Question for all protestants

[pocohombre]

Wow! what a long thread. No, I am not going to read all of it. Seems everything any Christians have ever disagreed about has made its way into the thread.
My take on the original question. Sometimes more than one person can be right…or wrong. Sometimes I can’t know. Sometimes I don’t need to know. When I need to know I can rely on God’s guidance. If I search I will find.

Welcome Patat. It’s like the old joke :ask 10 different painters how to do something you’ll get 11 different answers. Hopefully the end result is the same (that is the inference). More than one way to skin a cat. We probably agree that truth is absolute. But put the Wind of the Holy Spirit that Christ talks about when one is born again in a “box”, what happens to the Wind ? Of course it dies and can not continue on… Thank you that you also say that God gives understanding, that He rewards those that diligently seek Him. Blessings

 

[pocohombre]

Sources for the Church tuning over heretics to be burned, please.

Salem. Calvin.Zwingli I think

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Salem. Calvin.Zwingli I think

Sources not thoughts, please.

Links.

 

[pocohombre]

But in all fairness to Luther although he felt he had the power to interpret scriptue I do believe it was a self proclaimed power. I do not see him saying he is speaking in the voice of God and has power to do so. Because if this were the case the gates of hades would have prevailed and the devil would have taken over the RCC.

There is a truth to this . The Jews said of the early church that if it is of God it will prevail, if not it will wither. However, that a church prevails does not mean it is because of God. The Mormons prevail quite well, they have not withered away.

 

[pocohombre]

You are still pending the source for this claim in post #755

.Answered forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11392622&postcount=760

Which adrift is calling you out in post #764, in your link failing to satisfy your claim.

Answered forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11397514&postcount=794

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11397514&postcount=794
So you have some housekeeping to do in answering these 2 questions that were posted way before your questions answering questions.

Sorry don’t know how to post a book site for a book I have in front of me (Halleys Bible handbook ) .

1. What is you source that Constantine ordered Eusebius to make 50 Bibles ~325AD?

Answered

1. How is God giving you an interpretation that goes against 2,000 years of teaching by the Church? Which by the way is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)?

Answered forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11397656&postcount=795 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11397728&postcount=797 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11398747&postcount=807 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11398800&postcount=808 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11401992&postcount=824 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11402096&postcount=828

So when Christ said that we must be born again of water and spirit, He didn’t really mean that?

Didn’t mean what ? What is water, in this text ? Lest I be accused of “dodging” , yes, Christ meant you must be born of water and the spirit, just as you must eat Him, and the church is the pillar of truth etc. etc…

Once you take care of these items we can move forward.

Hope we are ok now .if not let me know. Be happy to answer,You don’t even have to answer my questions, we can go where the spirit leads. Blessings

 

[pocohombre]

Sources not thoughts, please.

Links.

It’s late perhaps tomorrow but just google the name with kill or burn or drown and you will have a plethera of reading of said christians and civil authorities burning and drowning humans.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It’s late perhaps tomorrow but just google the name with kill or burn or drown and you will have a plethera of reading of said christians and civil authorities burning and drowning humans.

No poco, when I bring charges against someone in a court of law, I don’t make the defendant look for the charges. I am required to have probable cause and cite the specific violation of law and the actions of the defendant that fit the accusation.

The burden of proof rests with the accuser.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

.Answered forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11392622&postcount=760

Answered forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11397514&postcount=794

Sorry don’t know how to post a book site for a book I have in front of me (Halleys Bible handbook ) .

Answered

Answered forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11397656&postcount=795 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11397728&postcount=797 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11398747&postcount=807 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11398800&postcount=808 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11401992&postcount=824 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11402096&postcount=828

Didn’t mean what ? What is water, in this text ? Lest I be accused of “dodging” , yes, Christ meant you must be born of water and the spirit, just as you must eat Him, and the church is the pillar of truth etc. etc…

Hope we are ok now .if not let me know. Be happy to answer,You don’t even have to answer my questions, we can go where the spirit leads. Blessings

Oh boy, I have a lot to go through…

 

[Porknpie]

Wow.

In all my years of discourse with Christians, I have never heard anyone else claim that God whispers in his ear the interpretations that are correct for Bible verses.

So are we to understand that when your profession of God’s “whispers” in your ear are in contradiction to the Church’s, that yours is the infallible and correct profession?

One can only conclude that God is one of confusion. How does one the know it is God that is whispering and not the evil one?

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11400349]

Can we please get to the question at hand and address my question on who has authority to correct one Protestant over another and where does that authority stem from.

Within the framework of my communion, and particularly my synod, those pastors who have the effective role of bishop have the authority to correct.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Don-

I apologize for not having a citation for the following…it’s a really old file on my computer from the days before I realized how important sources would be when doing apologetics.

