Luther would be horrified by the world he forged

I’ve already answered the phony allegations of bearing false witness.

What I’ve said is entirely based on your own words.

You just keep repeating yourself like that is going to make the untrue become true.

Who are you trying to convince? Me? Yourself? God?

As I said already, I never claimed to see inside your heart. Only God can.

But I can see plainly what your doctrine is. And it does not match the Bible. And justifying the murder of a righteous man like Tyndale is beyond making you a heretic. It is within the realm of apostasy and reprobation.

You need to see the logical conclusion of your error. And if you can not face that reality then at least I will make sure that anyone else reading along can see it for what it is.

“When someone bears false witness in dozens of posts - as you have - and never repents of that obvious false witness the spiritual obstacles are clear.”

You keep repeating that charge, but you also keep supporting my observation:

You endorse, support, defend, and justify what you keep calling a “historical fact.” Tyndale was burned at the stake by men who accused him of committing a capital crime of heresy.

Your labeling of him as a heretic, which he is not, supports that you agree with the charges against him.

Your calling his murder an “execution” and refusal to call it murder or even to merely call it a mistake or a bad decision indicates that you support it.

This is further confirmed by your use of the Bible where you pointed out that those who worshipped the golden calf were executed for it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3594481/posts?page=210#210

In the same post you explicitly and specifically deny that Tyndale’s death is martyrdom.

You protest that I am bearing false witness against you for saying you are “justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology.”

But that is the inescapable conclusion of your logic.

You call Tyndale’s death an “execution” but not a murder or martyrdom.

You agree with the charges against him of heresy.

You describe these things as historical facts.

But you are deeply offended when the labels you prefer are replaced by ones in which your theology is NOT the absolute truth that you think it is.

You embrace a theology which is based on an unquestioned allegiance to the doctrines of Rome. In your mind, that is absolute truth. If those doctrines say that the sky is not truly blue, then you must gouge out your eyes before disagreeing.

That is not a reasonable faith. That is merely blind dogma. Blind lead the blind. Both fall into the ditch. Jesus said that.

That is different from a call to reason together, and a call to believe an eye-witness report. That is the call of a reasonable and reasoning faith that the Bible and the Gospel contained in it proclaim. The Bible even encourages testing the claims and message of apostles and angels of God.

But, in your mind Tyndale disagreed with the absolute and unquestionable doctrines of Rome. You would not describe them that way, but that is what they are. They are also your theology. What you label as heresy is really nothing more than him disagreeing with you. And your positions are not reasoned. His are.

You state that Tyndale was a heretic and was executed for this. Your justifications mean exactly what I said they mean. You justify torturing and murdering people for disagreeing with their theology.

No. Those are not your words. They are not how you prefer to describe your views. But it is as they are.

What you label “heresy” is nothing more than disagreeing with your religious views. What you call “execution” is murder.

There does not exist within the realm of logic and truth the possibility of you holding two contradictory positions, Alice In Wonderland notwithstanding. Doing so is madness.

If you can simultaneously hold that Tyndale was justly (your silence speaks) executed for the “crime” of heresy (as you claim), while also denying that you justify the torture and murder of those who disagree with your religious views, then by all means share your logical line of reasoning and disprove my thesis.

All observers who retain any honesty and integrity and logic will be compelled by these to agree with my conclusion.

You have not defended your position with any logical or reasonable argument because there is none. And so you have stopped your ears, gnashed with your teeth, stomped your feet, and refused to answer any relevant question for one simple reason: you can not.

The facts remain:

Tyndale was arrested for heresy.

Tyndale was convicted of heresy.

Tyndale was executed for heresy.

Tyndale was, in fact, a heretic.

You can bear false witness against me and it will change none of the facts. Denying that you made false witness against me doesn’t change the fact that you did. All anyone has to do is check the previous posts and they will see two things:

1) I did not say what you accuse me of saying or believing. Not even once.

2) When I asked you - repeatedly - to substantiate your false claims you failed each and every time to do so.

It’s sad that you would resort to bearing false witness - apparently because you’re desperate to avoid the facts - but no number of false claims against me changes any of the facts: Tyndale was arrested for heresy. Tyndale was convicted of heresy. Tyndale was executed for heresy. Tyndale was, in fact, a heretic.

Everything I just said was absolutely correct - and in fact everything I have said in this entire thread was absolutely correct. Those are the facts. Attacking me rather than dealing with the facts changes NOTHING.

Everything I have said can easily be substantiated by merely asking unlearned to substantiate his own false witness. Take this false claim of his as an example:

“You endorse, support, defend, and justify what you keep calling a “historical fact.””

