Question for all protestants

[jmcrae]

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.

One gets the impression that this sort of thing was going on all the time. In reality, very few people were ever convicted of heresy, and far fewer than were convicted were ever put to death. Most went to Confession, repented, and then went on with their lives.

 

[pocohombre]

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?

Of course you know God is not the author of confusion. It is our hearing that is the problem, isn’t it ? The heart is deceitfully wicked, and our Lordly leaning is qualitative and quantitative. The light that we see with is varied form individual to individual, and from generation to generation. The fault is not with His “whispering” and He is longsuffering towards us. Hey, even Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel got it right and got it wrong. We will all be judged according to the light that was afforded us.

Which whisper is correct ?

Again, the whisperer is always correct.

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

Again, the whispering God does is always correct, even wise, which is even better.

 

[GKC]

One gets the impression that this sort of thing was going on all the time. In reality, very few people were ever convicted of heresy, and far fewer than were convicted were ever put to death. Most went to Confession, repented, and then went on with their lives.

The numbers for the Spanish Inquisition vary, amongst scholars. Peters (INQUISITION) has the lowest death total for it I’ve seen: 3000+.

GKC

 

[GKC]

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

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[pocohombre]

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.)

Don’t forget our Orthodox brethren, where one could ask why did Protestantism not come from her ?

 

[adrift]

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”.

The statement you made that I asked for verification is Constantine ordered Eusebius to make 50 bibles around 325 AD.

I have no idea what you are answering with 27 books. I imagine it gets hard to keep everything straight.

It is your claim and you shouldn’t expect me to prove it. However, I have looked. Not only did I do a Google search without luck, I read what you posted as your proof and also read a history book with no luck.

So where did this information come from?

 

[jmcrae]

Don’t forget our Orthodox brethren, where one could ask why did Protestantism not come from her ?

Because who would you rebel against? It’s impossible to know who is their true leader, and besides, even if you figure out which one is the leader, who could write 97 theses in that peculiar alphabet?

(I’m teasing, Ryan.)

 

[rinnie]

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.

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

In what way?

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

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

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

Again, a source for a motive.

Ok. You’ve lost me.

Jon

Its is really simple Jon, and to kill 2 birds with one stone here it is. Yes God will cast the devils into eternal fires, so to say that the burning of heretics is against the Spirit is saying God will cast heretics into eternal fires but he will go against his own spirit. That is why the Church denied the teaching of Luther, It had to.

As I explained earlier capital punishment at that time was burning heretics. So the question is did God deny capital punishment? Scripture tells us at times it was exercised.

Did the Church teach clemency and mercy yes it does, and does today.

How does Luther deny hell. When he states the burning of heretics in the eternal fire goes against the Spirit. Quite simple.

But because the Church teaches that God can throw the devils into eternal fires does not have the Church saying we can. We never said that. The Church never taught that.

But that is how people try to twist the Church teaching to say just that.

By the way if it was true why did Luther recant?

 

[rinnie]

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.

But this is just the point, People are trying to say the Church was the law at that time and not the secular authority.

What they are trying to say which is false is the Church taught it was Christ who taught that heretics should be burned at the stakes at that time. The Church never taught that. Christ did teach that heretics would be thrown into the fires of hell on the last day. Luther said heretics being thrown into the fire goes against the teaching of the Holy Spirit. That would make Christ contradicting himself, and the Church cannot allow it.

Because the Church leaders did indeed turn the heretics over to the secular authorities that they were to be blamed for roman Law that heretics be burned at the stakes, That is unfair and untrue.

Rather or not some leaders could have been evil at that time which no one disagrees in this time or anytime in history, You still cannot lay the evil and roman law at that time at the foot of Christ which is his RCC.

What they are trying to say is because the Church said a car is not black it is white. They are trying to say because what luther stated is false, that they agreed with burning heretics, The Church never said that.

They are saying because some Pastors of the Church did not protest the law, the Church taught it was the word of God,’

The RCC taught at that time and always the duty of mercy and clemency and forbade clerics to shed blood.

No different from today, if a Priest or Bishop sins its the teaching of the Church. Anything to discredit the RCC. The RCC has always received an unfair trial beginning with its leader Christ.

Trying to put human sin on the foot of Christ in his RCC. IT never ends.

But although they continue to blame the Church they cannot show a teaching that states that they agreed with what went on in Roman Law.

They use the mistakes of human sin to try. And ignore the official Church teaching in the CCC 2298.

 

[rinnie]

One gets the impression that this sort of thing was going on all the time. In reality, very few people were ever convicted of heresy, and far fewer than were convicted were ever put to death. Most went to Confession, repented, and then went on with their lives.

