Question for all protestants

[rinnie]

What did the Church teach about it? What civil authorities teach is a different realm.

I never made that claim, rinnie, but I think it is not historically accurate to claim that civil authorities burned heretics at the stake against the will of the Church at the time.

Jon

Okay then would it also be fair to say thieves crucified on the cross for stealing was not against the will of Christ either.

If you want to look at it that way then I will agree. Just as stealing was against the law and the penalty was dying on the cross at the time of Christ, Hersey was a crime against the state and the penalty was burned at the stake.

Just as if you commited adultery you were stoned to death.

But lets go back to Mary M. She was indeed commiting adultery. Was the sentence justified? Did she deny it? No she did not.

But the story about Mary M was not about her sin being justified to being stoned to death. Not by a long shot. Jesus knew the minds of the accusers and knew their evils in pointing her out.

If committing adultery did not justify being stoned to death Jesus would have said so. But he said whoever has no sins throw the first stone. He knew they had no right to judge her.

He said your sins are FORGIVEN GO and SIN NO MORE. Now if she continued to commit adultery she would be stoned to death and it would be according to the law.

THis story was not about Jewish law or authority, It was about sinners.

If every Judge today had to be without sin there would be no one in jail. God was not saying to not judge. He was saying to people like us who have no authority to judge to keep our traps shut.

Did the Church believe heresy was a crime back then? Yes, But they still do today. So whats the big deal. But because heresy is not a crime today and not punishable by death, they will obey the law as they did back then.

As times goes on we do what we were taught and teach with what we know.

Did people have free will to worship freely back in those days. No they did not. But it is so unfair to blame the RCC.

Just like it is unfair to blame the RCC today for not stopping abortion, or gay marriages, or other Churchs teaching heresy against the RCC. The Law today is you can do as you choose. You can deny God, hate steal kill commit adultery.

The RCC spoke the truth today as back yesterday. If someone spoke a heresy against God the sentence was death. That was the law.

If someone speaks heresy against God today the sentence is still death. Death of the soul. Either way when you speak against God and go against his teaching you separate yourself from him. Being separated from him is mortal sin, death of the soul.

The law back then was because the state was afraid the world would be like it is today. In the O.T. if you lied to God you died on the spot. I can’t speak why God does what he does, I never could.

God lets things happen for reason above the grace given to me to understand.

I don’t question the RCC I don’t understand everything. I don’t have to. I just have to obey!

Back in the day the RCC was in charge of judging if the person was in heresy or was not. And if they could not bring the sheep back into the fold they had no other choice but report the Gods truth. If they are guilty of sin, then they are no more guilty of the Judges today who speak the truth.

Their role back then was to report heresy or not heresy against the word of God.

 

[dronald]

Okay then would it also be fair to say thieves crucified on the cross for stealing was not against the will of Christ either.

If you want to look at it that way then I will agree. Just as stealing was against the law and the penalty was dying on the cross at the time of Christ, Hersey was a crime against the state and the penalty was burned at the stake.

Just as if you commited adultery you were stoned to death.

But lets go back to Mary M. She was indeed commiting adultery. Was the sentence justified? Did she deny it? No she did not.

But the story about Mary M was not about her sin being justified to being stoned to death. Not by a long shot. Jesus knew the minds of the accusers and knew their evils in pointing her out.

If committing adultery did not justify being stoned to death Jesus would have said so. But he said whoever has no sins throw the first stone. He knew they had no right to judge her.

He said your sins are FORGIVEN GO and SIN NO MORE. Now if she continued to commit adultery she would be stoned to death and it would be according to the law.

THis story was not about Jewish law or authority, It was about sinners.

If every Judge today had to be without sin there would be no one in jail. God was not saying to not judge. He was saying to people like us who have no authority to judge to keep our traps shut.

Did the Church believe heresy was a crime back then? Yes, But they still do today. So whats the big deal. But because heresy is not a crime today and not punishable by death, they will obey the law as they did back then.

As times goes on we do what we were taught and teach with what we know.

Did people have free will to worship freely back in those days. No they did not. But it is so unfair to blame the RCC.

Just like it is unfair to blame the RCC today for not stopping abortion, or gay marriages, or other Churchs teaching heresy against the RCC. The Law today is you can do as you choose. You can deny God, hate steal kill commit adultery.

The RCC spoke the truth today as back yesterday. If someone spoke a heresy against God the sentence was death. That was the law.

If someone speaks heresy against God today the sentence is still death. Death of the soul. Either way when you speak against God and go against his teaching you separate yourself from him. Being separated from him is mortal sin, death of the soul.

The law back then was because the state was afraid the world would be like it is today. In the O.T. if you lied to God you died on the spot. I can’t speak why God does what he does, I never could.

God lets things happen for reason above the grace given to me to understand.

I don’t question the RCC I don’t understand everything. I don’t have to. I just have to obey!

Back in the day the RCC was in charge of judging if the person was in heresy or was not. And if they could not bring the sheep back into the fold they had no other choice but report the Gods truth. If they are guilty of sin, then they are no more guilty of the Judges today who speak the truth.