By this unlearner means I “endorse, support, defend, and justify” Tyndale’s execution. I have repeatedly asked him to substantiate that claim. He never has and he can’t because I did no such thing. I have pointed this out before. If unlearner’s claim is true (and it isn’t) he should be able to prove it easily. He never does. He can’t. That’s his false witness and I think he knows exactly what he is doing.

But there’s more: “Tyndale was burned at the stake by men who accused him of committing a capital crime of heresy.”

Yes, he was, and he WAS IN FACT guilty of heresy. Psychopannychism is heresy and that was not his only heresy.

Unlearner, you will, once again, fail to substantiate your false claims. What will you do then? You’ll probably just go on and claim they’re true when they’re not.

“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View).

“The facts remain:”

The facts are that you have stated your opinion and position on Tyndale (repeatedly). You justify torture and murder. I have repeatedly demonstrated this.

By every measure of honesty, everything you say about Tyndale can be applied to Joan of Arc and Thomas More.

But you refuse to admit so because you do not agree with your statements being applied to Joan of Arc or Thomas More. And the reason is obvious:

To you, Joan of Arc is a saint—a “patron saint of soldiers.” To you she can not be a heretic and a saint. She fought on the same side as (and alongside) Gilles de Rais, a man who sodomized and murdered little boys, and was also executed for witchcraft, like his compatriot, Joan of Arc, who was also charged and convicted as a heretic.

Joan of Arc’s trial and execution appear to be politically motivated, just as William Tyndale’s were. The same can not be said of Gilles de Rais.

There is a difference though between Tyndale and these other two who were also executed for the supposed crime of heresy. Tyndale never led anyone to be killed in either battle or in a court of law. Thomas More and Joan of Arc did. I have my doubts that all of the deaths at their hands were just, but God knows. Either way, I do not defend their executions as being just, nor their trials.

Did Thomas More hold the view that those who did not share his religious views should die for this? Did Joan of Arc? Do you?

Those who hold such views are heretics, apostates, and reprobates. Neither I nor William Tyndale hold the position that the Church should ever use it’s authority to cause anyone to be put to death for their theological views. While the New Testament affirms that the civil powers do not bear the sword in vain and that there still exist capital crimes, faulty religious doctrines are not among them.

And this is where we part ways. And you are highly offended that I draw attention to your heresy—the one in which you justify the trial and execution of William Tyndale.

It must infuriate you that the works of this great man of faith could not be stopped by all the fury of hell and the hellions that pursued him. If God was not in the Reformation, why did its opponents fail so miserably?

The religionists of Rome (and other places as well) used every sort of torture and murder to stamp out the Reformation movement, but it could not be stopped because God was in it.

The works of Tyndale, a martyr of the true faith, transformed the English language, and they have been preserved to this day. Though murdered for it, he succeeded in his great work of getting the Bible into the hands of common English-speaking people.

“You can bear false witness against me”

Never-mind that you protest against false witness so vehemently where it does not exist. It is fully acceptable to you that Tyndale was captured and “executed” via the Judas-like betrayal of Henry Phillips. Phillips is the worst kind of liar—one who lies while lying in wait to steal and kill. He pretended to be Tyndale’s friend. He also pretended to share his theology. Do you see the injustice of a treacherous man being paid money to lie and betray a supposed friend in order to have him killed?

You continue to cite John Henry Newman in your phony protests against falsehood. Yet, he was convicted of libel in a court of law.

We probably share the same sentiment regarding the trials against Joan of Arc, Thomas More, and John Henry Newman.

But you are unwilling to concede the possibility of William Tyndale being tried unfairly for his beliefs. No. You persist in justifying his murder for holding beliefs different from your own.

It is ironic that you appear so offended at what you claim to be bearing false witness against you. Yet you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that Tyndale was murdered by liars and men who really did bear false witness against him.

If you had admitted that Tyndale’s trial and execution were unjust, something probably most Catholics would do, you would not have wasted hours with your senseless accusations and feigned protestations. You’ve had limitless opportunities to disprove and dispel the conclusions I have fairly demonstrated against your false theology—your heresy. But you have not because you cling to your heretical views and refuse to admit the truth.

I have offered repeatedly to withdraw my charge of heresy against you for advocating the torture and murder of people who disagree with your theology, if you merely affirm that these things are and were wrong.

Why would any non-heretic refuse to admit this? Why would any professing Christian, Protestant or Catholic?

You are condemned by your own words and stubborn doctrinal error.

