Question for all protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dronald said:
Haha, I was being ironic my friend. My point is that no one, ever in history can burn people alive. It wasn’t okay for the witches as it wasn’t okay for heretics. No one can carry out that kind of judgment but God.
Click to expand...
You know, I’m tired of your little charade.

Here is what your “proof” from Exsurge Domine actually says:
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
Click to expand...
  1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that it is ok to burn heretics? You have a false interpretation of this.

The claim to know the will of the Spirit is what is at issue here.

Also, it is very suspicious to not include a link to your “findings” and leaves room to wild interpretation unless the specifics are given.

And a side question about your judgment statement: Who carries out God’s plan here on earth?

Also, you might not be aware but each country does carry out judicial punishments in their judgements. The morality of these punishments is questioned in some instances, but finally this authority is also given or allowed by God - Romans 13 rings a bell.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
You know, I’m tired of your little charade.

Here is what your “proof” from Exsurge Domine actually says:

Where does it say that it is ok to burn heretics? You have a false interpretation of this.

The claim to know the will of the Spirit is what is at issue here.

Also, it is very suspicious to not include a link to your “findings” and leaves room to wild interpretation unless the specifics are given.

And a side question about your judgment statement: Who carries out God’s plan here on earth?

Also, you might not be aware but each country does carry out judicial punishments in their judgements. The morality of these punishments is questioned in some instances, but finally this authority is also given or allowed by God - Romans 13 rings a bell.
Click to expand...
'zactly.

More:

If one examines the Exsurge Domine’s condemnation of Luther’s propositions, it is clear that they are being condemned in globo rather than in individuo. Pope Leo X wrote, “All and each of the preceding articles or errors, so to speak, as set before you, we condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth.” The pontiff lists six different censures, but he doesn’t tell us which of these apply to which of the forty-one propositions.

From Jimmy Akin.
 
steido01 said:
Witches were a-blazin’ on both sides of the Tiber. Don’t kid yourself, or your defense is no different than dronald’s in this discussion. Take a learning (from a Roman Catholic source, no less):

Fair enough to point out the speck of sawdust in brother Martin’s eye (but you’ll need to provide a source for this - England certainly wasn’t Lutheran), but we mustn’t ignore the plank in our own. If you’re going to point out an error, don’t refute it with additional error.

I do agree with you that the punishments were, largely, a reflection of the times. The same can be said of the rhetoric used by the men of that age.
Click to expand...
My information was taken from Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” in which he references William Thomas Walsh’s “Isabella of Spain” and R. Trevor Davies’ “The Golden Century of Spain” for his statistics. I always thought Mr. Keating was a pretty reliable source.

But the point I was making is the one with which you agree; punishments were largely a reflection of the times and were not particular to Catholicism or any other Church. And if one was to choose Luther over the Catholic Church based on this issue, they would be in error. He was not against burning people.
 
adrift said:
There is no mention of Constantine in the link you provided. So where is the source of the above statement.
Click to expand...
You are right. He does discuss the 27 and others, does it not ? No, you’d have to google it. I found it also in Halley’s Bible Handbook. It should be no surprise that certainly by 325 AD the 27 were well known. Even by 250AD, for Origen quotes from 17-18 books and accepted the 27 as “scripture”.
 
SteveVH said:
My information was taken from Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” in which he references William Thomas Walsh’s “Isabella of Spain” and R. Trevor Davies’ “The Golden Century of Spain” for his statistics. I always thought Mr. Keating was a pretty reliable source.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised that Keating would make such a glaring error. I wonder if he was partially quoting the others in order to make a separate point? I’ll have to read the book and find the context. He’s usually quite even-keeled, particularly compared to other Roman Catholic apologists… If you’re reading this, Karl, we appreciate the forums! 😃
SteveVH said:
But the point I was making is the one with which you agree; punishments were largely a reflection of the times and were not particular to Catholicism or any other Church. And if one was to choose Luther over the Catholic Church based on this issue, they would be in error. He was not against burning people.
Click to expand...
👍
 
PRmerger said:
Can you tell me how I am not to interpret this sentiment you are proposing as bordering on Bibliolatry?
Click to expand...
It’s simple. Where the godhead does something for us just put in the word "bible’ or the word “Church” and you might have “biblioatry” or “churchalotry”.
For example, “But the Comforter, which is the Church /bible whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things, and bring all things to remembrance, and will abide with you forever.” or “No one goes to the Father except thru the Church/bible” or “you have an unction from the holy one, the church/bible, and know all things”. “I will not leave you comfortless,the church /bible will come to you”.
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.
Click to expand...
No, I think I said God is His own interpreter, that is, truth is absolute. God is the author, speaker, enabler revealer of Truth. I recall now that I was also referring to Jesus and his earthly ministry constantly gave correct interpretation of OT scriptuire, did He not ? The Holy Spirit bequeaths understanding , even of scripture does He not ?
 
PRmerger said:
No, the Pope never taught that burning heretics was something that “should be done”.
Ex Surge Domine was a papal bull which rejected 42 of Luther’s propositions.
One of the propositions that Luther made was “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”
The Church condemned this statement.
But that ought not be interpreted as the Pope saying, “It is therefore the will of God that heretics be burned”.
Click to expand...
Help me on this PR .Have not read all posts fully on this , but it seems you are saying pope rejected and condemned the proposition that it is against God’s will that heretics be burned. What is the correct interpretation? I would think the least would be, “That heretics be burned is not against the will of God. It may not be his will but it is not against his will”. ?? Is that like having your cake and eating it too ? Help!!!
 
dronald said:
Haha, I was being ironic my friend. My point is that no one, ever in history can burn people alive. It wasn’t okay for the witches as it wasn’t okay for heretics. No one can carry out that kind of judgment but God.
Click to expand...
Well I hate to disagree with you but it was carried out by Roman Law. History disagrees with you.