"Both civil and ecclesiastical authorities participated in witch trials. Trials occurred in Roman Catholic and Protestant countries. Catholic countries prosecuted witchcraft as a heresy, whereas Protestant countries considered it a violent crime; both viewed malicious witchcraft as necessarily involving the aid of Satan or demons.

“In Europe these began in earnest in around 1450 and continued until approximately the mid-18th century. Scholarly estimates of the numbers of people executed for witchcraft during this period range around 40,000, with high estimates reaching as many as 100,000, with significantly more accused, but not executed. Witch trials were most common in Germany, England, Scotland, France, and Italy; the phenomenon was far less pronounced in Scandinavia, Ireland, and Spain. The Salem witch trials of 1692 are the most famous example in colonial America, but not the only example.”

“During early 18th century, the practice subsided. The last execution for witchcraft in England took place in 1716, when Mary Hicks and her daughter Elizabeth were hanged. Jane Wenham was among the last subjects of a typical witch trial in England in 1712, but was pardoned after her conviction and set free. However as late as 1944, Helen Duncan was the last person to be convicted under the British Witchcraft Act, authorities fearing that by her alleged clairvoyant powers she could betray details of the D-Day preparations. She spent nine months in prison. The Act was repealed in 1951.”

 

[Novocastrian]

Don-

I apologize for not having a citation for the following…it’s a really old file on my computer from the days before I realized how important sources would be when doing apologetics.

"Both civil and ecclesiastical authorities participated in witch trials. Trials occurred in Roman Catholic and Protestant countries. Catholic countries prosecuted witchcraft as a heresy, whereas Protestant countries considered it a violent crime; both viewed malicious witchcraft as necessarily involving the aid of Satan or demons.

“In Europe these began in earnest in around 1450 and continued until approximately the mid-18th century. Scholarly estimates of the numbers of people executed for witchcraft during this period range around 40,000, with high estimates reaching as many as 100,000, with significantly more accused, but not executed. Witch trials were most common in Germany, England, Scotland, France, and Italy; the phenomenon was far less pronounced in Scandinavia, Ireland, and Spain. The Salem witch trials of 1692 are the most famous example in colonial America, but not the only example.”

“During early 18th century, the practice subsided. The last execution for witchcraft in England took place in 1716, when Mary Hicks and her daughter Elizabeth were hanged. Jane Wenham was among the last subjects of a typical witch trial in England in 1712, but was pardoned after her conviction and set free. However as late as 1944, Helen Duncan was the last person to be convicted under the British Witchcraft Act, authorities fearing that by her alleged clairvoyant powers she could betray details of the D-Day preparations. She spent nine months in prison. The Act was repealed in 1951.”

It should be pointed out, however, that the real reason for Duncan’s prosecution was that in one of here ‘seances’ she revealed officially classified information about the sinking of a Royal Navy ship, the HMS Barham.

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11400430]Bottom line,

Luther says the burning of heretics goes against the will of the Holy Spirit.

The Church states the the burning of heritics does not go against the will of the H.S.

So whatever if people want to believe that the devil and all of his angels will not be thrown into the eternal fires of hell there is nothing I or the Church can do. Believe Luther and reject what we are taught by the word of God.

What is the direct relationship between human beings burning other human beings at the stake, and God exercising His judgement to condemn the devil and his angels into eternal fires?

Just another way Luther with his tricks and liies tried to turn people away from the RCC.

Rinnie, you know I won’t let this pass by. We recently talked about “lies”. A lie includes a component of intent to deceive.

When you wrote recently that the Lutheran understanding of the real presence was consubstantiation. I could have accused you of spreading a lie about Lutheranism, but I saw no intent to deceive. Therefore you were not telling a lie.
Unless you have specific evidence that Dr. Luther intended to deceive people, you cannot say he lied, without it becoming an issue of the Eighth Commandment.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

What you don’t get (AND WONT LET ME HELP YOU) is in defining what a heretic is. Further, it does not say that all heretics are to be burned. I mean for goodness sake they didn’t burn the greatest heretic of all Martin Luther, nor his followers.

That’s saying something.

All he says in 33 is, “Teaching that the death penalty is against the teaching of God is not tolerated”

I can fully support such a statement.

They didn’t burn Luther because they didn’t catch him. Luther learned from the example of Jan Hus that the Roman Church’s word on safe conduct was not to be trusted!

Re: article 33 of Exsurge Domine, the Latin is, “Haereticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritûs.” I think it’s pretty clear that that refers to more than the death penalty in general, but explicitly to the burning of heretics.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They didn’t burn Luther because they didn’t catch him. -]Luther/-] learned from the example of Jan Hus that the Roman Church’s word on safe conduct was not to be trusted!