But that is ignored. It is much better to take comments out of context, teachings out of context and twist our minds to make it something it is not.

Just like people saying the Church defends people being burned at the stake. Instead of saying the truth the Church defends that heretics being burned goes against the Spirit is not a teaching of God.

One does not say the other.

 

[GKC]

But this is just the point, People are trying to say the Church was the law at that time and not the secular authority.

What they are trying to say which is false is the Church taught it was Christ who taught that heretics should be burned at the stakes at that time. The Church never taught that. Christ did teach that heretics would be thrown into the fires of hell on the last day. Luther said heretics being thrown into the fire goes against the teaching of the Holy Spirit. That would make Christ contradicting himself, and the Church cannot allow it.

Because the Church leaders did indeed turn the heretics over to the secular authorities that they were to be blamed for roman Law that heretics be burned at the stakes, That is unfair and untrue.

Rather or not some leaders could have been evil at that time which no one disagrees in this time or anytime in history, You still cannot lay the evil and roman law at that time at the foot of Christ which is his RCC.

What they are trying to say is because the Church said a car is not black it is white. They are trying to say because what luther stated is false, that they agreed with burning heretics, The Church never said that.

They are saying because some Pastors of the Church did not protest the law, the Church taught it was the word of God,’

The RCC taught at that time and always the duty of mercy and clemency and forbade clerics to shed blood.

No different from today, if a Priest or Bishop sins its the teaching of the Church. Anything to discredit the RCC. The RCC has always received an unfair trial beginning with its leader Christ.

Trying to put human sin on the foot of Christ in his RCC. IT never ends.

But although they continue to blame the Church they cannot show a teaching that states that they agreed with what went on in Roman Law.

They use the mistakes of human sin to try. And ignore the official Church teaching in the CCC 2298.

I’m not discussing here the implications of portions of Exsurge Domine. Though Heaven knows I did a surfeit of that here, back around 4 years ago, more or less.

I do suggest a reading of Kamen’s book (either edition). It is a scholarly correction to much of the Black Legend.

And I do suggest rereading the quote from it I gave above.

In addition, as to the Roman law, I suggest chap. 1 in Peters’ INQUISITION. Indeed, I suggest Peters, on the subject of the Inquisition(s), in general.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Its is really simple Jon, and to kill 2 birds with one stone here it is. Yes God will cast the devils into eternal fires, so to say that the burning of heretics is against the Spirit is saying God will cast heretics into eternal fires but he will go against his own spirit. That is why the Church denied the teaching of Luther, It had to.

As I explained earlier capital punishment at that time was burning heretics. So the question is did God deny capital punishment? Scripture tells us at times it was exercised.

Did the Church teach clemency and mercy yes it does, and does today.

**How does Luther deny hell. When he states the burning of heretics in the eternal fire goes against the Spirit. Quite simple. **
But because the Church teaches that God can throw the devils into eternal fires does not have the Church saying we can. We never said that. The Church never taught that.

But that is how people try to twist the Church teaching to say just that.

By the way if it was true why did Luther recant?

No, it isn’t quite simple, rinnie. In fact, it is quite non sequitor. The two are completely unrelated. Burning at the stake, like any other form of capital punishment, is in no way related to God’s eternal judgement. And the fact is Luther never denied the existence of Hell.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

No, it isn’t quite simple, rinnie. In fact, it is quite non sequitor. The two are completely unrelated. Burning at the stake, like any other form of capital punishment, is in no way related to God’s eternal judgement. And the fact is Luther never denied the existence of Hell.

Jon

Thats exactly the point Jon, But Luther tried to make the Church teaching that Heretics being burned is against the will of the Spirit, to mean the CC agreed with the Capital Punishment of heretics being burned at the stakes.

That was never what the Church taught.

The Church corrected Luther on his comment, And the 2 are completely related Jon.

The Church never said that it is a Church teaching that we SHOULD burn heretics. Luther twisted the teaching and tried to make the Church look like they were saying this.

How could the Church saying heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit and agree with Luther agree with the word of God.

Roman Law allowed judicial torture, and the Papal Bull attests, but it was not the invention of the RCC.

All the Bull says is the burning of heretics of the stake was allowed at that time by Roman Law. The Bull never stated that they invented the law or agreed with it.

The only thing the Bull agreed with was it was allowed at that time, by the GOVERMENT, and that Luther was incorret in saying burning of heretics goes against the will of the Spirit.

We are taught that heretics at the end of age that deny Christ will be thrown into the fires of hell for eternity. How can Luther say that Burning heretics goes against the will of the Spirit and still accept hell.

You are trying to make the Church say they agreed with Roman Law the same as Luther was, and it was never said.

