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

[rinnie]

The “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God” is the former
“someone who believes or teaches something that goes against accepted or official beliefs” is the latter per websters dictionary. They can overlap, for Christ I think was accused of both somewhat.

I think you could be right. Scripture states they could not find sin on him but killed him anyway.

The difference IMHO is Christ was accused of being a heretic because he claimed to be God. The proof he was not a heretic is he was God. He was also accused once again falsely of teaching something that went against their accepted beliefs. As Christ said I did not come to change the law I came to fulfill it. He never went against the word of God, but knew their intentions for trying to trick him because he is indeed God.

As far as the Church accusing someone of being a heretic they do have that authority. Not of killing anyone as I pray we agree on now.

But they have the same authority to decide a heretic according to the RCC.

I think the problem here also comes is if they use their authority to call one a heretic are they guilty for the outcome of the call.

And once again only God can judge each and every single person on his standards not ours. So no one can say what the Holy Spirit will say.

I personally cannot see if someone had authority and used it in truth and did the best they felt in their heart that God will have mercy on them if they were wrong. Because unfortunately with humans come human sin and human failings. No one can say if a human makes a human decision it is divine.

But God knows a heart you can’t fool him and only he can judge not us.

 

[pocohombre]

Only about everyday for almost a month or so.

Many Popes actually agree with Luther on his issue. Many still do. But it all on human terms.

Luther was not a heretic for his human thinking, Luther was a heretic for claiming his Human thinking was Divine.

That is why he recanted.

What the Church was teaching and saying and let me make this CLEAR once and for all. At least try

The Church said no human mind can speak for the Holy Spirit. That is why he was wrong.

Not because his thoughts were right or wrong. But because he exercised the voice of God without the Power of the Holy Spirit to do so.

Its quite simple really

My friend every time you or I proclaim Christ as the savior of the world we well may be speaking for and with and by the power of the Holy Spirit. Anyways, we all want divine thinking don’t we ? We all want to be like Him don’t we? That is a Christian. To have His thoughts, to have His passions. We see thru a glass dimly but yet we see and have His mind, this new inner man,this spiritual man… I find it interesting that Catholics don’t want to judge who goes to heaven or not, that only God knows for sure, yet generally speaking only Catholics go to heaven. We used to surely judge heretics harshly, for sure., and yet God only knows…for sure…?

 

[rinnie]

And maybe he had a point. There was quite a lot wrong with how the Church was operating at the time. The issue with Luther isn’t that he criticised the Church, but that he chose to leave the Church and do so from the outside. Selling indulgences, burning heretics, how can we argue that these were right and proper. Pope Benedict himself has spoken in positive terms about some of Luther’s core theological arguments.

If Luther had stayed within the Church and fought his corner, we would be looking back on him, and many of his ideas in a positive light.

Exactly. No one ever disagreed with him when he was right. And much disgrace was done by our human leaders. We can’t deny the truth. Much more then we can deny the horrible disgraces that go on in the RCC today. Evil is Evil. We will never defend evil.

While the selling of indulgences was being abused, does not state that indulgences were wrong or are wrong today. They are not. and are still granted.

And you are also right we never agreed that burning of heretics was right, It never was a Church teaching.

But instead of Luther sticking by the RCC and getting rid of the bad, he left the RCC and turned on the RCC and started his own. And tried to twist the true word of God for his benefit not Gods.

 

[rinnie]

My friend every time you or I proclaim Christ as the savior of the world we well may be speaking for and with and by the power of the Holy Spirit. Anyways, we all want divine thinking don’t we ? We all want to be like Him don’t we? That is a Christian. To have His thoughts, to have His passions. We see thru a glass dimly but yet we see and have His mind, this new inner man,this spiritual man… I find it interesting that Catholics don’t want to judge who goes to heaven or not, that only God knows for sure, yet generally speaking only Catholics go to heaven. We used to surely judge heretics harshly, for sure., and yet God only knows…for sure…?

I disagree Sorry. I do not proclaim Christ as the savior of the world by my own Divine thinking I speak it because it was given to me by Christ himself through his Church.

If the RCC were not here I would not know.

I believe you are confused on the Church defending the truth of God and judging heretics. How do you believe the Church can defend the truth of God and yet allow his truth to be twisted and turned by people?

While the Church has the power to Judge if a person is a heretic by his interpretation of the word of God, the Church has never claimed to know who goes to heaven or hell.

Judging someone because of a false teaching one does not have to know the mind of God. They just have to have the infallible teaching of God to know.

If you say to me Jesus is not God, I can say you are considered a heretic in the RCC because you go against the teaching of the RCC. Thats not my Divine mind. Actually that pretty much lst grade religion class. Even a caveman know it

For me to say you are going to heaven or hell and knowing the mind of God, thats being a heretic on my part for claiming to know the mind of God.

2 very different things.

 

[rinnie]

In my faith only the Pope and his Bishops can claim to speak in the name of the Power of the Holy Spirit. Not me!:nope::nope:

I got what they call the Human mind. I got to go to the Church if I want Divine teaching, My human mind can’t do it.

