Posted on 01/27/2014 1:46:12 PM PST by Gamecock
Luther - and all his "progeny", by implication - was condemned as sinfully wrong and in error when he stood up to the debauchery and simony of his superiors, much like Jesus was also reproved for not bowing his knee to the religious leaders of his day who had perverted the way of true faith. He was crucified because he rebuked their sinfulness and refused to back down. Luther would have also been murdered had they gotten their hands on him.
Indeed!
I repeat that for reason of the bracketed preface, that being [errors condemned] can be mistaken for meaning the opposite, in that a casual reader could mistake that pope for being against the "burning of heretics". He wasn't. Or at least he said that "the Spirit" was not against the expressed meaning, to be bit more precise.
Invoking both Peter, and the Apostle Paul, that papal bull Exsurge Domine must be one of those classified as being "without error", "infallibly led by the Spirit...in matters of faith and morals" etc., would it not?
How do "they" (the infamous they) wiggle out of this one?
If it were not for men such as Martin Luther (which bull was written for purpose and reason for condemnation of) and if instead the papists still retained secular powers as they once widely held in much of Europe, I have little to no doubt they would be using the same sort of fires in effort to burn out opposition to themselves today -- if they could get away with it. The more zealously "papist" the more likely, somewhat similar to the head-choppers of Islam --- meaning not all would run to commit such acts, but among them some would, with the overall sociopolitical/religious setting and climate being potentially hazardous to the health of any too vocally "moderate".
You know...sort-of like the religion forum section of FR. [just a bit of humor, folks. *try the veal!* be sure to tip those waiters & waitresses]
As you said;
It means "we" according which century those in the never-changing chameleon church are in. In one century we have papal sanctioned killing (murder) of theological dissidents, but which could not be wrong then because Rome defines what it right, and RCs here have defended as being what was best for the souls of those slain, as well as the unity secular force enabled being set forth a model for the superiority of her sola ecclesia.Well put, indeed. Thanks. Yet they wonder why we object, going to great lengths to pretend such as "apostasy??? what "apostasy there's never been any of that sort of thing in our [ahem] "infallibly led in faith and morals" dept."
I hate the song and dance routine, all the little special pleadings, all the 'you have to look at it just right' and only *think* about it like "we" (the royal "we") tell you to.
That much, is impossible to deny. It would have taken a miracle intervention to stop it. The wheels had been deliberately poised to roll towards doing that very thing.
In other contexts...possibly enough evidence available (if it all be assembled) to convict for conspiracy to commit murder.
Yet God can forgive that, and wash even those whose hearts held those desires, clean of them. Perhaps He already has, for some at least, it can be hoped.
About what?? The sales of indulgences??? I believe the Catholic Church agreed with Luther on that.
The first stages of the cosmic system simply grieve the Holy Spirit. If a person continues to remain in sin, they degenerate into stages which quench the Holy Spirit.
The first stages are associated with simply having a negative mental attitude towards God. The later stages result in the sinner actually attacking God’s Plan.
I really expected more from you:)
Per Kennedy, I was thinking more of Mary Jo Kopeckne and his latter divorce (I cannot call it an annulment). I have no excuse for the preferential treatment of nominal Catholic politicians. I think it is a scandal. Perhaps he was forgiven but those press releases are not a good indicator. Lies, lies, lies
It is possible this reference supports what you state:
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 NASB
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
If you think so then you still are not reading much.
I responded that even the smallest sin is mortal as it renders you a sinner, which is true (see below) and thus in need of redemption on Christ's blood-expense and credit. And then showed that there are distinctions made btwn sins as far as their degree of evil, which should have been done if you are going to understand 1 John 5:16-17. And besides dealing with the related issue of purgatory, i should have dealt more with 1 John 5:16-17.
The fact is that no one even bothered to show from Scripture how that there are are differences in degrees of sin except to show there is a sin unto death, but which would not be unto death unless the wages of sin was death in the first place.
Two posters made the erroneous claim that there is only mortal sin, and that there is no such thing as non-mortal sin.
Which is what i addressed, that this could refer to the fact that all sins are indeed mortal, for to break one law makes you a lawbreaker, and "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". (Romans 6:23) Which is the ultimate death, eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire. (Rv. 20:14)
In addition, as i referenced before, we see in Acts 5 how that even lying can be a sin unto physical death which is where the accountability factor that i explained comes in. And which is necessary in considering "sin unto death." And as also said, there were many more capital sins in the OT.
Do you affirm or deny this, and argue that the only mortal sin is 1 John 5:16-17? If so, and if it refers to believers, as per the context, and spiritual death, then it is because any sin is unto death that believers are warned there is sin unto death, which would be apostasy, for by denying Christ any sin would send him to Hell. Here are 40 of them . And apostasy is not necessarily one, but as Heb. 10:26 warns about impenitently sinning willfully after knowing the Truth (synonymous with conversion in 1Tim. 2:4) it can be the culmination of a Christi-denying life.
And indeed, it is noted that 1Jn. 5:16,17 lacks the definite article "a:"
There is a problem with the typical English rendering in 1 John 5:16-17 of the clause, “a sin unto death.” Greek has no indefinite article (i.e., no “a” or “an”) and the inclusion of it can be misleading. The Greek literally reads, “if anyone sees his brother sinning sin not unto[12] death.” If John had a specific and known sin in mind it would be more appropriate to use the definite article with “sin” (i.e., “the”). The clause would then read, “the sin unto death.” Here John is addressing not a specific sin or single act, but a particular class or kind of sin.[13]
The Catholic Haydock commentary states that, "The difference cannot be the same as betwixt sins that are called venial and mortal;... interpreters commonly understand a wilful apostacy from the faith, and from the known truth, when a sinner hardened by his own ingratitude becomes deaf to all admonitions, -http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id279.html
'daniel1212', let me clear it up for you right now, and forever hopefully. What the Bible says in 1 John 5:16-17 is 100% true and right, whether you like it or not.
Heart-Rest, let me clear it up for you right now, and forever hopefully. What the Bible says in 1 John 5:16-17 is 100% true and right, and which i never denied but affirm, whether you wanted to see that or not. But it was superficially dealt with.
No matter what kind or amount of prevarications, or bloviated obfuscations, or interminably and exhaustingly wearying posts with endless lists of totally unrelated Bible references and obviously erroneous interpretations given...
Which fomenting, twice-ignorant slander one might say indicates you suffer from Roman reactionary syndrome (RRS), which prevents one from objectively examining and even understanding what Scripture or anything else that refutes them is saying, as indeed to do so in order to ascertain the veracity of Rome's claims is discouraged.
The fact is that the treatment of this was superficial, and you should have welcomed more light, which actually affirmed there were different classes of sin, but instead the usual reaction kicked in. Here is what i wrote which exposes that your reactionary syndrome is just that.
Luther was in error when he called for the destruction of the Jews in his 65,000 word treatise. He personally prepared the way for Hitler. Do you think he is in heaven ?
There will be those who appeal to their good works to Jesus Himself and HIS words to them will be *Depart from Me you who practice lawlessness, for I never knew you.*
But THIS horse is LONG dead!
Why flog it any more?
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Godwin says...
There are a few posters here who I rarely if ever read, and posts like yours simply reinforce the wisdom in that decision.
I've long thought I could tell the circumcised heart from the uncircumcised by how they treat the Jews; a window into the soul.
I’m sure there’s a point here somewhere.
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.