Question for all protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Novocastrian said:
Just to be clear, I’m not imputing any kind of sin to the modern Roman Church. Benedict and Francis both seem like very holy, Christian men. What I am saying is that the defence of the moral and theological rightness of burning heretics at the stake should be seen as a big problem for a Church which claims infallibility. You’re right to say that the truth is one - Christians can’t be relativists. Either it was wrong to burn heretics in the 16th century, or it is right to do so now.
Click to expand...
What do we do if it turns out that it’s right to do so now?

I think we need to be open to every possibility, rather than just assume that everything we happen to disagree with is “wrong.” 😃

It is also a possibility that our modern leniency toward heretics is more damaging to the Church than the death penalty was, back in the day - I’m just throwing that out there to put a flashlight beam on the fact that we are simply assuming that freedom of speech is more important than truth.

What is far more likely than any of those is that the Pope never made any infallible declaration that burning at the stake is the proper way to deal with heretics (even if he was privately of the opinion that anything to get rid of heretics was a good thing, not excluding the death penalty in whatever form it might take) - and that we aren’t contradicting the Holy Spirit in any way by not enacting a death penalty for heretics in modern times.
 
GKC said:
I think you interpret Rinnie correctly.

But I think JonNC’s point is whether man burning heretics is the same thing as the final judgement of God.

GKC
Click to expand...
That’s how Luther interpreted it, as well, but that’s not what the Church was saying. The Church wasn’t speaking to the issue of people being burned at the stake at all, but to the assertion that the Holy Spirit would be opposed to it.

Clearly not.
 
pocohombre said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the “writing it all down” didn’t happen for 400 years, poco. At least, so you could know with certainty which of the rules were the actual, true baseball rules.

400 years.

That’s like the time from the Pilgrims to current time.

So, I will amend my analogy in which I referenced Pres. Obama and Pres. Lincoln.

It is actually more analogous to say that your comment that the bishops came from the commands of the NT is as erroneous and as absurd as saying that the Pilgrims came from the command of President Obama.

Clearly, the Pilgrims were in existence way before President Obama’s writs.

Similarly, the bishops were in existence way before the NT’s written commands.

So then how is it came the bishops?

From…

Sacred Tradition.
 
jmcrae said:
That’s how Luther interpreted it, as well, but that’s not what the Church was saying. The Church wasn’t speaking to the issue of people being burned at the stake at all, but to the assertion that the Holy Spirit would be opposed to it.

Clearly not.
Click to expand...
Thus, the Holy Spirit was not opposed to the burning of heretics, by the secular arm?

GKC
 
rinnie said:
I asked this on another site and its got me thinking!:newidea: Oh NO!

Okay here it is. What makes one Protestant Preachers version of the Truth correct or incorrect over another Protestant Preachers version.

Lets say I go to one Protestant Church and the Preacher teaches me that this is what the word of God is saying, and then the next says this, and so on and I go to 10 different Protestant Preachers and get ten meanings. Who do you feel is right?

And how do you know which one is right?:confused:
Click to expand...
Hello, Rinni.

In principle, I think perception and and conviction are what make one minister or adherent feel justified in his/her scriptural interpretation, especially those who study for themselves. I, for example, was raised an Adventist by my parents. My father did not grow up in the church as I did, but came entirely on his own. In his youth, he initiated his own conversion and came to believe in Ellen G. White, the Adventist prophetess. Today, as ever, he remains convinced that the Adventist doctrine is correct, and nothing may be said to change his mind; at least not so far. He has thereby perceived truth and is entirely convicted.

I, on the other hand, was not so certain and eventually explored other perspectives. Where Dad saw truth, I suspected fallacy or distortions or just ideas I could not swallow. I became a skeptic. I was raised to believe in and embrace Adventism; but in the end I converted to Catholicism. I am not necessarily confident, as he is, that I am right and every Protestant is wrong; but I trust in the fullness of doctrine Catholicism offers. I accept Her creeds wholeheartedly by faith.

Jesus says, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father except by Me.” (John 14:6) This does not speak to denomination, so I can see how your quest can be confusing (assuming you are searching). I have been there. The only advice I have entails the formula I followed, myself: PRAY, study, PRAY AGAIN. Talk to God at every step of your journey, and He will lead you. The Bible says: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not unto thy own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct your path.” (Proverbs 3:5,6) In other words, put your emphasis on God’s voice over that of Man’s. Let Him be your sole focus.

If you are not searching but are only wondering, I would advise you not to waste too much of your time. It is impossible to wholly account for why various Christians believe as they do. We may speculate, of course–I just did–but each experience is likely complex and unique. Only God understands the path upon which we find ourselves. We may only pray that our own feet remain in the direction He intends for us to go.

Cheers!
Inquest:gopray2:
 
GKC said:
Thus, the Holy Spirit was not opposed to the burning of heretics, by the secular arm?

GKC
Click to expand...
I was wanting to hope that the Holy Spirit would be outraged by this attack on freedom of speech, but a sober look at the Scriptures (particularly the Books of the Kings) and the accounts of the Prophets and the Saints lead me to understand that He places a very high priority on truth, and is not opposed to the death penalty for those who want to promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or not.

