An open question for Lutherans

[House_Harkonnen]

Well the pope is the head of the church here on earth. It is biblical, dating back to the Israelites having God’s chosen Kings in the old testament.

Justification by Faith alone is un-bibilical. Neither of these are false teachings.

Well the pope is the head of the church here on earth. It is biblical, dating back to the Israelites having God’s chosen Kings in the old testament.

Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and the King.

Justification by Faith alone is un-bibilical. Neither of these are false teachings.

Justification by grace through faith alone is biblical.

But there are other errors that popes have taught in the past, such as burning heretics is not against the will of the Holy Spirit.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

House Harkonnen, when you say “faith alone”, do you mean belief alone, or docility alone? I.e, that simply believing what Jesus says, and not necessarily doing what He says, will save you? Or that you must not only consent to His ideas, but obey His instructions?

If by “faith alone” you mean “obedience alone”, I think you and us Catholics are on the same page. We only believe faith cannot really be faith without also being obedient and doing as God wishes.

House Harkonnen, when you say “faith alone”, do you mean belief alone, or docility alone? I.e, that simply believing what Jesus says, and not necessarily doing what He says, will save you? Or that you must not only consent to His ideas, but obey His instructions?

Neither, I mean faith as in trust. Trust of course leads to obedience. But still to merit eternal salvation with our works we would have to obey totally and completely which is impossible. That why Jesus commands us to be perfect. We cannot do it. That’s why Paul states all men have fallen short. The only way in so to speak is by Gods grace, which engenders faith.

If by “faith alone” you mean “obedience alone”, I think you and us Catholics are on the same page. We only believe faith cannot really be faith without also being obedient and doing as God wishes.

I am not on the same page at all on this issue with Catholics,

 

[ptisme]

Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and the King.

Justification by grace through faith alone is biblical.

But there are other errors that popes have taught in the past, such as burning heretics is not against the will of the Holy Spirit.

Of course Christ is the head of the Chuch but God has always had a human representative here on earth dating back to the time of the Kings.
BTW, justification is by grace alone allowing for faith and works. Please show me where the term “faith alone” appears n the bible sir.

 

[Patavium]

I think, when we are discussing unity with Lutherans, it is important to separate the body of Luther’s writings/thought from the theological confessions that were adopted by the Lutheran congregation. Not all of what Luther rejected or asserted is espoused by Lutherans.

Furthermore, it is no more helpful to press Lutherans to answer for his ideas than it is to ask modern Catholics to answer to the behavior of the Medici Popes.

I don’t think Luther was a gnostic, but I do think his ideas about human nature, grace, and the constitution of the human person are a departure from what the Aposltes believed and taught.

Hi guanophore,

Yes, indeed. Melanchthon made sure of moderating Luther’s extreme points, and even said that Luther had a “manichean delirium” and this is no doubt because Luther quoted and supported viewpoints found in the Gnostic writings of Hermes Trismegistus. Unfortunately for Lutherans, Luther’s “manichean delirium” happened before the confessions were written… so no doubt that it also spilled over to the theology of Luther and the confessions themselves even thought the confessions were not written by Luther alone… Catholics must thread carefully that heresies fought by early Catholics are not brought back into the Church for the sake of ecumenism… as this is false ecumenism. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church does not accept heresy. Furthermore, true ecumenism must require that Lutherans reject the parts of the confessions that are a direct attack against our faith such as the parts related to the Pope as the AntiChrist, idolatry of the papists, the Mass is to be condemned and it is an abomination, and the others…

Also, there is no doubt that when we uses as a standard the ante-nicene Church Fathers, we again find issues with the beliefs in the confessions… Are we to believe that the teachings of the confessions take supremacy over the teachings of the successors of the apostles thus the Catholic Church of past, present, and future?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Of course Christ is the head of the Chuch but God has always had a human representative here on earth dating back to the time of the Kings.
BTW, justification is by grace alone allowing for faith and works. Please show me where the term “faith alone” appears n the bible sir.

Of course Christ is the head of the Chuch but God has always had a human representative here on earth dating back to the time of the Kings.