These are the facts.

“Tyndale was a heretic.”

Do ALL Catholics share your view, or did you invent this tradition?

You’re the only one on this forum justifying what happened to Tyndale.

I know Catholics who love Jesus and abhor things like this.

Does that make them heretics for not agreeing with you on the justice of Tyndale’s death?

“Tyndale was executed for heresy.”

Tydale preached the same Gospel Paul preached. Paul said that even if an apostle or angel from God preached some other Gospel, they would be accursed.

Galations 1:8 (Douay-Rheims Bible)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Tyndale preached salvation by faith in the same exact way Paul did.

Yet, his accusers charged him with heresy for this. Since their position differed from his, they are the ones who cut themselves off as preachers of a false Gospel.

Tyndale’s accusers and people, such as yourself, who justify their actions have embraced the worst kinds of heresy:

1) a heresy that teaches it is acceptable to have people burned at the stake for disagreeing with your theology

2) promoting a different Gospel than the one Paul preached, as he defines it and specifies the conditions for salvation by it in 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 15 (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Faith is the singular condition of salvation. Those who are saved are distinguished from those who not by the singular distinction of true and abiding faith in Christ.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (Douay-Rheims Bible)
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory.

The first charge against Tyndale proves that it was his accusers are the heretics.

“Neither one of those facts will change”

Your so-called “facts” contradict the Bible.

Nowhere in the New Testament nor in any of the first-generation church writing is there even the slightest hint of support for having people, heretics or otherwise, killed. And even later writings do not support these actions, except where they have been twisted, as heretics also do with the scriptures anyway.

“To correct your latest false claim (this time about the translators of the DRV: ‘Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?’ (James 2:24 - Douay-Rheims Bible)”

Here is the Tyndale translation of the same passage:

“Ye se then how that of dedes a man is iustified and not of fayth only.”

Wow. Tyndale sure seems to be hiding his heresy cleverly here. It almost sounds like he translated the passage you cited to have the same essential meaning as Douay-Rheims.

Maybe, Douay-Rheims were not heretics, if that is the case.

Or maybe, Tyndale was falsely accused and murdered under the pretext of heresy.

But that would only matter to honest people who are not hell-bent on killing folks who disagree with their religious views.

The passage you cited does not mean what you think it means. Here’s a clue. When is a person justified? When they believe, or when they do works? And which comes first, justification, or works? Which comes first, salvation from the penalty of sins or works?

Saying that justification is by faith alone is not the same as saying that saving faith abides alone. Saving faith produces the fruits of righteous deeds, always, in every case. James distinguishes false faith from the real. But justification, salvation from the penalty of sin, occurs before works of righteousness. Justification occurs when a person believes. Only those who have already been pardoned by God for their sins can begin to do works of righteousness. The fruit of the Spirit begins with faith, but it does not abide alone. Justification IS by faith alone, but justifying faith NEVER remains alone.

It is in this sense that James and Paul do not contradict each other. Salvation is not earned. It is a gift. Those who teach working for salvation are heretics.

But then heretics twist scriptures, and they apparently have no qualms twisting a man’s words to prove the capital crime of heresy so they can kill him.

Heretics seem to exalt their own views above scripture. To them their opinions are facts. Their emotions are logic. Their doctrine is infallible. And any who disagree are supposedly the heretics and bearers of false witness.

To a heretic, those who speak the truth seem to be heretics. But the real heretics follow the murderous ways of Cain, Jezebel, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians.

This is how a person can tell the children of God from the children of the Devil:

1 John 3:10-15 (Douay-Rheims)
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother.
For this is the declaration, which you have heard from the beginning, that you should love one another.
Not as Cain, who was of the wicked one, and killed his brother. And wherefore did he kill him? Because his own works were wicked: and his brother’s just.
Wonder not, brethren, if the world hate you.
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not, abideth in death.
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself.

“False charge. Tyndale preached salvation by faith just as Paul preached.”

St. Paul preached a gospel of grace - not “sola fide”. Nor did St. Paul preach a gospel of grace through “sola fide”.
You can see this in his use of the phrase “obedience of faith”.

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/12/18/the-obedience-of-faith/

Even Protestants today are struggling with their own erroneous interpretation of St. Paul. Hence, the whole “New Perspective on Paul” movement.

“Wow. Tyndale sure seems to be hiding his heresy cleverly here. It almost sounds like he translated the passage you cited to have the same essential meaning as Douay-Rheims.”

First, since Tyndale’s translation work in no way figured into his trial it was probably viewed as irrelevant and could be read by none of his judges. Most likely they never even saw his translation unless he had copies with him when arrested and even then they couldn’t read it.