 

[rinnie]

Kinda like how my human mind can’t understand how luthers human mind could deny heretics being burned goes against the spirit, when hell is the burning of heretics.

Or how purgatory is the cleansing fire not for Saints but for sinners like me who have been forgiven but not had the purfying fire to become a Saint.

Then again I better rephrase that, Sinners like me who HOPE will Be forgiven and get the purgying fire!

 

[pocohombre]

I think the problem here also comes is if they use their authority to call one a heretic are they guilty for the outcome of the call.

We should remind those that blame Luther for many deaths of this.

And once again only God can judge each and every single person on his standards not ours. So no one can say what the Holy Spirit will say.

Sounds like relativism. No one desires their own standards of judgement. We all desire His standard. We can judge. He only asks that we judge righteously. Historical context is part of that. Like how could David be allowed so many wives ? How could Christians own slaves ? What are we doing today that might seem OK but down the road will seem quite carnal ? The human heart is what ? deceitfully wicked. How do you know that the past church was not steeped in ugliness of sin, yet still holding up the gospel ? Come on man, those were ugly fruits. Call a spade a spade, though with a broken heart, and ask how do we fare today ?

 

[steido01]

And maybe he had a point. There was quite a lot wrong with how the Church was operating at the time. The issue with Luther isn’t that he criticised the Church, but that he chose to leave the Church and do so from the outside. Selling indulgences, burning heretics, how can we argue that these were right and proper. Pope Benedict himself has spoken in positive terms about some of Luther’s core theological arguments.

If Luther had stayed within the Church and fought his corner, we would be looking back on him, and many of his ideas in a positive light.

Luther did not leave; he was excommunicated. There’s quite a difference.

 

[Brendan_64]

Luther did not leave; he was excommunicated. There’s quite a difference.

Only after calling the Pope the anti-Christ. If that isn’t forcing the Pope’s hand then I don’t know what is.

 

[rinnie]

We should remind those that blame Luther for many deaths of this.
Sounds like relativism. No one desires their own standards of judgement. We all desire His standard. We can judge. He only asks that we judge righteously. Historical context is part of that. Like how could David be allowed so many wives ? How could Christians own slaves ? What are we doing today that might seem OK but down the road will seem quite carnal ? The human heart is what ? deceitfully wicked. How do you know that the past church was not steeped in ugliness of sin, yet still holding up the gospel ? Come on man, those were ugly fruits. Call a spade a spade, though with a broken heart, and ask how do we fare today ?

Simple because I have that promise, You are Peter to you I give the keys to the kingdom what you hold bound is bound loose is loose. On the Day of Pentecost Christ sent the Holy Spirit to speak in his name.,

You either believe the H.S. came on Pentecost to the RCC or you deny it and Peter and all the Apostles don’t have the authority given to them in the Bible. Either the bible is the word of God or it is not.

I never read in Sacred Scripture or Tradition that Peter or his Apostles would be free from sin, or if they had this ungliness of sin, they would not longer be able to teach truth,

I never heard God say you must lbe Divine to teach Divine.

Where have I ever denied sins of any Pope or Priest?

If you want to say the RCC is guilty of sin for judging heretics I can stop you. If you feel you can condemn them to hell I can;t stop you. But I can’t. Sorry to disapoint you.

If you want to compare them to the sins of Luther go ahead, I don’t have to agree with you,

But because I choose to believe that many Priest believed they were bringing more heretics to God by the inquisition, I can, And I also have the right to rely on the mercy of God to judge all fairly, amd the common sense to not claim the mind of God.

 

[rinnie]

Luther did not leave; he was excommunicated. There’s quite a difference.

Yep by the Power of the Pope who used this power given to him by God to do so.

A power that is still alive today and until the end of age.

If the Pope did not have this power Luther would not obeyed it.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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 was probably arguing against the interpretation (and what the Pope likely meant even though it was worded ambiguously) that the state should burn heretics as was commonplace.

 

[rinnie]

He was probably arguing against the interpretation (and what the Pope likely meant even though it was worded ambiguously) that the state should burn heretics as was commonplace.

I understand that. But why did he just not say that he believed that we should not burn heretics at the stake that the buring of heretics should be the will of God not of humans.

Especially know what the teachings of hell are. Its the eternal fires.

Why did he say it goes against the will of the Holy Spirit. I just don’t see why knowing the teachings of the RCC he would say that.

And knowing that purgatory is the final cleansing that burn away all human desire for sin.

Rather it be a physical burning or spriitual burning it is still the teachings of God.

 

[JonNC]

I understand that. But why did he just not say that he believed that we should not burn heretics at the stake that the buring of heretics should be the will of God not of humans.

Especially know what the teachings of hell are. Its the eternal fires.

Why did he say it goes against the will of the Holy Spirit. I just don’t see why knowing the teachings of the RCC he would say that.

And knowing that purgatory is the final cleansing that burn away all human desire for sin.

Rather it be a physical burning or spriitual burning it is still the teachings of God.

Rinnie, does God grant us free will?