No. The bishop of Rome is not the representative of Christ any more than any other bishop or leader. In fact all bishops have the “keys” and all bishops have the Petrine ministry. That’s the way the early church taught like Cyprian and Chrysostom, and I am comfortable with that interpretation. Even so, Jesus never tells anyone that they have universal immediate jurisdiction over all the church, or that they are infallible, those are late arriving teachings that took centuries to develop.

BTW, justification is by grace alone allowing for faith and works. Please show me where the term “faith alone” appears n the bible sir.

Romans 5:1

Peace of Christ with faith, nothing else needed. You will never have that peace relying on works.

Also, can you show me where the term “pope” or “vicar of Christ” appears in the bible? If not, why hold me to a standard you refuse to hold yourself?

 

[ptisme]

This should square you away re Salvation:
We are saved by what He did, not by what we did(Heb 10:10). It is His grace that allows us to have faith and to do good deeds.

Yes we agree that you must have faith in order to be saved. But no where in the bible does it say “faith alone” is all we need. If I told you you needed oxygen to live would you then assume you didn’t need food, water and shelter from the elements? We agree that being saved depends on faith. Where Protestants error is that being saved does not rely on Faith ALONE as we see throughout the New Testament.

From Romans 4:16: “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace”. Notice we don’t see the words “faith alone”. Paul is adamant in his writings that we must have faith for justification. But nowhere does Paul suggest that faith alone is required to enter heaven. In fact, Paul tells us of the need to love just as Jesus does (1Cor 13:2 and 1Cor 16:22). Finally, Peter reminds us not to distort what Paul is trying to say to us (2Peter 3: 15-17). We must not distort the teachings of Paul.

On to James: Paul, while inspired by God, never heard Jesus speak one sermon. He never knew the historical Jesus Christ, only the resurrected Jesus Christ. James was there from the beginning, one of the close ones (Peter, James and John: the three best friends of Jesus Christ). This is what James (James 2: 14-17) said: “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. Protestants say works are important but Faith alone is all that is needed. This is clearly not biblical. FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD! Faith alone was created by a man 1500 years after the death of Christ: Martin Luther.

Next James says this (James 2: 18-26): “You believe that God is one. You do well; THE DEMONS ALSO BELIEVE, AND SHUDDER. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS USELESS?” “YOU SEE THAT A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE!” Interesting to me that the ONLY time the words **“faith alone” **appear in Holy Scripture is in a negating context.

Paul uses the example of Abraham to tell us that Abraham is justified by his faith. James uses the same example to say Abraham is justified by his works. Holy Scripture cannot contradict Holy Scripture. The answer is we need both! Paul does not believe that you are justified by only Faith unless you take him out of context.

Moving on to Acts 2:38. “again, they asked Peter and the apostles: ‘Brother’s, what must we do to be saved?’ ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So we must do something (repent) and be baptized.

John 3:5. Here Jesus tells a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish council, what we must do to be saved: “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” Jesus doesn’t even mention Faith does he? Should we take this verse out of context and say all we need to do to enter the kingdom is to be baptized?

Luke 10:25-37. Another man quizzes Jesus about what we must to inherit eternal life. Jesus puts it back on him and asks him what the (Hebrew) Law says: He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” To which Jesus replies: “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” He doesn’t point to Faith but to the Law. Look at what he says: “Love your God. Love your neighbor as I have loved you.” If we believe that we can inherit eternal life through FAITH ALONE then Jesus Christ is a liar! cont…

 

[ptisme]

cont…
Moving on to Matthew (Ch 7: 15-20). Jesus says you know if someone is saved by their DEEDS. Believing that the key to salvation is Faith Alone in Jesus Christ is not biblical, it’s heresy. But people are flocking to this in droves because it allows them to do onto others as they would, so long as they have Faith in Christ. Sounds too good to be true!

Now look what Matthew says next! (Ch 7: 21-23): “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
You can say “Lord, Lord” until you are blue in the face. But if you do not perform God’s will you will not go to heaven. Says Jesus himself!

