Question for all protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
Ok. Are these hypotheticals involved in burning, in the sublunary sphere, here on earth, currently, or in the final judgement?

IOW, is your original statement saying that there, currently, humans actively burning other humans/heretics, here and now?

GKC
Click to expand...
There is a hell, yes? We are agreed on that as Christians.

Hell is an eternal burning fire, either metaphorical or actual, yes? Of that we have not been given revelation.

Thus, if there are folks in hell, and we have no revelation to believe that there are not, then the are actively burning here and now.
 
PRmerger said:
There is a hell, yes? We are agreed on that as Christians.

Hell is an eternal burning fire, either metaphorical or actual, yes? Of that we have not been given revelation.

Thus, if there are folks in hell, and we have no revelation to believe that there are not, then the are actively burning here and now.
Click to expand...
Okey-dokey. I’m not talking of hell. I’m talking about here, now, on earth, present day, visible to by-standers. I’m guessing you are saying no.

GKC
 
dronald said:
I’m saying the CC still could order heretics be burned for being heretics as God would not disapprove.
Click to expand...
Where do you get this from?

IOW: What Catholic teaching declares that heretics could be burned and God would not disapprove?
 
GKC said:
I see some things, some of which bother me. What in particular did you have in mind?

GKC
Click to expand...
In truth my own personal failing’s to see thing’s in the mind of God.

Like how sometimes it takes death in this world to see truth in the next.

I can see thing’s done in the past human error that was wrong. And I see how God still lets it be done. That I can’t understand, but my lack of understanding does not make God wrong and myself right.

I can understand how God letting things be done, does not mean he wills them to be done.

But what I do see is that Human wrongs done by leaders in the Church, gives us no excuse to deny the Truth given to those same Men from God.

I think what has been lost in this world is not what Jesus said, but what he did not say.

Did Jesus say his Church would prevail and that when the Pope speaks in his name it will come from the Holy Spirit it must be believed? Yes he did.

Tons of scripture in defense of the RCC.

Mark 3:16 9:2
Luke 24-34
l Cor 15:5
Matt 16:18

I could go on and on.

But yet I see that same Peter deny Christ not once but 3 times. Yet People can still accept what Peter taught.

Yet today if a Pope denys Christ with his human sin as Peter did, his teaching’s are rejected? Why?

I never saw anywhere in Scripture or Sacred Tradition when God said his Apostles would be free from all personal sin. And by the way to sin is to deny Christ. You put yourself above him.

Actually he told us many would be doing great sin. That would wear his clothes. But he still promised us that these same men, Like Peter who denied Christ 3 times would still speak the truth when its in his name.

But yet People reject the Pope as having the Power of the Holy Spirit and his Church of course. But that same Church with Peter as the Pope was believed back then and accept that teaching of being from God. These same People are using his teachings.

I guess what I am asking is how can Peter be speaking the true word of God and the Pope not then? Where did Peter have any more Power to speak for God then, and the Popes power be any less now?

Christ said that the power would be until the end of age. That evil would not prevail, death would not prevail. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Where do you get this from?

IOW: What Catholic teaching declares that heretics could be burned and God would not disapprove?
Click to expand...
As I’m sure you can see, that is the exact point that Exsurge Domine 33 is attempting to define. Luther didn’t deny the reality of hell at all. Item 33 obviously refers to the burning of heretics in this life.
 
Novocastrian said:
As I’m sure you can see, that is the exact point that Exsurge Domine 33 is attempting to define. Luther didn’t deny the reality of hell at all. Item 33 obviously refers to the burning of heretics in this life.
Click to expand...
The 11 word phrase in Ex Surge ought not be interpreted as a sanctioning of burning heretics by the Catholic Church.
 
PRmerger said:
The 11 word phrase in Ex Surge ought not be interpreted as a sanctioning of burning heretics by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Why? Luther spoke out against the practice of burning heretics (in the 95 theses), not the doctrine of hell; surely in the absence of any other relevant evidence we have to assume that Exsurge Domine is condemning this stance? What grounds can you point to for interpreting it your way? Please do show us.
 
Novocastrian said:
Why? Luther spoke out against the practice of burning heretics (in the 95 theses), not the doctrine of hell; surely in the absence of any other relevant evidence we have to assume that Exsurge Domine is condemning this stance? What grounds can you point to for interpreting it your way? Please do show us.
Click to expand...
I will cite Jimmy Akin, who has shown us.

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.
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

To summarize the article: the 11 word phrase in Ex Surge ought not be interpreted as a teaching of the Church regarding how to handle heretics. Rather, it is a condemnation, in globo, of Luther’s propositions.
 
Novocastrian said:
Why? Luther spoke out against the practice of burning heretics (in the 95 theses), not the doctrine of hell; surely in the absence of any other relevant evidence we have to assume that Exsurge Domine is condemning this stance? What grounds can you point to for interpreting it your way? Please do show us.
Click to expand...
Ah, ye should have been here in the summer of 2010. Grand donnybrook, it was. Round and round, with excursions hither and thither.

GKC
 
PRmerger said:
I will cite Jimmy Akin, who has shown us.

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.
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

To summarize the article: the 11 word phrase in Ex Surge ought not be interpreted as a teaching of the Church regarding how to handle heretics. Rather, it is a condemnation, in globo, of Luther’s propositions.
Click to expand...
Sure, fine. And what were Luther’s propositions? He certainly didn’t deny hell. So why peddle the interpretation of Exsurge Domine which makes out that he did? Why not just accept that Exsurge Domine seems to condemn Luther’s stance on burning heretics as one of the six options above? Why not just say that it is “offensive to pious ears” to suggest that heretics should not be burned at the stake? No doubt it was! Why continue to insist that it must be referring to the fires of hell?
 
Novocastrian said:
Which ones? 😛
Click to expand...
Ay, yi, yi.

I will simply paraphrase St. Augustine when I say this: The Catholics who won are the Catholics to whom you would refer a stranger, if you are wishing to be helpful, who comes to your town and says, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?”
 
PRmerger said:
Ay, yi, yi.

I will simply paraphrase St. Augustine when I say this: The Catholics who won are the Catholics to whom you would refer someone, if you are wishing to be helpful, who comes to your town and says, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?”
Click to expand...
I don’t suppose you’ve seen my thread where I show how utterly useless that argument is?

Anyways, we need to be careful about going off topic. I’m much, much more interested in hearing about how you justify your interpretation of Exsurge Domine.
 
Novocastrian said:
Sure, fine. And what were Luther’s propositions?
Click to expand...
Well, one of them was that it was against the will of the Spirit that hereteics be burned.

The Church disagreed. At times, it is indeed the will of the Spirit that capital punishment be applied for some offenses.

To wit: Ex. 22:18, 20; Deut. 13:5, 8–10, 15, 18:20
As He certainly didn’t deny hell.
Click to expand...
Ok
So why peddle the interpretation of Exsurge Domine which makes out that he did?
Click to expand...
I don’t think I have done that. And I haven’t seen any other members claiming that Luther denied hell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top