FALSE: the verse you are trying to misapply by parroting your mislead teachers says GOD is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the church. Reading scripture before jumping to conclusions about what it says really tends to help.
This is what I got out of the abridged Protestant Bible:
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."I think you may be following a tradition of men in your interpretation of this passage rather than "the Bible alone" as you claim.
The rest of what you say about visibility is rather useless.
In the Bible, Jesus says:
Matthew 18:17Clearly we are to settle our disputes in the Church. And obviously Jesus must be referring to the Church that He founded, the Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against. And obviously this Church must be visible if we are to go there and settle our disputes. (Note also that Jesus doesn't tell us to take our disputes to "the Bible alone").
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
As someone who claims as a first principle "the Bible alone," how can I take you seriously when you dismiss or wildly distort the clear meaning of passages of Scripture in your own abridged Bible?
If I can't trust you with adhering to your own doctrines, how can I trust you with the explication of doctrines of a Church that is not your own?
If you want to refute the Catholic teaching regarding papal infallibility, then you should refute what the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility, not a straw man.
That's probably true. But there is a difference between an infallible teaching which says that it is erroneous to teach "that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" and the practice of exhorting particular kings to persecute particular groups of heretics. This does not fall into the category of the normal exercise of papal infallibility, just as John Paul II's advice today to the leader of a head of state does not fall into the category of the normal exercise of papal infallibility.
Uhm, it actually does fall under the excercise of Papal infallibility because it was directed through the auspices of official decree on matters of faith and morals that are applicable to the entire church.
We may be talking about different things. The bull which decreed as erroneous the teaching that "burning heretics is against the Holy Spirit" is infallible as far as I know. On the other hand, the advice that the pope gave to temporal rulers would not fall into the category of infallible teaching any more than Pope John Paul II's advice to a sitting president would fall into the category of papal infallibility.
Now you sound like Kennedy arguing for abortion. What, so we can't kill the kid to save the mother? The soldiers were not Jesus' followers. Peter was. And when ole Pete lopped off the Centurian's ear (bad aim) in Jesus' Defense, Jesus rebuked and corrected him for battling against the flesh. Our war is not with flesh and blood - it is spiritual. You can play word games; but, you're seeking excuses on this one. Scripture is very plain - else you'd tell us Jesus was wrong with regard to the Adultress woman - she should have been killed as a heretic to prevent the civil unrest of men chasing about trying to kill her for her sin. Wake up and smell what you're shovelling.
Adultery is heresy?
Are laws against murder "against the Holy Spirit"? Are laws criminalizing heresy "against the Holy Spirit"?
The church has no right to send a soul to Hell.
As far as I can tell, you're equating the execution of heretics with "sending a soul to hell." Do I have that right?
If that's what you're asserting, then you're wrong. Here's why.
Heresy effects the common good. Consider the Catharist heresy for example which forbid marriage. Clearly this heresy was injurious to the common welfare and was justly suppressed.
The Catholic rulers had two choices: tolerate the heresy or suppress it. Tolerating this heresy would lead to the literal end of society. Suppressing this heresy would prevent the literal end of society. Would the rulers who executed Catharists be automatically "sending souls to hell"? No. Not anymore than a person who shoots an intruder into his home is "sending a soul to hell."
The rulers had no way of judging whether the heretic held to his heresy through ignorance or malice. A heretic who died in ignorance of his heresy would not be condemned by God. But would it be wrong to execute an "innocent person." No, because that person presented a danger to society, just as a murderer presents a danger to society. The State has within its just powers the elimination of threats to the common welfare with means up to and including execution.
Which is in keeping with my ongoing assertian that protestants can't read any better than ya'll in a lot of circumstances. Thus many of them think they can have a cadillac by praying for it.
Here's the KJV with partial context to show what's being discussed - behavior in God's house:
3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a
good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in
the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
"Church of the living God" modifies the prior noun "house". The word in Greek is strong's 3624. It means literally or figuratively - a building - by usage. In proper usage, house, home, palace, etc. The same usage appears earlier in the same passage and is translated the same "house." because of the application and context. Thus, you are either saying a building is the pillar and foundation, which is nonsense, or that God is, which makes perfect sense. The church in the sense of what it is is not the foundation of truth at any rate, that would mean truth comes from it rather than God. Not what Paul was saying in any way. The foundation of the church is truth. But that doesn't turn a building into a foundation. Lest you should tell us the construction is not ended once the roof is on and turn something else on its ear. Things make sense when sense is applied. They lose their sense when agendas overide intelligence. God is the pillar and foundation of truth. I know you deny that; but, then I'm not expecting you to honor a title of God. Especially not when you have yanked it from him and self applied it as though it's your own. Hautiness must protect appearances.