Many who believe in “Faith Alone” minimize the Law (commandments). Matthew 12:50: “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” The only way that we can ever prove that we love God on this earth is to obey him. Follow His old testament commandments and His New Testament commandment to love (Works).

Matthew 5 17-20: “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Heaven and earth has not yet passed away. Jesus: Unless we obey God’s commandments we cannot enter the kingdom of God. In Matthew 16:24: If you want to become my disciple you must pick up your cross and follow me (Every day according to Luke). To deny yourself is something you do, not just something you believe. How many times do we hear pastors on TV talking about how if we send them money we will receive all these blessings. Jesus tells us plainly: “You cannot come after me unless you take up your cross!” He doesn’t say “if you simply believe in me”.

Matthew 16: 24-27: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done”. Each person is going to be rewarded for what? For what they did!

Matthew 19: 16-17: Jesus is asked again what “I must do to enter eternal life”. What does he say? Faith alone? Let’s take a look: “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

And now for the summation of everything we believe. Jesus clearly tells us everything we need to do to enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 25: 31 and following:
“31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[chero23]

It’s not so much that the popes have sinned, it’s more that the office itself has far overreached its biblical and historical authority. Most popes have been great guys, I will grant it. That’s why we believe the office of the papacy is the antichrist, not an individual pope.

As for the crusades, I believe they were a good thing.

I think your answer is contradictory. Popes probably did overreach, but just bc those few men, overreached there powers it does not mean that the office is now evil.

 

[chero23]

This is not just a view of Luther, but is contained in the Lutheran Confessions.

As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

I am not sure I understand this. The office established by Christ cannot “over reach”. Only sinful persons occupying it can do that.

I guess what I am wondering is, when did the “office far overreach”?

Was the office of the Bishop of Rome “antichrist” from the first person that occupied it?

It seems a lot like saying “presidents have been bad leaders, so the office of the presidency has overreached it’s authority”.

Once again contradiction bc the Antichrist according to St. John in his 3 letters (I believe its 1 John and 2 John) state that the antichrist is he whomever who denies that Jesus came in the flesh, and that Jesus is the Son of God. No pope, let me repeat it, no pope has made that claim, making the Lutheran statement false.

 

[chero23]

My thoughts exactly.

My question for Lutherans is which part of the Confessions must the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (OHCAC) must accept given certain beliefs stated clearly in the Lutheran confessions such as The part of the Pope as Anti-Christ, or that the Catholic Mass must be condemned and that is is an abomination?

Also, what compromises are Lutherans going to accept? So far I only see compromises for us to reject the deposit of faith passed to us from the Apostles themselves!.

In contrast, Luther even rejected the early christians beliefs (beliefs of the immediate successors of the apostles…) along with the other reformers… and perhaps Luther may be a gnostic? (see Luther and the unity ofthe churches: an interview with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)

“Behold what great darkness is in the books of the Fathers concerning faith; yet if the article of justification be darkened, it is impossible to smother the grossest errors of mankind. St Jerome, indeed, wrote upon Matthew, upon the Epistles to Galatians and Titus; but, alas! very coldly. Ambrose wrote six books upon the first book of Moses, but they are very poor. Augustine wrote nothing to the purpose concerning faith; for he was first roused up and made a man by the Pelagians, in striving against them. I can find no exposition upon the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, wherein anything is taught pure and aright. O what a happy time have we now in regard to the purity of the doctrine; but alas! we little esteem it. After the Fathers came the pope, and with his mischievous traditions and human ordinances, like a breaking water-cloud and deluge, overflowed the church, snared consciences, touching eating of meat, friars hoods, masses, etc., so that daily he brought abominable errors into the church of Christ; and to serve his own turn, took hold on St Augustine’s sentence, where he says, Evangelio non crederem, etc. The ##### could not see what occasioned Augustine to utter that sentence, whereas he spoke it against the Manicheans, as much as to say: I believe you not, for ye are damned heretics, but I believe and hold with the church, the spouse of Christ, which cannot err.”

