Replies

You wrote a detailed post which seems to convey a couple of simple points:

1. you still accuse me of bearing false witness

2. you refuse to condemn the actions of taking the life of William Tyndale

It is ironic that Tyndale was defending himself against accusations which he denied. Likewise More defended himself against accusations of torturing people, a claim he also denied. Now here we are accusing and defending ourselves in a similar manner.

“I probably would not do that [accuse of being a heretic] to you.”

“No, [you ought not to be burned at the stake for your beliefs].”

That’s a little comforting.

Perhaps our argument is partially due to a communication breakdown. I’m not sure.

To me there is a big difference between historically describing a man being burned at the stake for heresy versus the same man being burned at the stake because he was branded a heretic.

So, for clarity, would you also describe Joan of Arc as being burned at the stake / executed for heresy?

I would describe her as being accused of heresy to delineate between supporting such a crime as her being killed for her beliefs. Or if I mistakenly misled someone to think I actually agreed that this was a just punishment, I would hastily clarify that I do not.

“But I do think a man who bears false witness REPEATEDLY against another man and doesn’t repent is risking the fires of hell.”

There is a difference between errors, lies, false witness, mistakes, simple disagreements of opinions, and differences of personal preferences and convictions. A witness is someone who testifies what he has seen or heard. A false witness is someone who lies about it. The connotation is also that such a witness may cause harm to the person wrongly accused by a false witness.

I have stated why my understanding is that your position supports torturing and murdering people for disagreeing with your theology. I have given you multiple opportunities to clarify the meaning of your statements. And yet you are still, even now, refusing to do so. Why?

“That is a statement of fact.
1) Tyndale arrested for heresy.
2) Tyndale had been tried for heresy.
3) Tyndale was executed for heresy.”

It is in dispute whether Tyndale was an actual heretic. Therefore, it is not a fact. It is merely your opinion that he was a heretic. And, even those who may have been heretics and were executed for their beliefs were executed unjustly. Again, by comparison, I would not expect to hear someone say that a particular runaway slave was tortured and executed for being a runaway slave. That might be historically and technically accurate in the way you are defending your statement. However, it conveys that the author of such words considers such acts as legitimate. Another way to say it would be that a slave was tortured and murdered for running away. And we could also say that Tyndale and Joan of Arc (from my limited understanding of history) were murdered for their beliefs.

Heresy is not a civil matter. Or, at least, it shouldn’t be. The punishment prescribed in the Bible for grievous, public, unrepentant sin by a professing follower of Christ is excommunication. Sin did sometimes result in death in such cases, but it was God Himself who always carried this out. Further, judging and punishing people outside of the Church is not within the jurisdiction of the Church’s authority, at least here presently on the earth. Christ entrusted the keys to the kingdom to the Church. He did not do so with the keys to hell and death. He testified in Revelation that He possessed those keys.

“[That Tyndale was martyred for his faith is] your subjective point of view.”

Yes, it is. And that Tyndale was a heretic is your subjective point of view, not a fact. It is a fact he was called a heretic.

“By the way, you know he wasn’t actually burned at the stake, right? He was strangled. His body was burned.”

That’s debatable. The record I’ve read is that he was tied to the stake, and someone strangled him from behind, and then he was set on fire. It is possible but uncertain whether he experienced the pain of the fire. It is certain that many were burned at the stake with no such relief for accusations of similar crimes.

“It won’t change. What should change is that you should stop posting completely false things you can’t substantiate. Apparently you’re just fine with bearing false witness. It’s your soul. You’ll have to live with it. . . and you’ll have to die with it as well. There’s still time. Do the right thing.”

It is up to you to clear up the matter. You could have done so long ago. Your answer to my interpretation of your statement is to essentially say “prove it.”

That’s the weakest of denials.

“And that is exactly what I said: ‘Actually he was executed for his heresy but if you want to call that his faith, fine.’ Thanks for essentially admitting I was right all along.”

I will concede that I misunderstood and misconstrued your words if you also state that Joan of Arc was executed / burned at the stake for heresy.

Or we could agree to call these “executions” state-sanctioned murders. They were also done with the complicity of people claiming to be following Christ in their actions.

“Do you think God was wrong to order the Levites to kill thousands of people who worshiped the Golden Calf? I respect the U.S. Constitution (probably much more than you do), but I know my God is God and no constitution is God. The constitution saves no souls.”

We could debate the extent to which such Old Testament principles apply today or in the Church. But that is a separate issue. It seems like an odd defense for what’s under discussion.

Of course we both agree that the Constitution does not save souls. However, because of the Constitution, the Gospel has been freely preached in this land, and many have been saved by that. Further, because this land has been predominantly Christian, it has sent missionaries throughout the world and financed the spread of the Gospel, as well as the translation of the Bible, throughout the world.

But your reply skirts the issue of the morality of a Christian group cooperating with civil authorities to have people executed for disagreeing with their doctrines or theology.

In my opinion, God has supernaturally blessed this nation because the founders were listening to the lessons of this shameful history of Christendom. It is understandable how the Bible and early church writings could be misconstrued, misinterpreted, and misapplied to justify killing in the name of Christ. That, however, does not make it morally right. And a lesson was learned or should have been learned about these actions. They are not of God. They do not represent the teachings or traditions of Christ, the apostles, or the true Church of God.

Catholics AND Protestants sinned and were seriously in error on this issue. Governmental officials were wrong. We all should have learned the lesson. Thankfully, that lesson learned is enshrined in our Constitution.

But back to the issue of your accusation against me of being a false witness against you. For clarification, what I know is only the words you posted and I read. I can not see your heart. I can not bear witness to what is in your heart. You did add the words “but if you want to call that his faith, fine.” It is a reasonable defense for you to say that this supports that you did not claim killing people for disagreeing with your theology is ok. You did not say so explicitly.

However, you have only denied having said such a thing, but you have not denied holding such a view. Another good thing about our Constitution is that you can not be compelled to testify against yourself. That was in response to other abuses by “Christians” surrounding the same events we have been discussing.

I still perceive your choice of words, along with your additional defense of killing in the Old Testament, to mean that you consider Tyndale’s execution to be justifiable. Again, I am not bearing false witness. I am stating what I perceive. I can not see your thoughts. I am not claiming to know things I do not know, or to have seen or heard something I have not seen or heard. But, again, you can easily clear this up, if I am misperceiving your views. So far, you’ve issued a non-denial denial.

According to the Bible, not only does what we say demonstrate our character and beliefs, but also what we do not say is an indicator. See 1 John 4:3.

You could simply say, in your opinion, taking Tyndale’s life was not justifiable. Doing so is not consistent with the teachings of Christ or the apostles. Nor was such the tradition practiced in the early Church.