Question for all protestants

[jmcrae]

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

There is also the issue of disobedient lay people … (hmmm, I wonder where they got the example to follow, of being disobedient to the Bishops … ?)

Quite often, lay people who thought that the Bishops were being too lenient would go ahead and burn heretics anyway, against the orders of the Bishops.

John Wyclif was burned to death by a group of little old ladies who were fed up with him and worried that he was leading their grandchildren astray; not by any of the Bishops.

 

[jmcrae]

Laws concerning the trial, punishment and (occasionally) burning of heretics were made and governed by the Popes.

No. Popes have Theology and Divinity degrees; not law degrees.

Luther was not disputing the reality of the fires of Hell, so how can Exsurge Domine be refuting that dispute? No, it is quite clear that Exsurge Domine defends the burning of heretics by the civil authority under the direction, and with the blessing, of the Roman Church.

“Obey the civil authorities.” Isn’t that from St. Paul?

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11403111]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.

You know I love you, too, Rinnie.
I don’t believe it is in God’s command that people burn each other alive. And I say this with all respect to the fact that Jan Huss lived in an entirely different time than we do.

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

You are saying that, in the end times, it will be human beings that cast unbelievers in the eternal fire, not God?

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.

In what way?

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,

Where does scripture teach, under the new covenant, that it is ok for people to burn each other at the stake?

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.

Where does Luther deny the existence of Hell, and Hell fire?

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

Are you ascribing a motive here? If you are, you must site the source.

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.

Again, a source for a motive.

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.

Ok. You’ve lost me.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t believe it is in God’s command that people burn each other alive. And I say this with all respect to the fact that Jan Huss lived in an entirely different time than we do.

God does not condemn the death penalty and in certain circumstances actually prescribes it.

Burning alive may be uniquely horrible; however, I’m betting it has a powerful deterrent effect, which is what the lawgivers of the time would have been counting on. You wouldn’t need to use it very often, if it were being used in a just manner.

We look back on those who used it in horror, but we’re not all sunshine and roses, either, toward the criminal class - there are many things going on today that will be looked back on in horror by future generations, as well.

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;11404357]God does not condemn the death penalty and in certain circumstances actually prescribes it.

Agreed. I’m no great fan of it, except in certain instance.

Burning alive may be uniquely horrible; however, I’m betting it has a powerful deterrent effect, which is what the lawgivers of the time would have been counting on. You wouldn’t need to use it very often, if it were being used in a just manner.

Agree.

We look back on those who used it in horror, but we’re not all sunshine and roses, either, toward the criminal class - there are many things going on today that will be looked back on in horror by future generations, as well.

Agreed again. Look back over the last century to see man’s inhumanity towards man. I may be misunderstanding rinnie, but see no connection to God’s final judgement and Hell, however. And I recognize that those were different times, and I refuse to pretend that I am more righteous than they were, but I also don’t believe any form of death penalty is appropriate for thought or belief.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

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 ?

I’m sure of it.

 

[pocohombre]

Then why do they protest the teachings of their heritage foundation.

Succinctness might help. Heritage and foundation are in two different, though overlapping, time frames. Foundation is what the apostles laid, which is also heritage. What has been laid upon that foundation is heritage, right up to my parents… We did not protest our foundation. We did not even protest up to Nicene creed. And what we did protest is only partial to what we gladly received… We did not protest your teachings (but disagreed on some), except those that would deny freedom of conscience and religious liberty and pursuit there of. That is the only protest I see in our heritage. As you have calmly but arduously asked for fairness and truth on the inquisition/heretics topic, I would ask for it here. It’s history, as to how we became known as “protestants”. No one today protests anymore to my knowledge for most of us enjoy religious freedom from each other. That “protest” took place centuries ago.

 

[pocohombre]

The RCC was started by Peter do you deny this?

I do not deny that is RCC teaching. I disagree is my best word for it.

 

[pocohombre]

I’m sure of it.

As in they (OT Jews) relied on the tradition of Holy Writ, even Christ during His earthly ministry ? Scripture is not scripture till it is cannonized ? Peter and Paul would disagree, at least they did in writing.

 

[pocohombre]

Actually it does and :extrahappy::extrahappy: with a STRETCH pertains to my thread.

If someone makes a claim that they have a revelation from God, and yes they absolutely can and don’t even have to be RC it has to go through the RCC first to prove it is indeed a valid truth.

The RCC has the Authority given to them from God to do this. And the knowledge of the true word of God from knowing how to interpret his word to prove it wrong.

Kinda like the whole Luther thing, They showed him to be wrong.

The sword cuts both ways (Luther showed wrongs in his own CC) . Agree that if someone has a revelation it must be weighed out against scripture and usually by people, in the church, probably elders /teachers ,presbyters. That is Ok and proper. Actually any assembly has the right to do this, as does any denomination, and as should any concerned Christian. It is more than a right, but a duty, as exemplified by the Bereans.

 

[pocohombre]

No, after reading them - they don’t really address the issues at hand. They are just reposts of going around them.

Although, to your credit you did address some of it on post #850

Even if you went off the tangent again… your case would be dismissed in court as you present it. It should be no different here.

Why is it so important to be able to quickly dismiss, like on a technicality ?

 

[PRmerger]

No, but anytime after ** is what we now follow, for it tells us of [A].**

You haven’t addressed the point that the bishops could not have come from directives from the New Testament.

You agree that what you proposed initially was nonsensical, right, poco?

You initially were saying something analogous to: “My church believes that the President Obama is the reason why President Lincoln was assassinated!”

 

[PRmerger]

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

He whispers the answers in my ear.