Their role back then was to report heresy or not heresy against the word of God.

I find it interesting how you use, “back then” as if it can be justified based on the time and place.

Would you say the Apostles had every right to burn alive any human who rejected their message? What about the early church fathers? What about Leo X? What about now?

 

[Scitor]

In 1000 AD, God deemed it moral and just to stone people to death for things as “little” as not being a virgin at marriage.

Jon S…can you please provide a basis for the above comment. Where to does God deem it okay to stone people to death in 1000 AD?

 

[jmcrae]

Jon S…can you please provide a basis for the above comment. Where to does God deem it okay to stone people to death in 1000 AD?

I think we established earlier that he was referring to the time of Moses, and meant to put BC rather than AD.

 

[pocohombre]

They could not have; we didn’t have a defined Canon of the New Testament until 405 AD; the Council of Nicea was in 325 AD. They were 80 years away from having a New Testament Bible to consult. Therefore, they must have relied on the Holy Tradition.

Constantine ordered Eusebius to make 50 bibles around 325 AD. Apparently it did not take much time to get it all together, all 27 books, not surpisingly. Judaism did not canonize till 1-2 century A.D. You mean you think they relied on tradition till then ?

 

[PRmerger]

Constantine ordered Eusebius to make 50 bibles around 325 AD.

Source for this, please?

 

[pocohombre]

That is exactly right, poco.
Without the police, a speed limit sign is simply a sign.

Wow! So God’s word is not effectual until it is enforced ? That is true only for an unregenerated heart. What about integrity ? Do what is proper cause it is right , even if no one is watching (to catch you otherwise).

If there were a sign that said, “Do not do [A]” and there were about 30,000 different interpretations of what this meant, then the above question would be more analogous.

No, the proper analogy is if you had two views, at most three. We were talking of trinity. Either Jesus is a created being or he is not. He is either fully God or he is not. God was not vague about it. If we aren’t sure, we need to check with God above checking with each other.

That’s why we need the cops and judges, right?

Again ,we have cops and judges cause the word says to.They derive from scripture and and are subject to it.

Because without them there’s about 30,000 different viewpoints and no one with authority to declare “This is what the sign means!”

So because of this real problem lets forget about God being His own ineterpreter, and what is more important is what we say it is. This is just as problematic as to what led to 3 different views.

This example is a wonderful apologia for the Magisterium! Without the cops and judges, you would have chaos and confusion.

The magisterium , the cops and judges are subject to God’s Word. The way they get judicious enlightenment is the same way “citizen’s” get it .'He teaches us", per Augustine/per Holy Writ. He teaches us all , a nation of priests, the law already written on all our hearts. Now some are babes and some growing ,hence teachers etc. but we are in same boat afloat on the sea of His word.

 

[PRmerger]

Wow! So God’s word is not effectual until it is enforced ?

Can you tell me how I am not to interpret this sentiment you are proposing as bordering on Bibliolatry?

 

[PRmerger]

So because of this real problem lets forget about God being His own ineterpreter, and what is more important is what we say it is.

But you have not yet explained how it is you know what God’s interpretation is of His Word.

For example, what is God’s interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21?

 

[pocohombre]

Source for this, please?

Pr. I am getting a deja vu here .I believe the Vatican has one of these bibles. I think they date it 350AD .Might be the Vatican Manuscript. Google Eusebius.The bible order is written about in *Life of Constantine * or in his Church History.

 

[pocohombre]

Can you tell me how I am not to interpret this sentiment you are proposing as bordering on Bibliolatry?

Is there such a thing as *Chuchalotry *? Watch out for flying 2x4’s. They can get caught in your eye and mine.

 

[pocohombre]

Indeed. But they were available.

EDIT: They also had a working view of the various books. See the link regarding Eusebius.

ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

Jon

Oops. See you have already mentioned Eusebius as I did after you .Didn’t mean to repeat . I’ll pass on the good site to PR.

 

[pocohombre]

Source for this, please?

ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

 

[adrift]

ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

Originally Posted by pocohombre View Post
Constantine ordered Eusebius to make 50 bibles around 325 AD.

There is no mention of Constantine in the link you provided. So where is the source of the above statement.

 

[PRmerger]

Is there such a thing as *Chuchalotry *?

What would that look like to you, poco?

Also can you tell me where God’s interpretation of His Word is available to us, as you have claimed several times now to have this.

 

[PRmerger]

Again ,we have cops and judges cause the word says to.They derive from scripture and and are subject to it.

You do know that there were bishops BEFORE a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

And who are the “cops and judges” in your church, poco?

 

[rinnie]

I find it interesting how you use, “back then” as if it can be justified based on the time and place.

Would you say the Apostles had every right to burn alive any human who rejected their message? What about the early church fathers? What about Leo X? What about now?

IT does not matter what I say you seem contented to blame to RCC for the Roman Law in those days.

St Thomas Aquinas had his views and explained the Church held the position at that time to separate them from the flock. Could they have found another way? I truly don’t know. Do I believe mistakes were made by humans in the name of the Divine Church of Christ. Of course I do. But we don’t understand the mind set of those people in those days.