The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended; for they were but men, and, to speak the truth, with all their repute and authority, undervalued the books and writings of the sacred apostles of Christ. The papists were not ashamed to say, What is the Scripture? we must read the holy Fathers and teachers, for they drew and sucked the honey out of the Scripture. As if God’s Word were to be understood and conceived by none but by themselves, whereas the heavenly Father says: “Him shall ye hear,” who in the gospel taught most plainly in parables and similitudes."
(Martin Luther, Table Talk 529)

Im surprised our Lutheran brethren didn’t reply to your comment.

 

[chero23]

Well the pope is the head of the church here on earth. It is biblical, dating back to the Israelites having God’s chosen Kings in the old testament.

Justification by Faith alone is un-bibilical. Neither of these are false teachings.

Amen, Remember Moses chair was always occupied. We even know through Scripture that Jesus condemned the leaders of the Law, but yet told the people “do as they say, not as they do”. That’s bc like, the Pope, they speak Ex Cathedra and what they say has God backing.

 

[chero23]

No. The bishop of Rome is not the representative of Christ any more than any other bishop or leader. In fact all bishops have the “keys” and all bishops have the Petrine ministry. That’s the way the early church taught like Cyprian and Chrysostom, and I am comfortable with that interpretation. Even so, Jesus never tells anyone that they have universal immediate jurisdiction over all the church, or that they are infallible, those are late arriving teachings that took centuries to develop.

Romans 5:1

Peace of Christ with faith, nothing else needed. You will never have that peace relying on works.

Also, can you show me where the term “pope” or “vicar of Christ” appears in the bible? If not, why hold me to a standard you refuse to hold yourself?

What do you mean they each hold a Key? Jesus did not make the 12 equal. Jesus made 11 of them equal with Peter as the leader. Don’t you remember what Jesus tells Peter when he’s praying at the Garden? "Peter, Peter, Satan wants to rattle you guys, but I will Pray that your faith is strong so you can teach your brothers (Luke). Then remember what he tells Peter after Jesus resurrected in John? "peter do you love me more than these? Jesus asked him two more times, and Peter knew that Jesus had asked him for each time he had denied him. Jesus then told him, feed my sheep. He had the other apostles there, but he went to Peter who is the man in charge. You might want to go back and look at Scripture a little more closely with Moses in Exodus, it speaks about how he made decisions from the chair (ex catedra), then look at Isaiah 22:15-22 about the leader being a father for the people. You have a lot of info for the papacy.

 

[steido01]

Do you disagree, then, with what has been cited in this thread from the dialogues that the Pope can Pastor the Church and serve as the visible sign of unity?

I think he can, and ideally he would. But it would require, in the best case scenario, a repudiation of his [perceived] errors or at least a “development” of doctrine clarifying that 1) Trent canon 9 is compatible with Luther’s and Pope Bendict XVI’s understanding of Grace Alone (as you’ve implied may be possible, if understood in shadow of Calvinism) and 2) that universal jurisdiction be understood to be a power granted to him only for the sake of earthy corporate unity and not by any divine right. Fix these two, and I have no reason to continue my protest. Fix the latter, and you may even bring in Orthodoxy along with us.

Do you disagree with what is wrtiten in the Joint Declaration?

Here’s the thing about the JDDJ: I can agree or disagree with it depending on who reads it. I can’t subscribe to a confession that leaves the chief article of the Faith up to differing interpretations. This is also why my Synod, which has taken part in all but this section of the Lutheran-Roman dialogues, refrained from signing. This matter is too important - it is the very Gospel of Christ!

 

[guanophore]

Well the pope is the head of the church here on earth.  It is biblical, dating back to the Israelites having God's chosen Kings in the old testament.

I am not sure that using this type of “precedent” to support the claim that Peter is the Vicar of Christ is very useful. God was clear that the OT Kingship was a concession based on Israel’s lack of faith in Him.

Furthermore, it is clear that the Kingdoms were removed from those who were faithless, which only reinforces the popular Reformation theology that the Popes abdcated any authority they were given by disobedience.

And finally, Jesus was clear that His Kingdom was not “of this world” so a visible kingship would not be supportable.

Justification by Faith alone is un-bibilical. Neither of these are false teachings.

