| 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
A few years ago, I slipped into the back of a large Methodist church in the area to hear a sermon delivered by the pastor which had been advertised for several days on the marquee on the lawn in front of the handsome Neo-Gothic stone edifice. I really wanted to hear what he had to say on that particular Sunday.
The occasion of this sermon was what Protestants celebrate as "Reformation Sunday," in remembrance of the sad, tragic rebellion against the Catholic Church. Of course, that's my take on what Reformation Sunday symbolizes. The pastor whose sermon I heard that day had a much different view. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at patrickmadrid.blogspot.com ...
Do you imagine you will be saved by a dead faith?
Sorry, but your argument seems tendentious.
St. Thomas More had his hands full keeping [eventually unsuccessfully] from being imprisoned and murdered, himself.
It isn't likely that folks in the British government would act on the behalf of someone so deeply out of favor with the monarch. As well, it seems that you're multiplying causes needlessly. Henry didn't much like Mr. Tyndale, especially after Henry sought to immorally put away his first wife.
By your own admission, Mr. Phillips “received his money and instructions in late 1534,” by which time, St. Thomas had already been in the Tower of London for over six months. So now you're saying that St. Thomas was guiding a manhunt using British agents six months after being imprisoned by British officials in the Tower of London?
Sorry, Mr Rogers, but this looks like an argument of special pleading to relieve Henry Tudor and others from the burden of Mr. Tyndale's death, and to place it on a favorite Protestant boogeyman, St. Thomas More.
It's a silly argument. I'm almost embarrassed to have read it and taken the time to respond to it.
sitetest
It must be the small print...lol...
YOPIOS
It saved the Catholic Church, ultimately, so it was great for them. It hasn’t been so good for the Protestant churches, in my opinion.
I look at what Episcopalians and ELCA have done to set back Christianity lately.
My faith's not dead. How's yours?
Yes, the print is fine. Otherwise all that information would not fit.
Faith and works. Keep up the good work.
Not at all.
It is the interpretation of the Church founded by Christ: the Catholic Church.
Well then, let's hear how you, or how your church tells you to, interpret the scripture I posted? Can you do it without too many twists in logic?
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.
Catholic teaching on salvation is based on the entire bible, not any single verse. You can read all you want here, for free:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Sorry you don’t like it, but More remains a possibility. He continued to have money and influence, and hated Tyndale.
Does that prove it? Nope.
Other possibilities have been raised. And as MarkBsner has pointed out, Henry was capable of continuing the pursuit with one hand while having Cromwell write letters to placate his wife with the other...at least, that is how I took MarkBsner’s comment.
The folks on the continent were not likely to concern themselves with Tyndale. His writings and translation were in English for England, and not worth their time and effort.
However, once delivered into their hands, they had no qualms about finishing the process. That is why heresy was a stronger charge - he was guilty, and needed no extradition. The proof was easy, which is why his long trial is odd. His prosecutors were Catholic theologians, and the heresy against the Catholic Church’s teaching.
Henry VIII was too ambivalent about Tyndale to convince me he led the pursuit or spent much time thinking about it at all. Tyndale had opposed his remarriage, but he did so from the Continent and Queen Anne liked him anyways. H wrote a book supporting the rights of Kings against the Pope, which Henry VIII liked - until he found out who wrote it.
It was a rough age. The Catholic Church had no qualms about burning people, and many of the Reformers didn’t either. Baptists tended to get it from all sides, but rarely were numerous enough to set a bad example themselves.
People were willing to kill and be killed over issues like the real presence in the Eucharist. I admire their seriousness about their faith while being glad we can debate on FR without MarkBsnr driving to Vail AZ so he can shoot me, or me him.
“Sorry, Mr Rogers, but this looks like an argument of special pleading to relieve Henry Tudor and others from the burden of Mr. Tyndale’s death, and to place it on a favorite Protestant boogeyman, St. Thomas More.”
Sorry, but until a month ago, I didn’t realize Thomas More was an avid heretic hunter. He was a ‘boogeyman’ because he was a strong supporter of burning men alive. It is far easier to see More pursuing Tyndale than Henry, who was little impacted by Tyndale.
