray.
For years, the Papacy covered up the child sex abuse scandals and ignored the torment that victims were left to suffer in; similarly, Paisleyism covered up, amongst other things, the situation of cheating amongst the students in its Bible College; some of the offending students were made to resit examinations or do an extra year, before going into pulpits, while ministers in pulpits that had cheated in their time at College continued unpunished. The whole question of trust is broken by both organisations, albeit on different levels. Both these organisations operate their own church laws and courts, appointing commissions to investigate various matters within their organisations; has there been fairness here? Have records of these examinations been kept? Are they open to public scrutiny? What about the many victims of deep psychological abuse which have been abandoned for years by both these organisations, are they not worthy of consideration and help today?
When the Papacy has been confronted with the vile and lewd action of some of its clerics in the past, there is still a degree of cover up going on, there is still a reluctance to come clean and to put matters right, irrespective as to the cost. Similarly with Paisleyism, if past actions and words were wrong regarding the Papacy, regarding protestant and dispensational churches, regarding various unionist leaders and parties, then how can they be right now, as today’s position seems to imply? In the past, Free Presbyterianism presented the doctrine of separation as a rule of faith and practice for its people; Free Presbyterians believed that it was wrong to fellowship with what their ministers called apostate churches, they believed that God had raised up Ian Paisley, to defend them
against Irish Republicanism and the Papacy. Moreover they were taught that it was wrong to share power with law breakers and that their leader would never do this, neither would he tolerate Dublin interference. Today, Paisleyism just cannot turn its coat, shred all its former principles and walk away into secular silence; there are multitudes of ordinary people left victims of mental and spiritual anguish, scores of people are devastated and torn asunder, they deserve answers to questions; they are victims of an abuse of trust.
The sad irony is that both Paisleyism and the Papacy have left a legacy behind in Ireland, of which all the people, regardless of denomination are deeply ashamed and hurt. Both these organisations have multiplied victims, whose cries are echoing today, while they themselves have allowed the name of Christianity and decency to be trodden in the gutter of unbelief and shame.
Politicians, who aspire to Catholicism, are showing their displeasure against their church, while politicians, who adhere to the reformed faith, are showing their displeasure against Free Presbyterianism. When secular leaders begin to question the religious establishments on moral grounds, then there is obviously something very wrong. Some may argue that Ulster’s political future is bright, that may be so, time, perhaps will tell; what is alarmingly obvious, is that the spiritual future is far from bright. Paisleyism and the Papacy have been instrumental in bringing reproach upon Christianity and offending a sin hating God, by dishonouring God’s Word and driving people from God, into atheistic secularism.
In order for lasting progress to be made here, morality must be returned to its foundation, which is the Word of God. With this in place, then the plight of victims could be dealt with honourably and sensitively.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
For decades Paisleyism blasted the Papacy, together with all its ecumenical associates, with the torch of Scripture; steadfastly affirming that the entire system of Roman Catholicism was antichristian at best and overwhelmingly sinful at worst. Standing on the doctrine of separation, Rev Ian Paisley was scathing in his denunciation of Roman Catholicism and on all that sought ecumenical association there with; such strong denunciation in the name of evangelical Protestantism, poured from pulpits, press releases, public platforms and from various publications, while a special kind of vilification was reserved for the Irish Presbyterian church and its members.
Mr Paisley senior, called all the protestant churches, outside his own, apostate, while at the same time, his college, branded dispensational church assemblies as mere cults. These tactics were adopted, to empty long established protestant churches and to fill Free Presbyterian churches, all under the guise of ‘earnestly contending for the faith, once delivered to the saints’. There was also a strategy employed, whereby Free Presbyterians were so conditioned into thinking that there was no where else that preached the gospel outside of their churches; this tactic holds fast to this very day, when discouraged or disaffected Free Presbyterian church members, remain in attendance, even though they see through the hypocrisy and sham.
So Paisleyism claimed to stand for all that the Bible taught, while at the same time, branding the Pope as an antichrist, and insisting that the final Antichrist, ‘the man of sin’, would without doubt be a Roman Pontiff. Parallel teaching from the Free Presbyterian church branded the European Union as the Kingdom of the beast, (antichrist); interestingly Rev Ian Paisley took his MEP seat there, it was strange that his church did not discipline him for such defiant duplicity and grievous compromise of original principles.
