Question for all protestants

[dronald]

When did Luther ever declare that?

In the Papal Bull to Luther from Leo X, Leo was responding to the claim “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” and listed it as one of Luther’s errors.

Source.

See. This is what I mean. Charges and counter charges. Some with a grain of truth. Some without. And the history doesn’t change. Just the attitudes we have towards one another.

No side was clean. And no one today is responsible for that being the case.
Jon

I do agree with you JonNC, and I’ve always seen you as reasonable. The only point I’m trying to make is that it’s useful to have someone be able to stand up and disagree with a sole authority without the fear of being burned.

 

[jmcrae]

Source.

See. This is what I mean. Charges and counter charges. Some with a grain of truth. Some without. And the history doesn’t change. Just the attitudes we have towards one another.

No side was clean. And no one today is responsible for that being the case.
Jon

The peasant outbreaks, which in milder forms were previously easily controlled, now assumed a magnitude and acuteness that threatened the national life of Germany.

The primary causes that now brought on the predicted and inevitable conflict were the excessive luxury and inordinate love of pleasure in all stations of life, the lust of money on the part of the nobility and wealthy merchants, the unblushing extortions of commercial corporations, the artificial advance in prices and adulteration of the necessities of life, the decay of trade and stagnation of industry resulting from the dissolution of guilds, above all, the long endured oppression and daily increasing destitution of the peasantry, who were the main sufferers in the unbroken wars and feuds that rent and devastated Germany for more than a century.

A fire of repressed rebellion and infectious unrest burned throughout the nation. This smouldering fire Luther fanned to a fierce flame by his turbulent and incendiary writings, which were read with avidity by all, and by none more voraciously than the peasant, who looked upon “the son of a peasant” not only as an emancipator from Roman impositions, but the precursor of social advancement. “His invectives poured oil on the flames of revolt”.

True, when too late to lay the storm he issued his “Exhortation to Peace”, but it stands in inexplicable and ineffaceable contradiction to his second, unexampled blast “Against the murderous and robbing rabble of Peasants”. In this he entirely changes front, “dipped his pen in blood” (Lang, 180), and “calls upon the princes to slaughter the offending peasants like mad dogs, to stab, strangle and slay as best one can, and holds out as a reward the promise of heaven. The few sentences in which allusions to sympathy and mercy for the vanquished are contained, are relegated to the background. What an astounding illusion lay in the fact, that Luther had the hardihood to offer as apology for his terrible manifesto, that God commanded him to speak in such a strain!” (Schreckenbach, “Luther u. der Bauernkrieg”, Oldenburg, 1895,44; “Sammtl. W.” XXIV, 287-294).

His advice was literally followed. The process of repression was frightful. The encounters were more in the character of massacres than battles.

The undisciplined peasants with their rude farming implements as weapons, were slaughtered like cattle in the shambles. More than 1000 monasteries and castles were levelled to the ground, hundreds of villages were laid in ashes, the harvests of the nation were destroyed, and 100,000 killed.

The fact that one commander alone boasted that “he hanged 40 evangelical preachers and executed 11,000 revolutionists and heretics”, and that history with hardly a dissenting voice fastens the origin of this war on Luther, fully shows where its source and responsibility lay.

The Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Jon_S_1]

But there was a time and a place after the death of our Lord when it was acceptable for heresy?

Perhaps depending on the specific circumstance and societal implications

Just to clear things up you mean 1000BC correct?

Yes

Not for heresy, no. It’s never been okay.

Exodus 21:23-25

But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Romans 13:1-14

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Exodus 21:15

“Whoever strikes his father or his mother (mother church???) shall be put to death.

The death penalty is clearly stated for the following (which an advocate of could probably be labeled a heretic)

Worshiping other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-13:10, Exodus 22:20)

Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)

Taking God’s name in vain or cursing God’s name (Leviticus 24:16)

Cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15, 2:17, Leviticus 20:9, and in the New Testament Mark 7:10)

A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding (Deuteronomy 22:13-22) (in Judaism, this is traditionally understood as referring to a woman who committed adultery while betrothed)

 

[jmcrae]

More information about Martin Luther’s tract on the peasants can be found here.

 

[dronald]

Perhaps depending on the specific circumstance and societal implications

I don’t believe in moral relativism as it relates to God.

Exodus 21:23-25

But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21:15

“Whoever strikes his father or his mother (mother church???) shall be put to death.