So, poco, how is it that what He whispers in your ear is different than what He whispers in a Lutheran’s ear, which is different than what He whispers in a JW’s ear, which is different than what He whispers in a non-denominational Christian’s ear, regarding John 6?

Which whisper is correct?

Is it all the same God who is doing this whispering?

 

[pocohombre]

Not one of those three were Catholics.

It was asked to show in history of a church turning people over to civil authorities for execution. Yes, most of the discussion has been about RCC and Luther, but all came from same historic Catholic background. Zwingli was a Catholic priests. Calvin did study to become a Catholic priest for a time, before switching studies to become a lawyer. His father was church administrator.

 

[jmcrae]

It was asked to show in history of a church turning people over to civil authorities for execution.

“The Church,” meaning, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the defendant on trial here; not the various Protestant organizations.

 

[pocohombre]

You haven’t addressed the point that the bishops could not have come from directives from the New Testament.

I think I did address it. I’ll try again. It’s like ages ago a bunch of folks in Williamsport , Pa, start playing a game. After several decades they called it baseball and wrote down all the rules for “export” to other areas. Do the subsequent players start to say the rules are ok but not fully binding cause after all, for twenty years in Williamsport they played without the written rules ? The real non-sequitor is not addressing the fact that the apostles meant for their writings to be fully authoritative. Just as the pre- writing bishops were subject to and came from the apostles, so do following bishops but subject to apostles writings, for the original apostles are gone, but not their writings. Yes, they carry on the tradition of the apostles as described by the apostles in Holy Writ. The best you can say about following bishops or baseball players is that they continued things properly by oral teaching, with or without a rule book, but how could we know for sure if it had not been in writing, and why did the apostles and God even bother the with Writ ? …But, technically, I agree that the first presbyters were obviously not under Holy Writ that had not been written yet by their elders/apostles. But once written they were technically under Writ. Who wouldn’t want their job description in writing ?

You agree that what you proposed initially was nonsensical, right, poco?

No, I asked if it was nonsensical for future bishops not to be under authority of scriptures, because first ones weren’t.

You initially were saying something analogous to: “My church believes that the President Obama is the reason why President Lincoln was assassinated!”

Don’t get that. It is more like Washington and Jefferson and Adams, who served our country well under varied forms of legal bodies, BEFORE the Constitution was drawn up, came under it lock , stock , and barrel after it was ratified. The writers of the Constitution, who had powers before ,and powers to create it ,came under it ,as did all subsequent leaders.

 

[GKC]

“The Church,” meaning, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the defendant on trial here; not the various Protestant organizations.

Recently, on another board, I was, in essence, defending the RCC on the subject of the Inquisition, in general, and the Spanish Inquisition in particular, against the worst excesses of the “Black Legend”. In doing so, I concluded the thread with this:

" Kamen’s THE SPANISH INQUISITION has occasionally been suggested here as a scholarly corrective to that portion of the Black Legend, and I agree. But it is not whitewash. In chap. 9 of the 2nd edition (and a little more fully, in chap. 10 of the 1st edition), he outlines the reason why the Church “relaxed” convicted heretics to the secular authority for final punishment, when this was death. After discussing the reasons for the relaxation to the secular authority, he states “These” (the secular authorities) “were obliged to carry out the sentence of blood which the Holy Office was forbidden by law to carry out. In all this there was no pretence that the Inquisition was not the body directly and fully responsible for the deaths that occurred”.

It was how things were done. Autre temps.

If one is looking for an example of a Church turning heretics (and convicted ones at that), over to the secular authorities for execution, that would certainly include the Spanish Inquisition. If that was not the question, I crave pardon for the intrusion.

GKC.

 

[pocohombre]

“The Church,” meaning, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the defendant on trial here; not the various Protestant organizations.

I thought by the thread topic, protestantism is on trial here ? Actually if you read some of the posts, it all reverts back to the CC. It was indeed a Catholic world back then. Protestantism came out of Catholicism, and brought much of her culture with it at the beginning.

 

[pocohombre]

Recently, on another board, I was, in essence, defending the RCC on the subject of the Inquisition, in general, and the Spanish Inquisition in particular, against the worst excesses of the “Black Legend”. In doing so, I concluded the thread with this:

" Kamen’s THE SPANISH INQUISITION has occasionally been suggested here as a scholarly corrective to that portion of the Black Legend, and I agree. But it is not whitewash. In chap. 9 of the 2nd edition (and a little more fully, in chap. 10 of the 1st edition), he outlines the reason why the Church “relaxed” convicted heretics to the secular authority for final punishment, when this was death. After discussing the reasons for the relaxation to the secular authority, he states “These” (the secular authorities) “were obliged to carry out the sentence of blood which the Holy Office was forbidden by law to carry out. In all this there was no pretence that the Inquisition was not the body directly and fully responsible for the deaths that occurred”.

It was how things were done. Autre temps.

If one is looking for an example of a Church turning heretics (and convicted ones at that), over to the secular authorities for execution, that would certainly include the Spanish Inquisition. If that was not the question, I crave pardon for the intrusion.

GKC.

Cool. (not the inquisition, but your comments) .Thanks

 

[jmcrae]

I thought by the thread topic, protestantism is on trial here ? Actually if you read some of the posts, it all reverts back to the CC. It was indeed a Catholic world back then. Protestantism came out of Catholicism, and brought much of her culture with it at the beginning.

Does it occur to you to wonder why all of Protestantism has the Catholic Church as its sole and only ancestor?

(Because the Catholic Church is that which Christ founded - there were no others from which to arise.)