How could Luther state that God denies the burning of heretics when hell is the eternal fire and Purgatory is the temporal fire?

[rinnie]

I actually agree with you that Catholicism wasn’t all that bad for the time and place. I’m simply arguing against those who find any justification for burning alive heretics and claiming that such is not against the will of God.

Historically I agree that Catholics could be far more lenient than Islamic countries today, but I still must counter the thought process that “They’re guiding people away from our truth in our Religion so of course we can kill them.” This is unbiblical and can’t be justified and I feel Muslims have the same ideology today. (in certain countries)

Catholics must then resort to the OT to try and justify their actions but that doesn’t quite cut it. Jesus and the Apostles never condoned killing those who reject Him, in fact Jesus rebuked His disciples when they considered it. With this in mind, how did it somehow become the will of the Spirit that heretics could be burned 1000+ years later?

There simply is no justification and trying to justify it makes us sound like those in the backwards countries today that kill apostates.

Then I guess I will ask you how the Church asked Luther, what makes you feel you know the mind of God?

Okay you just stated that Catholics must justify thier actions of killing those who reject him with the O.T. Jesus and his Apostles never condoned it,

Okay then answer me this, since you seem to know more then us.

In John Jesus says I am the vine and you are the branches who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned. Now you are saying this is Jesus saying he does not condone killing, rather it be a physical death or spiritual death it is still a death.

Now lets move on to acts which I asked before on another thread and was never answered. Ananias held back a piece of the pie and lied to the Holy Spirit. When he was told he lied to not humans but God he dropped dead, the same with his wife. Now since again you feel you can talk for Jesus and his Apostles, then you are saying Peter did not agree with this? And Christ did not agree with this. Where is your proof?

Another story if I may. In Matt, Jesus condemned the Pharasees and called them hypocrites. He asked them how they could flee from the judgement of hell. He said they were standing in the same line as their ancestors who were murderers of the Prophets and righteous. Sounds like a spiritual death to me.

Looking forward to your interpretation.

 

[JonNC]

Okay, its Edward Peters and Henry Kamen correct? I will order them as soon as I am sure.

And since you are so well read can you recommend a good source on the truth of Luther also. Thanks.

If you want to read about Luther, try reading Luther. In expanse, Luther’s Works.
If you want to read what’s most important about Luther, what really matters about Luther, read the Small and Large Catechisms

Jon

 

[rinnie]

If you want to read about Luther, try reading Luther. In expanse, Luther’s Works.
If you want to read what’s most important about Luther, what really matters about Luther, read the Small and Large Catechisms

Jon

will do my friend!

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Title changed to a more direct question

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I play World of Warcraft. Which is were I’m headed now.

You think Thor is bad… Wait till you meet my Shammy

 

[GKC]

Okay, its Edward Peters and Henry Kamen correct? I will order them as soon as I am sure.

And since you are so well read can you recommend a good source on the truth of Luther also. Thanks.

Correct, on the books. They are good examples of modern historical treatment of the subject. By modern, I mean that doesn’t follow the Black Legend, all too common in the idea of the Inquisition. Peters is particularly good on the difference.

Once you have those digested, it is useful to read something like H.C. Lea’s one volume abridgement of his 3 volume THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES:ITS ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION. Lea is the father of modern historiography on the Inquisitions. He is not well inclined toward the Church, but no one learns history by reading only those things that agree with presuppositions. You have to read widely, and learn to discern. Deep in history, that is.

Well read I am, been a maniacal book collector for almost 60 years. My reaction to something that I need to know more about is exactly what you propose. I go and get books on it. But, as I said, Luther is not one of my in-depth subjects. Folks here like JonNC or Tertium Quid are far better able to suggest things. I have maybe 6-8 basic books on Luther but, unlike Horny Hank the Eighth, I do not have a particular interest in his history.

If you find any other books on the Inquisitions, that strike you as good, report on them. The Inquisitions, like Luther, are not a major interest of mine. But I do know a little about them. Might learn more.

Good luck.

GKC

 

[GKC]

If you want to read about Luther, try reading Luther. In expanse, Luther’s Works.
If you want to read what’s most important about Luther, what really matters about Luther, read the Small and Large Catechisms

Jon

Oops. I mentioned you before I read this.

Any recommendation on a bio or interpretation? I have the usual: Bainton, Marius, Oberman, a few others.

 

[Novocastrian]

Abortion? Gay marraige? Female clergy? Liberation theology? All of these find their roots in heresy. To the evangelical who bemoans the sad state of affairs in the world today I say root out heresy, by whatever means, and your world would not be struggling with the problems that Fox News and others have found a future in prospering in.