You mean Frederick III. Elector of Saxony.

 

[pocohombre]

Oh boy, I have a lot to go through…

You mean you made your assertion that I don’t respond to questions before you researched it ?

 

[rinnie]

There is a truth to this . The Jews said of the early church that if it is of God it will prevail, if not it will wither. However, that a church prevails does not mean it is because of God. The Mormons prevail quite well, they have not withered away.

If you accept the teachimgs of Jesus then the RCC prevailing is because of God. And if you believe and of course I believe you do that Jesus is indeed God.

You are Peter and upon this rock I will build MY Church and the gates of Hades will not prevail!

 

[Novocastrian]

You mean Frederick III. Elector of Saxony.

Quite right. Nonetheless, my point still stands. Rome didn’t have a great track-record on honouring its agreements with heretics.

 

[rinnie]

What is the direct relationship between human beings burning other human beings at the stake, and God exercising His judgement to condemn the devil and his angels into eternal fires?

Rinnie, you know I won’t let this pass by. We recently talked about “lies”. A lie includes a component of intent to deceive.

When you wrote recently that the Lutheran understanding of the real presence was consubstantiation. I could have accused you of spreading a lie about Lutheranism, but I saw no intent to deceive. Therefore you were not telling a lie.
Unless you have specific evidence that Dr. Luther intended to deceive people, you cannot say he lied, without it becoming an issue of the Eighth Commandment.

Jon

You know I LOVE you Jon. and yes I have to explain what I said and I will.

Luther said that Heretics being burned goes against the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Lets stop right there. Do you agree that this is an accurate statememt. The Church states that this is not an accurate statement. Period.

The word of God states that it will happen when the ends comes, thats simple enough.

Now Luther took his version of what the RCC teaches, twisted it into his own version of what he tried to make it say and ran with it.

Because the Church cannot and will not deny a truth, he tried to make the Church say something they never said.

The Church said this in plain english, Luther you are wrong, that is not what scripture teaches,

Now lets go into this world today, because of him saying that the Church was wrong, people actually believe that in the end there is not eternal fire of hell, hell does not exist.

Now because the Church showed he is not correct on that teaching, he choose to find another way to make the Church look bad.

So he interpretated that to say that the Church agrees that burning heretics at the stakes is something they agree with and believe God wants this to be done.

Then he knew that the Church played a role not in making roman Law but had to abide by Roman Law and the only thing the Church could do is give heretics a inquisition and only the Church had the ability to understand Church Law and at least give an honest trial we can say.

If the Church said someone was indeed a Heretic, which they did, it was the Church saying they agreed with burning of people at the stake, because they did not (our favorite word here) and could not lie and tell the truth. The person either was a heretic or they were not. If they were they could at least have the power to give them absolution for that sin, and have them turn back to the truth and be released.

Cont…

 

[pocohombre]

No poco, when I bring charges against someone in a court of law, I don’t make the defendant look for the charges. I am required to have probable cause and cite the specific violation of law and the actions of the defendant that fit the accusation.

The burden of proof rests with the accuser.

Right. That is why court dates are set and reset .Time. If you want to deny that “time” fine…".The person most often referenced by the “Calvin was a murderer” crowd is a fellow named Michael Servetus. Here’s the Wikipedia entry describing him:
Michael Servetus (also Miguel Servet or Miguel Serveto; 29 September 1511 - 27 October 1553) was a Spanish (Aragonese) theologian, physician, cartographer, and humanist and the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included many sciences: astronomy and meteorology, geography, jurisprudence, study of the Bible, mathematics, anatomy, and medicine. He is renowned in the history of several of these fields, particularly medicine and theology. He participated in the Protestant Reformation and later developed a non-trinitarian Christology. Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was burnt at the stake by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council as a heretic… This practice was known as “Sacralism” - a merger of church and state until the two are virtually indistinguishable. As the Latin saying described it, “Cuius region, eius religio.” In other words, "Who has region, decides religion…The decision to burn Servetus as a heretic was taken not only by Calvin personally but by Geneva’s Little Council of twenty-five, acting on unanimous advice from the pastors of several neighboring Reformed churches whom they had consulted… The belief that denial of the Trinity and/or Incarnation should be viewed as a capital crime in a Christian state was part of Calvin’s and Geneva’s medieval inheritance; Calvin did not invent it… The Roman Inquisition had already set a price on Servetus’ head. salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/qaprint.aspx?qa=113&local=11a…I withdraw my assertion of Salem and Zwingli in previous post to be similar ,for i do not care to look it up. This is enough for now, and as you rightly say, say only what you back up ( or have time to back up). Thank you