The death penalty is clearly stated for the following (which an advocate of could probably be labeled a heretic)

Worshiping other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-13:10, Exodus 22:20)

Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)

Taking God’s name in vain or cursing God’s name (Leviticus 24:16)

Cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15, 2:17, Leviticus 20:9, and in the New Testament Mark 7:10)

A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding (Deuteronomy 22:13-22) (in Judaism, this is traditionally understood as referring to a woman who committed adultery while betrothed)

Jon, I’m not going to go down the route I go when discussing Christianity with an Atheist to you. You know the answers to these passages and you would explain them to an Atheist the same way I would explain them to an Atheist. So I’m not going to waste my time because I know you’re far too knowledgeable in Theology to try to use these OT passages to prove your point.

Romans 13:1-14

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

I wouldn’t say the Saints who were persecuted and murdered for writing negatively to the authorities due to their persecution were in the wrong as it relates to this passage. Nor will I say that the CC was in the right as the governing authority when they would do wrongful deeds.

If you read letters from those who came before us (130-300ish) you can read the pleas of them to stop murdering them and making false accusations.

If a government goes too far, then they have gone too far.

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic Encyclopedia

Umm, let me rephrase: a neutral source, please.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by SteveVH
May I ask how you would respond to the fact that in the early post-reformation period over 30,000 women were burned at the stake in England alone, and in Protestant Germany over 100,000 women were burned, all accused of being witches?

I completely disagree with it. Mary 1, Elizabeth, Leo X, in the name of Religion, Politics, I disagree with it. There was no time and place when burning human beings for disagreeing with your Religious practices was okay.

My point was that Luther was certainly not opposed to burning people, nor was the Church of England. I agree with you completely. It was brutal, but it was a standard means of capital punishment at the time as demonstrated by the numbers I just gave you. I have said before that people will certainly look back to when we electrocuted people to death and call it brutal and inhumane. I agree with them as well.

 

[dronald]

My point was that Luther was certainly not opposed to burning people, nor was the Church of England. I agree with you completely. It was brutal, but it was a standard means of capital punishment at the time as demonstrated by the numbers I just gave you. I have said before that people will certainly look back to when we electrocuted people to death and call it brutal and inhumane. I agree with them as well.

Yeah, I get that it was common practice but to claim that it does not go against the will of the spirit with “heretics” is my issue.

No one should be allowed to say that without someone being allowed to disagree, but such was not possible for hundreds of years.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t believe in moral relativism as it relates to God.

Jon, I’m not going to go down the route I go when discussing Christianity with an Atheist to you. You know the answers to these passages and you would explain them to an Atheist the same way I would explain them to an Atheist. So I’m not going to waste my time because I know you’re far too knowledgeable in Theology to try to use these OT passages to prove your point.

I wouldn’t say the Saints who were persecuted and murdered for writing negatively to the authorities due to their persecution were in the wrong as it relates to this passage. Nor will I say that the CC was in the right as the governing authority when they would do wrongful deeds.

If you read letters from those who came before us (130-300ish) you can read the pleas of them to stop murdering them and making false accusations.

If a government goes too far, then they have gone too far.

Now I am very curious your stance on Old Testament passages.

I believe that God revealed a law and civil structure that worked for that time.

I don’t see this as moral relativism as the moral issue is if one can take a life for just cause.

That moral principal is alive and well.

What has changed is the necessity to implement, not the justice found within.

Do you have a different view?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Umm, let me rephrase: a neutral source, please.

Jon

Lol

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yeah, I get that it was common practice but to claim that it does not go against the will of the spirit with “heretics” is my issue.

No one should be allowed to say that without someone being allowed to disagree, but such was not possible for hundreds of years.

That’s not true at all.

People were allowed to debate and discuss and question.

There was no problem with Luther’s. 95 thesis.

The problems came when he failed to submit to the church authority as he was bound as a PRIEST and persisted in his near complete rejection of Catholic theology.

A layman would have been far less significant and worrisome.

 

[dronald]

Now I am very curious your stance on Old Testament passages.

I believe that God revealed a law and civil structure that worked for that time.

I don’t see this as moral relativism as the moral issue is if one can take a life for just cause.

That moral principal is alive and well.

What has changed is the necessity to implement, not the justice found within.

Do you have a different view?

Well, just in your list alone you have quoted two passages that Jesus speaks up about.

1. “An eye for an eye.” Jesus quotes that word for word and reveals a better way.
2. “Adultery”

You know the NT well, and know that the New has replaced the Old. We don’t live by OT anymore, we don’t stone adulterers because God does not want us to, nor do we live by “an eye for an eye” or burn people who disagree with us. All these things ceased after Jesus finished His work.

That’s not true at all.

People were allowed to debate and discuss and question.

