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

[rinnie]

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.

Okay then if a person rejects Christ and refuses to accept him and is sent to hell when he dies because as you stated killing people is wrong for what they believe, then Christ is not Justified in his teaching?

 

[dronald]

Okay then if a person rejects Christ and refuses to accept him and is sent to hell when he dies because as you stated killing people is wrong for what they believe, then Christ is not Justified in his teaching?

Hell is a place where all sin goes, does this mean we must burn alive every liar, adulterer, heretic, disobedient child, etc?

I know this one alcoholic who refuses to stop stealing alcohol, perhaps we should burn him to death because that’s what Jesus will do anyways right?

 

[Picky_Picky]

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?

As to your last question, the answer is “Yes”. The difference is in the presence or absence of mens rea.

 

[rinnie]

Perhaps you should take this up with the current pope and the bishops, since they support a not-burning-heretics policy. (Does that mean they don’t believe in hell? )

See this is where I believe the problem arises. I don’t see where the Church ever stated it one way or another.

I have read where Popes have human reason on what they see, and while I agree with them on a human reason level, and even Luther on human level reason.

I still have to go with the Churchs teaching on correcting Luther. Where does he or anyone have the mind of God to state that answer either way?

There is much scripture to debate it either way.

But hiow can anyone say absolutely except for the Pope or RCC if the answer if given to them by the Holy Spirit that our human mind is the mind of God.

But where was it ever said that the mind of God never goes against human reason.

 

[rinnie]

As to your last question, the answer is “Yes”. The difference is in the presence or absence of mens rea.

So what you are saying to me is this, I want to be clear. That if I know a teaching of God absolutely came from him, but it goes against my human reasoning then Yes I can put my human reasoning against the teaching of the H.S.?

 

[rinnie]

Hell is a place where all sin goes, does this mean we must burn alive every liar, adulterer, heretic, disobedient child, etc?

I know this one alcoholic who refuses to stop stealing alcohol, perhaps we should burn him to death because that’s what Jesus will do anyways right?

You know dronald I just wish one time time you would read a question I ask. Just once that would be so great.

Listen just this once okay? Please.

Where does your opinion or mine claim to be God’s?

If an alcololic refuses to repent, and stop stealing which is a commandment of Jesus he will have eternal life in Christ? Is that what you are saying?

How can you say EITHER way what Christ will do? Please tell me how. I have asked you numerous ways etc.

 

[Picky_Picky]

So what you are saying to me is this, I want to be clear. That if I know a teaching of God absolutely came from him, but it goes against my human reasoning then Yes I can put my human reasoning against the teaching of the H.S.?

No, that is not at all what I mean; nor would I comment in this place about the relative validity of human reasoning and religious teaching, or, come to that, about the morality of burning people for ever in Hell. I was answering your question: Yes, there is a difference between a person deliberately causing an offence to God, and a person having honestly held heretical views. The difference is in the presence or absence of guilty intent.

 

[dronald]

You know dronald I just wish one time time you would read a question I ask. Just once that would be so great.

Listen just this once okay? Please.

Where does your opinion or mine claim to be God’s?

If an alcololic refuses to repent, and stop stealing which is a commandment of Jesus he will have eternal life in Christ? Is that what you are saying?

How can you say EITHER way what Christ will do? Please tell me how. I have asked you numerous ways etc.

1st answer: it doesn’t, that’s why we should never have burned heretics. Only God should ever make that judgment.

2nd answer: no, but we can’t judge them ourselves by destroying them; only God can.

 

[rinnie]

1st answer: it doesn’t, that’s why we should never have burned heretics. Only God should ever make that judgment.

2nd answer: no, but we can’t judge them ourselves by destroying them; only God can.

Where is your proof that the burning of heretics was not the judgment of God. You sit here and tell me only Christ can make it either way. I am not asking you if WE should burn heretics no one is.

I am asking you where the burning of heretics goes against the will of the Holy Spirit.

Please answer the question.

2nd if Humans do not play a role in life or death in our Judicial system how can anyone be sentenced to death in this country? And prove to me when a person dies in the electric chair it went agaisnt the will of God.

 

[rinnie]

No, that is not at all what I mean; nor would I comment in this place about the relative validity of human reasoning and religious teaching, or, come to that, about the morality of burning people for ever in Hell. I was answering your question: Yes, there is a difference between a person deliberately causing an offence to God, and a person having honestly held heretical views. The difference is in the presence or absence of guilty intent.

Okay and I do understand and agree with what you are saying.

But I am kind of asking you this is another way through.

If you believe in God and know what he teaches is indeed what he teaches, no doubt in your mind, but do not understand why or agree with it do you still have to obey?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

I think you read my post from the bottom - up.

Here’s the first part of my post:

Isaiah45_9:

The issue is of a person claiming to know and understand the will of the Spirit of God outside His Church.

*1 Corinthians 2:*11 For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Romans 11:34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”
You are interpreting the censorship of person’s claim to speak for the will of the Spirit as if it means the opposite of the statement made in the claim of the will.