Rather that judgement was fair or not is not the issue. The fact is the RCC never had control over roman law. Which is my point.
 
rinnie said:
The fact is the RCC never had control over roman law. Which is my point.
Click to expand...
Rinnie, you keep saying this, but you haven’t presented any sources to confirm this.

Look, as I’ve said before (here and here), there was no portion of Medieval European life that the Church did not influence. There was no separation between secular and religious life. The very concept was first articulated by Luther. Compare Luther’s concept of the Two Kingdoms with the Roman Catholic Unam sanctam. Please note where the pope claims to wield both the Sword of Religious Life and the Sword of Civil Law.

Take a read, and then give a thoughtful response. I won’t consideranother diversion as a proper response.
 
steido01 said:
I’m surprised that Keating would make such a glaring error. I wonder if he was partially quoting the others in order to make a separate point? I’ll have to read the book and find the context. He’s usually quite even-keeled, particularly compared to other Roman Catholic apologists… If you’re reading this, Karl, we appreciate the forums! 😃
Click to expand...
It is the chapter on the Inquisition and he is very fair in his analysis. And that is exactly the point he was making. The punishments had to do with times in which they occurred. Its a very interesting chapter, and book, I might add. Well worth the read.
 
pocohombre said:
No, I think I said God is His own interpreter, that is, truth is absolute. God is the author, speaker, enabler revealer of Truth. I recall now that I was also referring to Jesus and his earthly ministry constantly gave correct interpretation of OT scriptuire, did He not ? The Holy Spirit bequeaths understanding , even of scripture does He not ?
Click to expand...
We have a saying in Spanish: “Yo’ismo”. It deals with the self-centeredness of people when they become their own judge, arbiter and executor. This is the epitome of Protestantism. The arrogance of claiming to understand the whole of Scripture on their own. I mean, it has been thousands of years and there are still passages that the Church as a whole does not fully understand and/or has not made a definite teaching about.

How many have I heard say: “Oh, the Holy Spirit told me”. I pray this is not considered the unforgivable sin, for the sake of all these souls…
 
rinnie said:
Well I hate to disagree with you but it was carried out by Roman Law. History disagrees with you.

Rather that judgement was fair or not is not the issue. The fact is the RCC never had control over roman law. Which is my point.
Click to expand...
Be careful of the convenience of blaming Roman law. The Jews also “used” Roman law to crucify Christ. Furthermore, it was part of Jewish law to execute lawbreakers, even disobedient children. I wonder if the Judaizers lost laying circumcision on the church but later won with legalistic justice, at the expense or the foresaking of mercy and grace , which is also Old Testament ?
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
This is either a lame attempt at humor or blasphemous.

We shall not use the name of the Lord our God in vain.
Click to expand...
Catholics even have conversations with Mary don’t they ? You do believe it is possible to do the same with the Holy Spirit and Jesus don’t you ? Of course the hearing is spiritual as is the “ear” . If I meant literal would it be blasphemous because I am not Catholic, for surely some saints have had literal hearing from God, have they not ?
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
We have a saying in Spanish: “Yo’ismo”. It deals with the self-centeredness of people when they become their own judge, arbiter and executor. This is the epitome of Protestantism. The arrogance of claiming to understand the whole of Scripture on their own. I mean, it has been thousands of years and there are still passages that the Church as a whole does not fully understand and/or has not made a definite teaching about.

How many have I heard say: “Oh, the Holy Spirit told me”. I pray this is not considered the unforgivable sin, for the sake of all these souls…
Click to expand...
Is this "Yo-ismo: For God so loved Pocohombre that he gave his only begotten Son, so that Pocohombre could believe, and not perish, but have everlasting life ?.. I was being nudged by the Holy Spirit to include in some of my previous posts that we don’t know some things, that some may think we know it all, right down to the second advent day and hour. Sorry, but did not say we are walking Encylopedia Brittanicas of the spiritual realm. What we do know, the essentials and some more, is by His gifting and imparting, in many forms and shapes… Does it bother you that I or any saint , can say that like St. Peter, we have divine revelation on matters ? How does one know if it is false piety that would deny such a thing ?
 
pocohombre said:
Catholics even have conversations with Mary don’t they ? You do believe it is possible to do the same with the Holy Spirit and Jesus don’t you ? Of course the hearing is spiritual as is the “ear” . If I meant literal would it be blasphemous because I am not Catholic, for surely some saints have had literal hearing from God, have they not ?
Click to expand...
Typical poco. Jump to something else to throw mud when cornered…

So the same God will whisper something different from His Church in your ear?

That is the question.
 
pocohombre said:
Is this "Yo-ismo: For God so loved Pocohombre that he gave his only begotten Son, so that Pocohombre could believe, and not perish, but have everlasting life ?.. I was being nudged by the Holy Spirit to include in some of my previous posts that we don’t know some things, that some may think we know it all, right down to the second advent day and hour. Sorry, but did not say we are walking Encylopedia Brittanicas of the spiritual realm. What we do know, the essentials and some more, is by His gifting and imparting, in many forms and shapes… Does it bother you that I or any saint , can say that like St. Peter, we have divine revelation on matters ? How does one know if it is false piety that would deny such a thing ?
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about previous posts in plural but about claiming to have a better understanding of Scriptures than the Church, or anyone else on the planet for that matter.

I mean, that is the reason behind each new denomination. Is it not?

That is the question. Please stay on it and avoid changing it, over and over again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top