So...you don’t know what you can read for yourself, or you don’t remember their explanation right off the top of your head, or...what?
Sorry...I have no desire to read AGAIN (I was a Catholic, remember?). I know what it says.
Or exactly what I said.
What is NOT scriptural is to believe Scriptures teachings are contradictory.
You assume "dead" means condemned to hell?
According to Scripture it means "as the body without the spirit is dead". Do you think you are perserving to the end by separating faith from love?
***People were willing to kill and be killed over issues like the real presence in the Eucharist. I admire their seriousness about their faith while being glad we can debate on FR without MarkBsnr driving to Vail AZ so he can shoot me, or me him.***
I wouldn’t do that. I’d tip a spare thermonuclear device off a wayward Northwest Airline jet while the pilots were looking at porn on their laptops.
***Sorry, but until a month ago, I didn’t realize Thomas More was an avid heretic hunter. He was a ‘boogeyman’ because he was a strong supporter of burning men alive. It is far easier to see More pursuing Tyndale than Henry, who was little impacted by Tyndale.***
Again; this was at the juncture where England began to aspire to join the ranks of the civilized, so facts and accurate writings are sometimes difficult to find. Sir Thomas More opposed Henry Tudor as fiercely as anyone had ever done so before and Henry was taken aback, but not so much that he lost his head over it. Well, so to speak.
More had the time and opportunity to organize and commission the beginnings of the manhunt for Tyndale; the problem is that the proof has eluded us thus far.
Wait...so, if you have such a strong aversion to Catholic teaching, why would I offer you any?
And if you already know what it says, why are you asking me?
Sheeesh.
“He continued to have money and influence, and hated Tyndale.”
He had the influence of a well-known man widely respected for his gifts. In fact, he did continue polemics against Mr. Tyndale even after his resignation from office.
But formal influence with the government, not so much. And wealth? No. Actually, in the last few years of his life, he had little money. He anticipated that his refusal to accept the Act of Succession might bring about the seizure of his property and income-producing assets. Thus, he began to convey his assets to folks who would use them for the benefit of his family. And, indeed, bills of attainder were passed against him.
By the time he was in the Tower of London, he'd already divested himself of most of his assets, and before the end of that year, bills of attainder had been passed. You, yourself said that Mr. Phillips received his payment near the end of 1534. By this point, St. Thomas had been in the Tower of London for over six months. His family's material situation by this point was rather precarious. It's pretty far-fetched that St. Thomas, at this late date, was paying folks to hunt down heretics. Such an argument has fallen prey to the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Here's something from the Encyclopedia Britannica on the topic:
“More meanwhile continued his campaign for the old faith, defending England’s antiheresy laws and his own handling of heretics, both as magistrate and as writer, in two books of 1533: the Apology and the Debellacyon. He also laughs away the accusation of greed leveled by William Tyndale, translator of parts of the first printed English Bible. More’s poverty was so notorious that the hierarchy collected £5,000 to recoup his polemical costs, but he refused this grant lest it be construed as a bribe.”
St. Thomas laughs at the accusation of greed, in light of his impoverished conditions in 1533.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/392018/Sir-Thomas-More/5008/Years-as-chancellor-of-England
sitetest
It's not "either/or". Both are required if you stick with Scripture.
Rom 11:6
A good dissertation to the Jews that works of the law, or the old covenant, are of no avail.
To say we are saved by grace but must work to stay saved, is a contradiction.
It's not a contradicition in Scripture. Just understand that in the Letter of James it is not talking about the old covenant, but the new, when discussing "works".
Why am I asking you? Oh, I don’t know, maybe to see what you thought of the scripture I quoted. You haven’t told me yet. Do you plan to or do you hope to just avoid an answer?
BTW...I have no “strong aversion” to any teaching, thankfully I have the Holy Spirit that illuminates the Word of God to me when I read and study it. That, plus understanding that scripture interprets scripture, I see no real contradictions in God’s word at all. The contradictions come from man-made traditions that ignore scripture and devise their own doctrines and call IT infallible. They scare their own members into accepting the doctrine, or else.
I thank God that I was rescued from that and know the truth. As Jesus says, the truth indeed set me free.
Go ahead and have the last word. I know how fond you are of doing that.
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.