At the commencement of the troubles here, Paisleyism carried the doctrine of separation onto the political platform and created a particular brand of unionism which destroyed all other unionists; this particular destructive tactic, was having success in church circles, so this uncompromising position was adopted in the political arena as well. Paisleyism had widened the theatre of operation against the Papacy and Irish Republicanism, to include the spiritual and political armaments. Paisleyism blamed the troubles in Ulster on what it called Popery, which it saw attacking, what appeared to be a corrupted and weak form of Unionism. Any interference from Dublin was viewed by Free Presbyterianism, as another inroad of Popery. Such was the strength of feeling amongst Free Presbyterians that, anyone associated with south border trade was frowned upon, southern goods were even boycotted, and cooperation with Dublin was out of the question.
Whether by design or mere accident, what Free Presbyterianism had accomplished over the duration of the troubles, was for itself to have become a model of the Papacy; a combined political and religious establishment, with its own rules, codes, courts and disciplines; declaring everyone outside as heretic, estranged, misguided or apostate and having a hierarchy under a sole ruler. When Paisleyism entered into power sharing government, its entire structure began to fragment; many in the Free Presbyterian church saw power sharing as an abandoning of scriptural principles, but objection for them, was not an option. Things were different in the political wing of Paisleyism; Mr Alister had the courage and conviction to raise a creditable voice of opposition to the detriment of the DUP.
Now, in this new political dispensation in Ulster, secularism is handed pride of place while religious and spiritual matters are considered as less than relevant. In recent days both Paisleyism and the Papacy have been hung out to dry on the line of hypocrisy under the scorching sun of accountability. Both these, seemingly blighted organisations are being examined under the spot light of public opinion. Both parties must be made to give account of inflammatory statements or actions which provoked trouble in the past, if it was wrong then, it must be put right now; these things just cannot be swept under the carpet of secrecy. It appears that both these organisations encouraged people into taking wrongful actions in the past, it is time for these same organisations to publicly renounce their wrong doing and then help those that they encouraged to go astray.
For years, the Papacy covered up the child sex abuse scandals and ignored the torment that victims were left to suffer in; similarly, Paisleyism covered up, amongst other things, the situation of cheating amongst the students in its Bible College; some of the offending students were made to resit examinations or do an extra year, before going into pulpits, while ministers in pulpits that had cheated in their time at College continued unpunished. The whole question of trust is broken by both organisations, albeit on different levels. Both these organisations operate their own church laws and courts, appointing commissions to investigate various matters within their organisations; has there been fairness here? Have records of these examinations been kept? Are they open to public scrutiny? What about the many victims of deep psychological abuse which have been abandoned for years by both these organisations, are they not worthy of consideration and help today?
When the Papacy has been confronted with the vile and lewd action of some of its clerics in the past, there is still a degree of cover up going on, there is still a reluctance to come clean and to put matters right, irrespective as to the cost. Similarly with Paisleyism, if past actions and words were wrong regarding the Papacy, regarding protestant and dispensational churches, regarding various unionist leaders and parties, then how can they be right now, as today’s position seems to imply? In the past, Free Presbyterianism presented the doctrine of separation as a rule of faith and practice for its people; Free Presbyterians believed that it was wrong to fellowship with what their ministers called apostate churches, they believed that God had raised up Ian Paisley, to defend them
against Irish Republicanism and the Papacy. Moreover they were taught that it was wrong to share power with law breakers and that their leader would never do this, neither would he tolerate Dublin interference. Today, Paisleyism just cannot turn its coat, shred all its former principles and walk away into secular silence; there are multitudes of ordinary people left victims of mental and spiritual anguish, scores of people are devastated and torn asunder, they deserve answers to questions; they are victims of an abuse of trust.
The sad irony is that both Paisleyism and the Papacy have left a legacy behind in Ireland, of which all the people, regardless of denomination are deeply ashamed and hurt. Both these organisations have multiplied victims, whose cries are echoing today, while they themselves have allowed the name of Christianity and decency to be trodden in the gutter of unbelief and shame.
Politicians, who aspire to Catholicism, are showing their displeasure against their church, while politicians, who adhere to the reformed faith, are showing their displeasure against Free Presbyterianism. When secular leaders begin to question the religious establishments on moral grounds, then there is obviously something very wrong. Some may argue that Ulster’s political future is bright, that may be so, time, perhaps will tell; what is alarmingly obvious, is that the spiritual future is far from bright. Paisleyism and the Papacy have been instrumental in bringing reproach upon Christianity and offending a sin hating God, by dishonouring God’s Word and driving people from God, into atheistic secularism.
In order for lasting progress to be made here, morality must be returned to its foundation, which is the Word of God. With this in place, then the plight of victims could be dealt with honourably and sensitively.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)