Second, Tyndale’s translation of the verse may have been perfectly correct, but his understanding and use of it, or the theological teaching behind it, would be the issue since he was a heretic and propagated heresy.

“It is in this sense that James and Paul do not contradict each other. Salvation is not earned. It is a gift. Those who teach working for salvation are heretics.”

Yes, and that’s why we don’t do it. But Protestants teach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone and that is condemned by James as wrong (James 2:24). That’s why Luther, whom Tyndale so admired, threatened to “throw Jimmy into the stove” (i.e. burn the Letter of James because it did not agree with his theology).

[1] Fratres mei, nolite in personarum acceptione habere fidem Domini nostri Jesu Christi gloriae. [2] Etenim si introierit in conventum vestrum vir aureum annulum habens in veste candida, introierit autem et pauper in sordido habitu, [3] et intendatis in eum qui indutus est veste praeclara, et dixeritis ei : Tu sede hic bene : pauperi autem dicatis : Tu sta illic; aut sede sub scabello pedum meorum : [4] nonne judicatis apud vosmetipsos, et facti estis judices cogitationum iniquarum? [5] Audite, fratres mei dilectissimi : nonne Deus elegit pauperes in hoc mundo, divites in fide, et haeredes regni, quod repromisit Deus diligentibus se?

[6] vos autem exhonorastis pauperem. Nonne divites per potentiam opprimunt vos, et ipsi trahunt vos ad judicia? [7] nonne ipsi blasphemant bonum nomen, quod invocatum est super vos? [8] Si tamen legem perficitis regalem secundum Scripturas : Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum : bene facitis : [9] si autem personas accipitis, peccatum operamini, redarguti a lege quasi transgressores. [10] Quicumque autem totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus.

[11] Qui enim dixit : Non moechaberis, dixit et : Non occides. Quod si non moechaberis, occides autem, factus es transgressor legis. [12] Sic loquimini, et sic facite sicut per legem libertatis incipientes judicari. [13] Judicium enim sine misericordia illi qui non fecit misericordiam : superexaltat autem misericordia judicium. [14] Quid proderit, fratres mei, si fidem quis dicat se habere, opera autem non habeat? numquid poterit fides salvare eum? [15] Si autem frater et soror nudi sint, et indigeant victu quotidiano,

[16] dicat autem aliquis ex vobis illis : Ite in pace, calefacimini et saturamini : non dederitis autem eis quae necessaria sunt corpori, quid proderit? [17] Sic et fides, si non habeat opera, mortua est in semetipsa. [18] Sed dicet quis : Tu fidem habes, et ego opera habeo : ostende mihi fidem tuam sine operibus : et ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam. [19] Tu credis quoniam unus est Deus : bene facis : et daemones credunt, et contremiscunt. [20] Vis autem scire, o homo inanis, quoniam fides sine operibus mortua est?

[21] Abraham pater noster nonne ex operibus justificatus est, offerens Isaac filium suum super altare? [22] Vides quoniam fides cooperabatur operibus illius : et ex operibus fides consummata est? [23] Et suppleta est Scriptura, dicens : Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei appellatus est. [24] Videtis quoniam ex operibus justificatur homo, et non ex fide tantum? [25] Similiter et Rahab meretrix, nonne ex operibus justificata est, suscipiens nuntios, et alia via ejiciens?

[26] Sicut enim corpus sine spiritu mortuum est, ita et fides sine operibus mortua est.

Tyndale was a heretic. He was arrested for it, tried for it, and executed for it. Those are the facts. No amount of posting or outright falsehoods from any Protestant or non-Protestant can change those facts. Tyndale was a heretic.

Though we will probably remain at an impasse over many issues for the foreseeable future, I have reconsidered your complaint over my accusation that you “justify the torture and murder of those who disagree with you.” You asserted that I would be unable to substantiate this. And I have decided to concede the point.

I also recognize that you did earlier allow that “if you want to call that his faith, fine” in #185.

In my zeal to force your hand, I demanded that you defend your position, by insisting that you also condemn Tyndale’s accusers and executioners. But, just as I support the Constitutional protections to allow freedom of religion and to prevent cruel and unusual punishments, I must also recognize that people have the right to express their opinions and also to not be forced to testify against themselves.

So, while I do not follow the logic of your position on Tyndale, I withdraw my harsh allegation against your moral character. I leave that to yourself and God. It is not my place to condemn you for words that you have not actually uttered. For me to utter them and put these words in your mouth does constitute a straw man argument.