St. Elijah burned 450 prophets of Baal to death, and was accounted to be “without sin.” 🤷
 
jmcrae said:
I was wanting to hope that the Holy Spirit would be outraged by this attack on freedom of speech, but a sober look at the Scriptures (particularly the Books of the Kings) and the accounts of the Prophets and the Saints lead me to understand that He places a very high priority on truth, and is not opposed to the death penalty for those who want to promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or not.

St. Elijah burned 450 prophets of Baal to death, and was accounted to be “without sin.” 🤷
Click to expand...
Yep. I think that was what Leo was saying there, too.

GKC
 
pocohombre said:
There are twenty seven books in NT , right ? The order for the books is discussed by Eusebius in his* Life of Constantine,* I believe. I also found it discussed in* Halleys Bible Handbook*.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing that up but you still haven’t provided a source for Constantine ordered Eusebius to make 50 bibles around 325 AD.

It has taken a lot of puzzling to figure out why you keep mentioning the 27 books in the NT:confused: I believe you are saying that the 27 was the bible that Eusebius ordered Eusebius to make? It doesn’t matter if it was just the NT or the NT and the OT together. I want a source for where Constantine ordered Eusebius to produce 50?

Either provide the source or acknowledge that it was a misstatement. If no source is produced, I must conclude that it was a misstatement.
 
jmcrae said:
I was wanting to hope that the Holy Spirit would be outraged by this attack on freedom of speech, but a sober look at the Scriptures (particularly the Books of the Kings) and the accounts of the Prophets and the Saints lead me to understand that He places a very high priority on truth, and is not opposed to the death penalty for those who want to promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or not.

St. Elijah burned 450 prophets of Baal to death, and was accounted to be “without sin.” 🤷
Click to expand...
 
jmcrae said:
I was wanting to hope that the Holy Spirit would be outraged by this attack on freedom of speech, but a sober look at the Scriptures (particularly the Books of the Kings) and the accounts of the Prophets and the Saints lead me to understand that He places a very high priority on truth, and is not opposed to the death penalty for those who want to promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or not.

St. Elijah burned 450 prophets of Baal to death, and was accounted to be “without sin.” 🤷
Click to expand...
Well, an attack on freedom of speech it was, of course, but I don’t know that that’s the worst of it, is it? Wasn’t it, even more significantly, an attack on the people who were burned?

Can I take it from what you say that, the Holy Spirit being all in favour, you would think it a good thing for it to be reinstated today, for those who want to promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or not?
 
Picky_Picky said:
Well, an attack on freedom of speech it was, of course, but I don’t know that that’s the worst of it, is it? Wasn’t it, even more significantly, an attack on the people who were burned?

Can I take it from what you say that, the Holy Spirit being all in favour, you would think it a good thing for it to be reinstated today, for those who want to promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or not?
Click to expand...
A point to be pondered.

GKC
 
Picky_Picky said:
Well, an attack on freedom of speech it was, of course, but I don’t know that that’s the worst of it, is it? Wasn’t it, even more significantly, an attack on the people who were burned?

Can I take it from what you say that, the Holy Spirit being all in favour, you would think it a good thing for it to be reinstated today, for those who want to promote falsehoods, whether knowingly or not?
Click to expand...
I think what you can take from these posts from Catholics is that we cannot fault the Church for declaring, “It is against the will of the Holy Spirit that heretics be burned” is false.

Clearly it is not against the will of the HS that anyone be burned, for is that not what hell is?

Now, given the above, that ought not be interpreted as a profession that we believe that it’s a good thing today to re-instate burning as a form of censure for those promoting heresy.

The above propositions ought to be interpreted as they stand. It isn’t against the will of the HS to burn sinners.
 
You see, this is why I’m glad I’m not a Muslim or a Catholic (based on this thread) because I don’t have to justify the burning of heretics.

I think it’s crazy to point to the OT when the NT is obviously against it. Jesus did not want fire to reign on cities that rejected Him.
 
rinnie said:
I asked this on another site and its got me thinking!:newidea: Oh NO!
Okay here it is. What makes one Protestant Preachers version of the Truth correct or incorrect over another Protestant Preachers version.
Lets say I go to one Protestant Church and the Preacher teaches me that this is what the word of God is saying, and then the next says this, and so on and I go to 10 different Protestant Preachers and get ten meanings. Who do you feel is right?
And how do you know which one is right?:confused:
Click to expand...
I like the question cause it properly supposes freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and that when the same question was somewhat posed to the apostles (“Whom do men say that I am ?”), there were many answers from within Judaism. But what put it all together properly was not a magisterium , or the Sanhedrin, or the rabbis from this sect or that sect, or the High Priest. No “truth boxes”, no “institutional truth police” but as uncontainable as the wind, the Spirit of God, the Father in heaven reveals truth to humble and broken hearts as He chooses, and nothing shall prevail against it. So when you get variation , God is at work, trying to bring as much uniformity as possible. When you have uniformity it could be that God has succeeded, but it could also mean people are relying on an institution or a neat little box of truth instead of divine revelation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top