It was not Heretics being burned at the stake that the RCC ever agreed with. I showed you the teaching of the RCC.

But Luther took their correction and disagreement with his statement and tried to make it say something it never said.

The correction on his statement had NOTHING to do with Roman Law. All the things Luther said were his interpretation on what the Church taught and he was wrong.

So you have to show me where the Church said that denying Luthers comment meant the Church taught they have the power to burn heretics and used it. You have to show me how the Roman Law was a teaching of the RCC at that time or any.

Which is the point. You can;t because it was never a teaching of the RCC.

You need to show me where the teaching of the RCC is Roman Law, and because some leaders were a disgrace to the RCC and may not have done all they could, makes the RCC completely at fault,

Its no different today for you to accuse the RCC of not stopping Abortion. The RCC has no more power over the law today then back then.

 

[rinnie]

I’m not discussing here the implications of portions of Exsurge Domine. Though Heaven knows I did a surfeit of that here, back around 4 years ago, more or less.

I do suggest a reading of Kamen’s book (either edition). It is a scholarly correction to much of the Black Legend.

And I do suggest rereading the quote from it I gave above.

In addition, as to the Roman law, I suggest chap. 1 in Peters’ INQUISITION. Indeed, I suggest Peters, on the subject of the Inquisition(s), in general.

GKC

I most certainly want to do this. I am going to get as many books as I can and get real busy the next couple of weeks and see what I can find.

Then I want to come back and open a debate on this subject.’

But could we PLEASE now everyone get back to my question.’’

This thread is about over.

I PROMISE I will open this debate soon.

 

[rinnie]

No, it isn’t quite simple, rinnie. In fact, it is quite non sequitor. The two are completely unrelated. Burning at the stake, like any other form of capital punishment, is in no way related to God’s eternal judgement. And the fact is Luther never denied the existence of Hell.

Jon

Real quick Jon and then as stated I will open this soon on another thread. If the RCC is wrong then why did Luther recant?

 

[JonNC]

Real quick Jon and then as stated I will open this soon on another thread. If the RCC is wrong then why did Luther recant?

I’m not arguing whether the CC was right or wrong. I am simply saying that Luther never denied the existence of Hell. I don’t know the involvement of Church leaders in the incidences of burning “heretics” at the stake. I will let you argue with others on that.
Jon

 

[rinnie]

I’m not arguing whether the CC was right or wrong. I am simply saying that Luther never denied the existence of Hell. I don’t know the involvement of Church leaders in the incidences of burning “heretics” at the stake. I will let you argue with others on that.
Jon

And that is my point, why I believe he recanted. Because in order to accept the existence of hell you must accept the eternal fire that heretics will be thrown into.

That is what the Church was saying you can’t say burning of heretics goes against the will of the Spirit and accept hell at the same time.

Again that is why I believe Luther saw where he was wrong and recanted what he said.

How can someone make a statement that the burning of heretics goes against the will of the Spirit and then accept hell in the same breath?

Luther did nott state in number 33 go read it, that the RCC does not have the right to burn heretics at the stake. He knew the RCC did not teach that he knew better then anyone what the Church taught.

He said the HS goes against the burning of heretics. 2 totally different things. That is why the Church defended the H.S. and went against luther.

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11406457]And that is my point, why I believe he recanted. Because in order to accept the existence of hell you must accept the eternal fire that heretics will be thrown into.

Of course, that would be God’s determination at judgement, and we have no place to make that determination

That is what the Church was saying you can’t say burning of heretics goes against the will of the Spirit and accept hell at the same time.

You can say humans burning “heretics” goes against the will of the Spirit. Judgement is His, not ours

How can someone make a statement that the burning of heretics goes against the will of the Spirit and then accept hell in the same breath?

There is a distinct difference between the two. I can certainly say it is wrong for humans in this temporal world to burn people at the stake for their beliefs, and still believe that God, in His judgement, can condemn to the eternal fires of Hell.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

Because who would you rebel against? It’s impossible to know who is their true leader, and besides, even if you figure out which one is the leader, who could write 97 theses in that peculiar alphabet?

(I’m teasing, Ryan.)

Took me 8.2 seconds to get that,but thanks for the laughter. I needed it.

 

[rinnie]

Of course, that would be God’s determination at judgement, and we have no place to make that determination

You can say humans burning “heretics” goes against the will of the Spirit. Judgement is His, not ours

There is a distinct difference between the two. I can certainly say it is wrong for humans in this temporal world to burn people at the stake for their beliefs, and still believe that God, in His judgement, can condemn to the eternal fires of Hell.

Jon

I totally agree and thats what the Church teaching is and always was.

But unfortunatelly that is not what Luther stated in numver 33. And which is why he was corrected.