In this life, are Catholics free to exercise that free will by leaving the Church?

If so, does the Spirit grant other human beings the right to take that free will aware by burning them at the stake? Are other humans allowed to take from others what God gives to people?

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, does God grant us free will?

In this life, are Catholics free to exercise that free will by leaving the Church?

If so, does the Spirit grant other human beings the right to take that free will aware by burning them at the stake? Are other humans allowed to take from others what God gives to people?

Jon

Yes and Yes. And no and I believe the Church never disagreed with Luther on his opinion of that.

But as educated as he was, why would he believe that he had the free will to talk with the mind of God. Because that is what the Church condemmed him for. Not for his right to exercise his free will and personal opinion, but to speak for the Holy Spirit.

And on the basis of hell, he knew that it was indeed the eternal fire for those who refused to accept God.

As I stated if he said he does not believe that the State had the right to burn heretics he would not have been found wrong. Simply because the Church could not say he was right or wrong on his opinion, only that his opinion could not be said to be the opinion of God.

But in his thesis it was quite clear what he stated and why he was called on it. And he did later agree with the teachings of the Church.

But with that said how coudl he condemn the state, which I have no problem with that, and then turn around and do the same thing?

He was told by the Church no one can speak for the Holy Spirit, then recanted, then turned around and did what he accused the RCC and State of?

Or am I totally off the mark on this?

 

[rinnie]

He was probably arguing against the interpretation (and what the Pope likely meant even though it was worded ambiguously) that the state should burn heretics as was commonplace.

Where did the Church ever state that? And regardless if a Popes personal opinion was in agreement with Roman Law, how it makes the Church responsible for the State.

Today abortion is now accepted by the law, and the Church disagrees with it, But is the Church also responsible for not stopping it also?

The Church also helped many people who were sentenced by the state for being heretic by giving them confession and saving their life.

While it can be seen 2 ways the church working with the law for the good, or can be accused for the bad, it still can be seen both ways.

Luthers way of condemning the Church, and the Law and then doing it himself? Where is that reasoning?

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, does God grant us free will?

In this life, are Catholics free to exercise that free will by leaving the Church?

If so, does the Spirit grant other human beings the right to take that free will aware by burning them at the stake? Are other humans allowed to take from others what God gives to people?

Jon

So you are saying that you believe that the Church believed it was right to burn heretics and take away their free will? And the Church is completely responsible for the Roman Law?

Which of course is your free will to believe or not to believe that.

 

[pocohombre]

I never read in Sacred Scripture or Tradition that Peter or his Apostles would be free from sin, or if they had this ungliness of sin, they would not longer be able to teach truth,
I never heard God say you must lbe Divine to teach Divine.
Where have I ever denied sins of any Pope or Priest?

Are you sure you believe this, enough to feel the pain, see the ugliness, for just a second, and not give it lip service and move on to a more secure, comfortable, even beautiful vision of church ? I did say " steeped in ugliness of sin, yet still holding up the gospel ? So I agree you do not have to be divine to preach and I am including the entire western church, both Catholic and Protestant, that experimented with absolute power and befruited this ugliness that we speak of. It does not detract from the good. Justification stops true self -examination, of the past or present, of ourselves or of the corporate Body.

 

[pocohombre]

Today abortion is now accepted by the law, and the Church disagrees with it, But is the Church also responsible for not stopping it also?

Sorry, apples and oranges. We do have separation of church and state, to a huge degree compared to most of western history from Constantine on. It was the Council of Nicea 325 AD where bishops
declared for the first time anathemas with civil enforcement…As far as “responsibility”, well you need motivation, at least Godly motivation. That is challenged when the “set-up” seems so self serving (civil police for religious thought). No wonder it almost lasted 1500 years,

While it can be seen 2 ways the church working with the law for the good, or can be accused for the bad, it still can be seen both ways.

Shall we sin even more so that grace may abound ? It was not God’s will for Israel to desire a king as the neighboring gentiles. Yet God gave them what they wanted, and from time to time you had great kings. Most of the time it was a bummer as God warned… I suspect that for most of those executed “heretics” it was a bummer.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

My Church never did that. My Church had and has authority from God to protect the teachings of the Church and define who is and is not a heretic. And yes that authority still exists today. If someone is a heretic the Pope can excommunicate them and still does.

My Church has never had authority from God to execute anyone. If it did it would still be doing it.

Show me where the RCC ever taught that Roman Law was the teachings of the Holy Spirit?

My Church never did that. My Church had and has authority from God to protect the teachings of the Church and define who is and is not a heretic. And yes that authority still exists today. If someone is a heretic the Pope can excommunicate them and still does.

We aren’t taking about excommunication, we are talking about killing heretics. Did the Church ever support the killing of heretics by the state?

My Church has never had authority from God to execute anyone. If it did it would still be doing it.

Still? I thought it never did that?

Show me where the RCC ever taught that Roman Law was the teachings of the Holy Spirit?

I don’t know if it did or not, it doesn’t matter.

What matters is what God has actually said. Did he say for Christians to support the killing of heretics by anyone?