| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 11/07/2009 2:30:07 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 10/26/2009 4:16:56 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
“It may be that it was simply appeasement to Queen Anne. Henry certainly did not relent in searching for Tyndale, nor did he ever act in calling off his own agents.”
True enough. Any support Henry had for Tyndale was very, very mild!
Polly want a cracker?
Taught what - once saved, always saved?
Mr Rogers want a clue?
Once saved, always saved is qualified by saying that those who don’t produce the fruit of the Spirit, or don’t persevere to the end, were never saved to begin with. I grant that explanation explains a number of passages, but have mixed thoughts on it myself.
I gave you 6 clues in a previous post. Keep ‘em. I’ve got more to spare.
“Tyndale was pursued by agents probably paid for by the British government, and most probably at the behest of More, who hated Tyndale. There is conjecture there, since no one has established with certainty who paid.”
Wow. St. Thomas More must be one really powerful saint. He was able to have folks killed after he died and was in Heaven.
Some biographical material from wiki:
“Sir Thomas More (7 February 1478 – 6 July 1535),...”
“In 1532 he asked the king again to relieve him of his office, claiming that he was ill and suffering from sharp chest pains. This time Henry granted his request.”
Some more biographical material from wiki:
“William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tindall or Tyndall; (c. 1494 – 1536)”
It appears that Mr. Tyndale died AFTER St. Thomas More died.
More to the point, it appears that Mr. Tyndale died roughly FOUR YEARS AFTER St. Thomas More fell from any office of any power in Britain.
sitetest
Tyndale was pursued by agents probably paid for by the British government, and most probably at the behest of More...
LOL Good grief.
Henry Tudor murdered Tyndale.
More to the point, it appears that Mr. Tyndale died roughly FOUR YEARS AFTER St. Thomas More fell from any office of any power in Britain.
*******************
That would have made it a bit more difficult.
The question is the pursuit and arrest, and how much More was involved. He continued to have power and influence after leaving public office, and his initial arrest allowed him quite a bit of communication.
Phillips received his money and instructions sometime in late 1534, since he was in the Low Countries by December 1534. More’s close arrest began after that point, although he was in prison from April 1534. There are other candidates, but no concrete proof for any of them.
Was it More? I don’t know. He undoubtedly hated Tyndale, but if he actually played a role or not I do not know. I’m told there is a book that makes a case against him, but my Amazon.com budget is way overdrawn for October. As I said in my post, “There is conjecture there, since no one has established with certainty who paid.”
Tyndale had a surprisingly long imprisonment and trial, and it seems to have been a remarkably fair one by the standards of the day. He died well after More, but the crucial point would have been when Phillips received money and instructions.
See post 230.
I am so sorry for all the loss you have suffered, but you are so right, without the comfort and assurance of the Lord we would all be destitute. I praise him every day for his love, mercy and grace that saved a sinner such as I and give him all the glory for his manifold blessings. As Paul said,
1 Corinthians 15:19
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
***True enough. Any support Henry had for Tyndale was very, very mild!***
Given that none of the serious sites that I have seen actually define it hard one way or another, shall we simply say that there was some of one and some of the other and together, Tyndale was executed?
Let's not forget that More had his own problems, which resulted in his death by decapitation.
Fair enough.
Either we are saved by grace or we are saved by works. Either we deserve our salvation or it is undeserved mercy. It cannot be both. Paul was pretty clear:
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
So...if we are saved by grace, we STAY saved by grace because we haven't received Heaven yet. To say we are saved by grace but must work to stay saved, is a contradiction. It is a "strawman" to to call this "easy-believism" or to say it gives people a license to sin. Nothing is further from the truth and totally discounts the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives and the discipline of our Heavenly Father.
Agreed.
Bzzzzt. A common error.
We are saved by faith and works.
You said Germans didn’t have a Bible in their own language before Luther.
You were wrong.
You denied there were Catholic Bibles circulating in England in the Middle Ages.
You were wrong.
NOT scriptural to toss out all the other scriptures that say differently. You assume "dead" means condemned to hell? Could it possibly mean, based on other scripture, unfruitful, inactive, etc.?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.