There was no problem with Luther’s. 95 thesis.

The problems came when he failed to submit to the church authority as he was bound as a PRIEST and persisted in his near complete rejection of Catholic theology.

A layman would have been far less significant and worrisome.

But you do realize that in every case where a movement began they were killed if they didn’t recant right?

 

[SteveVH]

Yeah, I get that it was common practice but to claim that it does not go against the will of the spirit with “heretics” is my issue.

No one should be allowed to say that without someone being allowed to disagree, but such was not possible for hundreds of years.

The Church cannot make a definitive statement that capital punishment is always wrong in the eyes of the Spirit. That was the issue.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, just in your list alone you have quoted two passages that Jesus speaks up about.

1. “An eye for an eye.” Jesus quotes that word for word and reveals a better way.
2. “Adultery”

You know the NT well, and know that the New has replaced the Old. We don’t live by OT anymore, we don’t stone adulterers because God does not want us to, nor do we live by “an eye for an eye” or burn people who disagree with us. All these things ceased after Jesus finished His work.

I thought you didn’t believe in moral relativism with God?

I agree Christ FULFILLS not replaces the law. Jesus himself says “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it” .

So your comment begs the question of why God allowed something in the Old Testament and why Jesus replaced it.

I would argue, Christ left the law in place, but urged an increase in justice, grace and mercy, which snowballed into rarer and rarer executions.

But you do realize that in every case where a movement began they were killed if they didn’t recant right?

Source for any, let alone EVERY case

 

[dronald]

I thought you didn’t believe in moral relativism with God?

I agree Christ FULFILLS not replaces the law. Jesus himself says “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it” .

So your comment begs the question of why God allowed something in the Old Testament and why Jesus replaced it.

I would argue, Christ left the law in place, but urged an increase in justice, grace and mercy, which snowballed into rarer and rarer executions.

Interesting. I always assumed the fulfillment of the law brought something greater, which is forgiveness and grace. I thought it replaced executions, explaining why someone cannot be put to death for dishonoring their father.

Source for any, let alone EVERY case

Uprisings?

Waldenses, Wycliffe, Hus. I think the entire Spanish inquisition was the search for heretics wasn’t it? What would happen if they rejected the CC?

 

[jmcrae]

Umm, let me rephrase: a neutral source, please.

Jon

How about a Protestant source?

More information about Martin Luther’s tract on the peasants can be found here.

 

[jmcrae]

Waldenses, Wycliffe, Hus. I think the entire Spanish inquisition was the search for heretics wasn’t it? What would happen if they rejected the CC?

The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Protestantism. Spain had just recovered from seven centuries of Islamic repression. The Inquisition in Spain was about uncovering Jews and Muslims who were pretending to be Catholic to gain a foothold in the government and retake Spain for Islam. The Spanish Inquisition, along with the equally-vilified Crusades, are the reason that you and I aren’t writing these messages in Farsi right now, and why we can enjoy freedom of religion today.

 

[pocohombre]

Hold on here I can’t let this one go. Okay you said Scripture is authoritative and the pilar of truth for sure.

 

[pocohombre]

Yeah, I get that it was common practice but to claim that it does not go against the will of the spirit with “heretics” is my issue.

No one should be allowed to say that without someone being allowed to disagree, but such was not possible for hundreds of years.

C. S. Lewis , "Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past ". Agree with you .The bad started somewhere. I think the catholic church set the tone on how to deal with heretics, and even some reformers unfortunately followed. And I am not sure Luther did. Seems it was more a civil matter.

 

[pocohombre]

Jews and Muslims who were pretending to be Catholic to gain a foothold in the government and retake Spain for Islam.

Jews ,Moors and Catholics lived side by side, and quite well, for centuries in both the Catholic and Muslim territories of the peninsula. In 1492 all of a sudden Jews and muslims are “out”…Here is a take from a Jewish perspective- "to weed out heresy in the Christian world.to maintain Catholic orthodoxy, unless they converted all the said Jews and Jewesses to quit our kingdoms and never return …some bad Christians who Judaized and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith, the chief cause of which was the communication of Jews with Christians…Rather than slowly squeezing the money out of the Jews through taxation, it was easier to expel them all at once and confiscate the wealth and property they would leave behind.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/the_inquisition/

The Spanish Inquisition, along with the equally-vilified Crusades, are the reason that you and I aren’t writing these messages in Farsi right now, and why we can enjoy freedom of religion today.

The Inquisition is partly due to fear of muslims but only partly and only in a few southern cities, where they had more influence. No, it is still the old idea of political unity aided by Church unity.