If I say: “It is the will of the Spirit that no murderer be put to death by lethal injection.”

And I get admonished for speaking authoritatively in regards to the will of the Spirit - Does it mean that my admonisher is promoting death by lethal injection? No, because the issue is not death by lethal injection. The issue is placing myself in a position to represent the will of the Spirit. That I know, understand and represent the will of the Spirit, on my own and outside the Church.
​

What part of this you don’t understand?
​

The second part of my post was done to show actual Catholic teaching in regards to Capital Punishment. Just in case other mislead souls believe from your posts and that of others what we don’t teach.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Okay and I do understand and agree with what you are saying.

But I am kind of asking you this is another way through.

If you believe in God and know what he teaches is indeed what he teaches, no doubt in your mind, but do not understand why or agree with it do you still have to obey?

If, with your permission, just to close some potential loopholes, I could rephrase that a little to:

“If you believe in God, and believe He is all seeing, all wise and all goodness, and know that what He teaches is what He teaches, no doubt in your mind, but do not understand why or agree with it, although you know that in His goodness and wisdom He wishes your obedience, should you obey?”

then, with that amendment, I think the logical answer to your question would have to be “Yes”.

 

[believerdoc]

No, that is not at all what I mean; nor would I comment in this place about the relative validity of human reasoning and religious teaching, or, come to that, about the morality of burning people for ever in Hell. I was answering your question: Yes, there is a difference between a person deliberately causing an offence to God, and a person having honestly held heretical views. The difference is in the presence or absence of guilty intent.

May I interject a thought? Heretical views are only wrong in the third person as in your heretical view. If I believe that you have heretical views and you believe that I hold heretical views then do we burn everyone? No one has the right to kill anyone because they hold contrary beliefs; that is a matter between that person and God. You cannot save people from their beliefs by killing them; it was wrong when Luther denounced it and it is wrong today.

 

[Picky_Picky]

May I interject a thought? Heretical views are only wrong in the third person as in your heretical view. If I believe that you have heretical views and you believe that I hold heretical views then do we burn everyone? No one has the right to kill anyone because they hold contrary beliefs; that is a matter between that person and God. You cannot save people from their beliefs by killing them; it was wrong when Luther denounced it and it is wrong today.

Well, that’s what I think, too, but rinnie is working to construct an alternative argument.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

May I interject a thought? Heretical views are only wrong in the third person as in your heretical view. If I believe that you have heretical views and you believe that I hold heretical views then do we burn everyone? No one has the right to kill anyone because they hold contrary beliefs; that is a matter between that person and God. You cannot save people from their beliefs by killing them; it was wrong when Luther denounced it and it is wrong today.

Right, that’s fine when the heresy is just a view.

The problem we run into is when the heresy becomes a crime.

A crime is against society and they are codified by the state in order to impart justice and protect the innocent.

Notice I am not discussing the practice of imparting justice but what a crime is and its effect and who is ultimately responsible to enforce justice on earth.

We are responsible to spread the good news and practice its message. The state is responsible to protect and to serve its citizens. I think we can agree with the difficulties of having Church and State as a single entity. In fact, it is also difficult in their separation. Regardless, we are called to better ourselves and turn from our old ways for a new way in Christ Jesus.

Just as it is not fair to hide - it is not fair to exaggerate or bear false witness. This is difficult when emotions are involved, but then - no one said it was easy.

 

[dronald]

I think you read my post from the bottom - up.

Here’s the first part of my post:

What part of this you don’t understand?
The second part of my post was done to show actual Catholic teaching in regards to Capital Punishment. Just in case other mislead souls believe from your posts and that of others what we don’t teach.

So you’re saying that the issue of burning heretics was not the issue at hand, but rather that Luther thought he had the authority to make a judgement call on what is the will of the Spirit?

 

[ltwin]

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?

A sovereign God distributing righteous judgment by striking people dead is far different than the State using judicial process, torture, and, finally, execution to punish so called “heretics.” Neither the State or the Church is God. And given the track record of both institutions throughout history, neither one inspires much confidence when it comes to “justly” persecuting individuals for their beliefs.

Heretics were not put to death because they denied or violated the teaching of the Holy Spirit. They were put to death because they defied human authority that placed itself in the position to determine the will of God. It was human government that put them to death. Not God.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Okay then if a person rejects Christ and refuses to accept him and is sent to hell when he dies because as you stated killing people is wrong for what they believe, then Christ is not Justified in his teaching?

Jesus did not teach that anyone should be killed for dissent (however errant it is).

 

[pocohombre]

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?

Is there a difference between God striking Annanias down and Peter ordering a fire, tie up Annanias and burn him for lying ? Moses dared not strike down rebels but put them to the test before God and His judgements. What Annanias did was not heretical,but sin is sin and is ugly and is infectious. Let’s kill anyone who sins ?

 

[pocohombre]

mistake