Let me give an analogy. The United States would not be the great nation it is had the Union not won the Civil War. The Union probably would not have won the war without Sherman’s March to the Sea which involved a “scorched earth” policy. Sometimes the greater good requires harsh measures.

I’m pretty sure that Roman Catholics are not allowed to use the ends to justify the means…

 

[GKC]

I’m pretty sure that Roman Catholics are not allowed to use the ends to justify the means…

In the sense of consequentialism, they are not.

GKC

 

[ltwin]

Then I guess I will ask you how the Church asked Luther, what makes you feel you know the mind of God?

Okay you just stated that Catholics must justify thier actions of killing those who reject him with the O.T. Jesus and his Apostles never condoned it,

Okay then answer me this, since you seem to know more then us.

In John Jesus says I am the vine and you are the branches who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned. Now you are saying this is Jesus saying he does not condone killing, rather it be a physical death or spiritual death it is still a death.

Now lets move on to acts which I asked before on another thread and was never answered. Ananias held back a piece of the pie and lied to the Holy Spirit. When he was told he lied to not humans but God he dropped dead, the same with his wife. Now since again you feel you can talk for Jesus and his Apostles, then you are saying Peter did not agree with this? And Christ did not agree with this. Where is your proof?

Another story if I may. In Matt, Jesus condemned the Pharasees and called them hypocrites. He asked them how they could flee from the judgement of hell. He said they were standing in the same line as their ancestors who were murderers of the Prophets and righteous. Sounds like a spiritual death to me.

Looking forward to your interpretation.

Surely God’s actions are far different than human actions. God knows the heart of man.The fires of hell can in no way be compared to the burning of “heretics” by a secular power (whether that be the state acting in the interest of the Church or the Church acting in its capacity as a political entity). The Holy Spirit killing a person because they lied to Him can in no way be compared to human beings killing other human beings because they differ over matters of religion.

I find it odd that Christianity, as a religion so persecuted in its early years, can fall so easily into a fleshly system of using violence, persecution, and the power of the State to enforce capital punishment in order to prop up a monopoly on religious authority. This is so far from the actions of Jesus Christ on this earth and just demonstrates the extent to which all Christians can be deceived into relying on carnal “weapons of warfare.” Far better for us to realize that the forces we fight against are not flesh and blood, but spiritual. Our weapons of spiritual warfare likewise must be spiritual.

 

[JonNC]

Oops. I mentioned you before I read this.

Any recommendation on a bio or interpretation? I have the usual: Bainton, Marius, Oberman, a few others.

Father O’Hare. Wait! Not really.

Bainton is the standard get-into-it choice. Followed by the others.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Father O’Hare. Wait! Not really.

Bainton is the standard get-into-it choice. Followed by the others.

Jon

Thanks.

O’Hare, to be sure.

GKC

 

[dronald]

I find it odd that Christianity, as a religion so persecuted in its early years, can fall so easily into a fleshly system of using violence, persecution, and the power of the State to enforce capital punishment in order to prop up a monopoly on religious authority. This is so far from the actions of Jesus Christ on this earth and just demonstrates the extent to which all Christians can be deceived into relying on carnal “weapons of warfare.” Far better for us to realize that the forces we fight against are not flesh and blood, but spiritual. Our weapons of spiritual warfare likewise must be spiritual.

This is what I’ve said so many times. We’re not Islam, we don’t kill those as the “will of the Spirit” especially by burning because they are heretics.

 

[Kliska]

Surely God’s actions are far different than human actions. God knows the heart of man.The fires of hell can in no way be compared to the burning of “heretics” by a secular power (whether that be the state acting in the interest of the Church or the Church acting in its capacity as a political entity). The Holy Spirit killing a person because they lied to Him can in no way be compared to human beings killing other human beings because they differ over matters of religion.

I find it odd that Christianity, as a religion so persecuted in its early years, can fall so easily into a fleshly system of using violence, persecution, and the power of the State to enforce capital punishment in order to prop up a monopoly on religious authority. This is so far from the actions of Jesus Christ on this earth and just demonstrates the extent to which all Christians can be deceived into relying on carnal “weapons of warfare.” Far better for us to realize that the forces we fight against are not flesh and blood, but spiritual. Our weapons of spiritual warfare likewise must be spiritual.

Especially when we are given a direct command from Jesus Himself to love and pray for our enemies, to do good to those who wrong us.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is what I’ve said so many times. We’re not Islam, we don’t kill those as the “will of the Spirit” especially by burning because they are heretics.

So you have no response to my post?