As for the reast of what you've said, I'll have to address it later. I'm on lunch at the moment and it's just about over.
Disputes, who cares. You can settle disputes all you want without putting someone to death. Jesus recognized the right of secular states to do what they will because they are under the rule of the master of this world - not Him. They will be judged just as you will be. But God didn't give us leave to act like the heathen. So what's with the handwringing. Scripture is clear that the right of judgement belongs to God - not you. And in putting a sinner to death in their sin, you condemn them to hell. Period. The wages of sin are Death. You'd make a good democrat pro- choicer cause your level of excuse making is just like them.
As someone who claims as a first principle "the Bible alone," how can I take you seriously when you dismiss or wildly distort the clear meaning of passages of Scripture in your own abridged Bible?
First of all, I didn't claim your red herring of Sola Scriptura. Secondly, I'm not a protestant. My Bible Is a Thompson Chain Reference backed up by The original Greek. I have a small library of Bibles and references. I'm a Christian. And I stick to what the Apostles taught - that the Holy spirit would teach and lead in all things.
If I can't trust you with adhering to your own doctrines, how can I trust you with the explication of doctrines of a Church that is not your own?
This is the reason I'm not debating sola scriptura with you. It's not my doctrine. Nor is your definition and mistating of it the protestant doctrine. So it neither behoves me to defend it or your mistated version of it.
We may be talking about different things. The bull which decreed as erroneous the teaching that "burning heretics is against the Holy Spirit" is infallible as far as I know. On the other hand, the advice that the pope gave to temporal rulers would not fall into the category of infallible teaching any more than Pope John Paul II's advice to a sitting president would fall into the category of papal infallibility.
Well we are talking about different things because the pope didn't give advice on this matter. The Words "exterminate from their territories" is command and councilier. Official as it were and binding. It comes from council if you hadn't figured it out. The Lateran councils are web published. Surprised you haven't read them. The Constitution of Lombardy is web published as well if I'm not mistaken. Your church has taught and bound it's followers to believe that murdering someone for teaching what you deem as error is ok. And it is murder because you as a Christian do not have the lawful right to put someone to death for sin. You want to mince words, but that's the bottom line.
Adultery is heresy? Are laws against murder "against the Holy Spirit"? Are laws criminalizing heresy "against the Holy Spirit"?
Is it legal to cook on the sabbath. You sound just like the pharisees. But you're trying to dance subtly around the issues aren't you. Adultery is Sin. Heresy is Sin. God judges Sin. And as Christians, we are about avoiding sin and teaching others to so do. But as Christ taught by example with the Adultrous woman, you don't have the right to take the life of another in judgement over sin. Period. You plead a different authority than do I. You plead the church of Rome. I plead the teaching of Christ. And if your church were the church, so to would they. For even in giving direction to settle disputes of church members within the church - no authority over life and death is granted. Nor is any penalty from civil authority forstalled. These are liberties that Rome in it's haughtiness has taken in sin. Paul and the other apostles - even Christ subjected themselves to civil authority. Rome has put herself above civil authority as though she is better than the Apostles and Christ in the examples they set down and taught.
One can criminalize heresy without putting said heretic to death. So you aren't addressing the real issue. Nor are you addressing the fact that Rome not only criminalized heresy, it murdered heretics and ordered their murders via their use of civil authorities. Why is it you seem to want to distance yourself from this? It's a matter of historical fact - not a fresh charge out of the blue. That doesn't stop the church in CE from applying it's standard mia culpa and shifting the blame for those deaths to the civil authorities - which is outright deciet if not a bald faced lie.
As far as I can tell, you're equating the execution of heretics with "sending a soul to hell." Do I have that right? If that's what you're asserting, then you're wrong. Here's why. Heresy effects the common good. Consider the Catharist heresy for example which forbid marriage. Clearly this heresy was injurious to the common welfare and was justly suppressed.
When you think you have made the case, go back and read what you said. This is the weakest construct I have seen in a while. You obviously know nothing about the nature of sin. If a man dies in his sin he is damned. Scripture is plain on this point. Sin damns one to hell. If one is a heretic, then one by definition is in sin. Therefore putting one to death in one's sin damns one to hell. QED. It should be pretty simple; but, you have a need to ignore and explain away the obvious (it's not a living creature, it's just some growing mass). What you're saying is they had no way of knowing if the person was in sin or not so they aren't putting one in Hell because they didn't know for sure. That's like saying gravity affects things but you aren't responsible for breaking a watermellon because you didn't see it splat on the sidewalk though you saw everything leading up to it. That is true blindness.