Only God can say if it was justified at that time. Did they view this and enjoy this and have evil in their hearts. Or did they feel they were saving others and saw these people to be truly evil. I don’t know? I just know and trust that God will judge them accordingly.

When Christ comes back, is he not going to rid the world of the devil and all his followers. Did he not say there are some that will continue to refuse his love and will live for evil.

I don’t know what St Paul would have done, But I do know what he said. He said to stay away from heretics. That such people are not serving Christ our Lord and have their own interests at heart to deceive inocent people.

Today they are excommunicated from the RCC.

Gal 5:9 What is your thinking on this teaching?

But to be perfectly honest my personal view is not in line with ST Thomas Aquinas. Just as the Popes of today are not. The Popes have apologized for mistakes made by humans. As he continues to do today.

As time goes on our understanding increases and we have different views of things. Its a continued increase of Grace given to us by God.

But once again you have failed to show me where this practice is and was a Doctrine of the RCC.

You continue to do what others do when they cannot answer a question, dodge the question or accuse the RCC of teaching a false doctrine.

You have failed miserably by the way.

The truth of the matter is People who are heretics are to be removed from the RCC today as yesterday. Just in line with the laws of today as yesterday.

 

[pocohombre]

" The creeds(Nicene) also contained the anathema (condemnation) for those who rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas carried with them civil repercussions. Arius and some of his followers were banished, even though for a short time. This set the precedent that eventually would have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it is a separate issue from the theological proclamation of the council’. From James White, What really Happened at Nicea.. Live by the sword die by the sword. Imagine that, bishops who perfectly gave us a perfect definition of the trinity compromised and bowed to carnal force. No surprise the heretics used carnal authorities to back them up also (Arius). Athanasius, champion of the Trinity, was removed from his see five times, once by 50000 soldiers. Oh what a mess we weave, with bad fruits all the way to Salem and Calvin. No wonder Augustine argued going against the “perfectionists” (Church perfect and pure)) of his time (was it the donatists ?), and actually left a small crack in the door, for us separated brethren, of really being true brethren, in heart and all. But I digress. Maybe the Nicene bishops were so focused on a certain victory-that Jesus is indeed God, the I am, and so on the mountain top experience of being in the zone with the Lord, that they forgot about the back door and compromised and kow-towed to force. A bit like Peter’s great confession that Jesus is the Christ, and two minutes later being told get behind me Satan for saying Christ would not suffer. Just a thought. Been there, done that (in smaller magnitudes of course). Lord help us all.

 

[dronald]

IT does not matter what I say you seem contented to blame to RCC for the Roman Law in those days.

What you say is extremely important to me.

St Thomas Aquinas had his views and explained the Church held the position at that time to separate them from the flock. Could they have found another way? I truly don’t know. Do I believe mistakes were made by humans in the name of the Divine Church of Christ. Of course I do. But we don’t understand the mind set of those people in those days.

Great! And of course I believe mistakes were made as well.

Only God can say if it was justified at that time. Did they view this and enjoy this and have evil in their hearts. Or did they feel they were saving others and saw these people to be truly evil. I don’t know? I just know and trust that God will judge them accordingly.

When Christ comes back, is he not going to rid the world of the devil and all his followers. Did he not say there are some that will continue to refuse his love and will live for evil.

I’m not saying their conscience wasn’t in the right place, I’m saying that they did an awful thing and justified it.

I don’t know what St Paul would have done, But I do know what he said. He said to stay away from heretics. That such people are not serving Christ our Lord and have their own interests at heart to deceive inocent people.

Today they are excommunicated from the RCC.

Gal 5:9 What is your thinking on this teaching?

I remember a person posting Galatians 5:9 in favor of burning heretics, I disagree with this interpretation.

But to be perfectly honest my personal view is not in line with ST Thomas Aquinas. Just as the Popes of today are not. The Popes have apologized for mistakes made by humans. As he continues to do today.

As time goes on our understanding increases and we have different views of things. Its a continued increase of Grace given to us by God.

That’s excellent! I don’t see this as a bad thing at all, but rather a wonderful thing.

But once again you have failed to show me where this practice is and was a Doctrine of the RCC.

You continue to do what others do when they cannot answer a question, dodge the question or accuse the RCC of teaching a false doctrine.

Sorry, but you’ll have to quote where I did this; I’ll await your reply.

If you mean that burning heretics was a false doctrine and a Pope agreed that it should be done, then yes; he was teaching false doctrine. Do I believe that his belief has bound all Catholics to this belief? Certainly not, but it was believed at one point in time. It was wrong then, wrong before that, and wrong now.

You have failed miserably by the way.

I’ve never fully understood this type of reply in a discussion as it moves the discussion in no direction… Perhaps backwards, but you get what I’m saying.

The truth of the matter is People who are heretics are to be removed from the RCC today as yesterday. Just in line with the laws of today as yesterday.

Again, I take no issue with what the Pope is saying now; I think everyone loves Francis.

 

[rinnie]

Papal bull against Luther number 33.

Right here.