And you have made up your mind about what you think it means?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Saint Thomas Aquinas on Killing of Heretics, 10 Easy Points…
by Marshall Taylor, PhD
taylormarshall.com/

1. 
   *]Saint Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225-1274.
   *]He was a Dominican.
   *]The Dominicans from their inception were dedicated to the extirpation of heresy, namely Albigensianism.
   *]In his Summa theologiae II-II, q. 11. a. 3, he writes: “Therefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.”
   *]Thomas, in accord with the Old Testament and the New Testament (Romans 13), that the death penalty is a present reality and a right of the secular prince.
   *]Murderers kill the body and they get the death penalty.
   *]Heretical teachers kill the soul.
   *]Killing the souls is much worse for the Church and for secular culture.
   *]Therefore, heresiarchs should receive the death penalty.
   *]Thomas repeats his belief about six times. He’s very confident about it being the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

On my last thread which was derailed over and over by a teaching of Luther that was corrected by the RCC.

The question was # 33 in his diet of worms.

1. The burning of heretics go against the will of the Spirit.

The Church has been condemned for correcting him on this, and as the truth always comes out, the Church was correct and Luther changed his mind.

Okay Pope Leo X condemned Luther for saying burning heretics was against the will of the Spirit.

When he did this, the Church was accused of saying that they believed the burning of heretics was indeed what God wanted them to do. If he did, it would be Church dogma and practiced today.

To get to the official teaching, and then my thoughts I will start here.

The Pope said it was wrong for an ordinary human to claim to know the will of God. Luther changed his mind, and in 1531 began to advocate the death penalty. Go figure:blush:

He thought it should be a capital offense to deny the resurrection or reality of heaven and hell.

Here was my question, how could he state that God denys the burning of heretics when hell is the eternal fires.

And Purgatory are the temporal fires.

How could he accept the eternal fires of hell, but yet say it goes against the will of the spirit???

I still don’t get it.

He is not speaking of hell or purgatorial fire. He is speaking of the fire that is used by men to kill folks who disagree.

Killing people for their belief (however erroneous) is wrong.

Both of our churches were correct to abandon the teaching.

 

[Novocastrian]

Saint Thomas Aquinas on Killing of Heretics, 10 Easy Points…
by Marshall Taylor, PhD
taylormarshall.com/

1. 
   *]Saint Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225-1274.
   *]He was a Dominican.
   *]The Dominicans from their inception were dedicated to the extirpation of heresy, namely Albigensianism.
   *]In his Summa theologiae II-II, q. 11. a. 3, he writes: “Therefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.”
   *]Thomas, in accord with the Old Testament and the New Testament (Romans 13), that the death penalty is a present reality and a right of the secular prince.
   *]Murderers kill the body and they get the death penalty.
   *]Heretical teachers kill the soul.
   *]Killing the souls is much worse for the Church and for secular culture.
   *]Therefore, heresiarchs should receive the death penalty.
   *]Thomas repeats his belief about six times. He’s very confident about it being the teaching of the Catholic Church.

1. 
   I love Thomas, but even the great ones get it wrong sometimes…

 

[dronald]

So you have no response to my post?

And you have made up your mind about what you think it means?

Hey Isaiah, I didn’t understand your post because you began discussing capital punishment as it relates to crimes outside of heresy. The paragraphs mention self defense and protection, nothing of heresy.

You’ll have to explain your first point again as I don’t fully understand what you’re saying. I don’t see how your reply relates to Papal bull 33 “burning heretics is against the will of the spirit” as a heresy.

 

[rinnie]

Surely God’s actions are far different than human actions. God knows the heart of man.The fires of hell can in no way be compared to the burning of “heretics” by a secular power (whether that be the state acting in the interest of the Church or the Church acting in its capacity as a political entity). The Holy Spirit killing a person because they lied to Him can in no way be compared to human beings killing other human beings because they differ over matters of religion.

I find it odd that Christianity, as a religion so persecuted in its early years, can fall so easily into a fleshly system of using violence, persecution, and the power of the State to enforce capital punishment in order to prop up a monopoly on religious authority. This is so far from the actions of Jesus Christ on this earth and just demonstrates the extent to which all Christians can be deceived into relying on carnal “weapons of warfare.” Far better for us to realize that the forces we fight against are not flesh and blood, but spiritual. Our weapons of spiritual warfare likewise must be spiritual.

Okay then let me ask you this another way IF God;s actions are far different from human actions when the husband and wife died because they lied to the Holy Spirit and were put to death, wasn’t putting people to death what the law did for being a heretic?

Or lets go another way what is a heretic? Isn’t it someone that denies the teaching of the Holy Spirit? Is there a difference between accepting what the Holy Spirit teaches as truth or denying what it teaches as truth?

Or to be more simple is denying the teaching of the Holy Spirit any different then lying to the Holy Spirit?