According to the JDDJ, Luther’s concept of justification by faith alone is largely consistent with the Catholic perspective, though it is clear that not all Lutherans accept this declaration.

 

[guanophore]

 Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and the King.

Do you think it is unbiblical for a King to have a Vicar?

Justification by grace through faith alone is biblical.

From many different points of view.

But there are other errors that popes have taught in the past, such as burning heretics is not against the will of the Holy Spirit.

What makes you think this is an error?

 

[Peter_J]

What makes you think this is an error?

Not to butt-in, but I’m guessing the “burning heretics is not against the will of the Holy Spirit” part.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

One or more of the following:

1. Corporate reconciliation between our communions. That is the model promoted since Vat II by popes.
2. An official acceptance of the Augsburg Confession by Rome as a truly Catholic confession of the faith.
3. Reconciliation and full communion between the CC and Eastern Orthodoxy, simply because it would be an undeniable and irresistible movement of the Spirit within His Church,

Hello Jon,

I’ve been a long time lurking fan of yours, and I very much enjoy your posts. May I ask you, hypothetically, if #3 from your list happened, but #2 didn’t, would you reconsider yourself abandoning the Augsburg Confession? Or is that a non-negotiable? Essentially I’m curious how “undeniable and irresistible” you’d find a hypothetical Catholic/Orthodox reunification.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

What do you mean they each hold a Key? Jesus did not make the 12 equal. Jesus made 11 of them equal with Peter as the leader. Don’t you remember what Jesus tells Peter when he’s praying at the Garden? "Peter, Peter, Satan wants to rattle you guys, but I will Pray that your faith is strong so you can teach your brothers (Luke). Then remember what he tells Peter after Jesus resurrected in John? "peter do you love me more than these? Jesus asked him two more times, and Peter knew that Jesus had asked him for each time he had denied him. Jesus then told him, feed my sheep. He had the other apostles there, but he went to Peter who is the man in charge. You might want to go back and look at Scripture a little more closely with Moses in Exodus, it speaks about how he made decisions from the chair (ex catedra), then look at Isaiah 22:15-22 about the leader being a father for the people. You have a lot of info for the papacy.

What do you mean they each hold a Key? Jesus did not make the 12 equal. Jesus made 11 of them equal with Peter as the leader.

Not according to the early church fathers, per Cyprian:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church;** and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you**; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

**
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; **but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

No. The early church believed that the apostles were equals, and the ministry of Peter carried on to every bishop. Each bishop being the princeps of their diocese as Peter was the princeps of the apostles. Not that it carried down to one bishop only. I see no need to diverge from this teaching.

Don’t you remember what Jesus tells Peter when he’s praying at the Garden? "Peter, Peter, Satan wants to rattle you guys, but I will Pray that your faith is strong so you can teach your brothers (Luke). Then remember what he tells Peter after Jesus resurrected in John? "peter do you love me more than these? Jesus asked him two more times, and Peter knew that Jesus had asked him for each time he had denied him. Jesus then told him, feed my sheep. He had the other apostles there, but he went to Peter who is the man in charge.

Ok. But I don’t see anything regarding the bishop of Rome, or anywhere else here.

You might want to go back and look at Scripture a little more closely with Moses in Exodus, it speaks about how he made decisions from the chair (ex catedra), then look at Isaiah 22:15-22 about the leader being a father for the people. You have a lot of info for the papacy.

The papacy isn’t mentioned at all here either.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Do you think it is unbiblical for a King to have a Vicar?

From many different points of view.

What makes you think this is an error?

Do you think it is unbiblical for a King to have a Vicar?

Not at all. And if Jesus informed us through his word that he expected to make a specific bishop his vicar I would happily accept it.

What makes you think this is an error?

Because burning heretics is wrong. The pope blundered big time on that one.

 

[guanophore]

Not to butt-in, but I’m guessing the “burning heretics is not against the will of the Holy Spirit” part.

Yes, sorry if I was vague.

It is a public thread, and everyone is welcome (so long as we all follow the forum rules) so you can’t really “butt in”.