Speaking of straw, I am aware of what you said about the book of James. Luther, if my memory serves me, did not consider it canon and called it a work of “straw.” It appears that he had trouble reconciling his understanding of the Pauline epistles and the writings of James.

We could probably debate endlessly over the correct understanding of justification. I will state a brief overview of my position on this topic. I do not expect to convince you, but I intend to reply to what you asserted thus far.

You posted this link:

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/12/18/the-obedience-of-faith/

It contains this statement:

“The coming of God’s Messiah is sheer grace – a grace that disrupts established patterns and powers, not to destroy, but to repair and make whole. ‘The obedience of faith’ is the one possible response to the awe-filled deed God has wrought in Jesus Christ.”

While I do not disagree with this statement, I wish to show how it is possible to twist a person’s words as a pretext for heresy. “Sheer” means “nothing other than.” So sheer grace is no different than saying “grace alone.”

If a Protestant such as Tyndale advocates “faith alone” and “grace alone” it is clear that he recognizes that grace and faith operate together and are not “alone” in every sense of the word. Grace alone, which is another way that a person could say that salvation is sheerly by grace, refers to the Bible doctrine that we do not earn our salvation. Our redemption was paid for with the life of Christ, i.e. His blood, and nothing else. His blood paid the full price. It is not like a coupon where we pay a discounted rate for some purchase. We do not pay anything for our redemption. It might be said that we owe a debt of love and gratefulness, but it is a debt we can never repay.

I am glad to have learned some things through our debate. I learned more about Tyndale, Joan of Arc, Thomas More, the Reformation, and even Catholic doctrine. I am glad to learn that the official Catholic doctrine is that no one can earn their salvation. It was the complaint of abuses and misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine that led to the Reformation movement, in my opinion.

So statements like “faith alone” were specifically in response to these issues. In context, faith alone does not refer to the wrong idea that faith abides alone and is not accompanied by other things including works. Justification (being called just) by God happens when someone believes, and the works follow. Contextually he is addressing the issue of salvation being a grace, i.e. a gift, rather than something earned like wages. Death is the wages of sin, but eternal life is a gift.

James, on the other hand is not comparing works and grace, but he is contrasting faith that works with faith that does not. He is addressing the qualitative difference between faith that saves and faith that does not. Everyone believes in something. But a mental or verbal assent, even if correct, is not enough to qualify as saving faith. Paul describes a sincere faith. Does this mean that he demands two qualities: faith and sincerity? Do we evaluate our faith based on how sincere we feel? No. But not all faith is saving faith. James says not to have faith in Christ with the hypocrisy of “respect of persons.” He also clarifies that saving faith is faith that works. Paul says the same thing by telling us that those who are chosen for salvation are chosen to do good works. Paul speaks of justification (being declared righteous) by God. James speaks of being declared righteous or just by our works. That is, our works justify us. Our works speak about our faith, and either confirm or deny the reality of genuine faith.

Works of faith declare us to be just or righteous. When God declares a man just on the basis of faith rather than works, He is accounting the man to be forgiven and to have received the imputed righteousness of Christ. This happens when a person believes the Gospel, putting his faith in Christ for salvation. This response to God’s foreknowledge and calling are the starting point of salvation, which is a process of transformation. Salvation begins with forgiveness, continues with justification and sanctification, and culminates with glorification at the resurrection when Christ returns. So Paul says “our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.”

The justification by God which Paul describes is one in which we become just by God declaring it so. The justification James describes is one in which a true believer is acting in accordance with his faith, and his works validate that he is a just man. Paul’s justification is about a sinner becoming a righteous man. James’ justification describes how the man who has been made righteous by faith will act consistently with this reality. Paul describes “good works” that follow justification by faith, while James describes works of faith (not necessarily “good works”) that prove that genuine faith resides in a person’s heart rather than merely being lip-service.

Back to the article you linked. “’The obedience of faith’ is the one possible response to the awe-filled deed God has wrought in Jesus Christ.” Notice the word “one.” Is this literally true? Is this not the very heresy that Tyndale was accused of? Faith is the one response. No. Contextually it is correct. Of course faith does not stand by itself, even if it is the “one” response expected and required.

Why put forward such a doctrinal statement as “faith alone?” It is simply a way to state that there is one sole distinguishing factor that separates those who have received Christ from those who have not. This only applies to those whose faith is in Christ through the message of the Gospel. The thief on the cross did not need to come down off of the cross and do some works in order to have received Christ’s forgiveness. He did not need to do penance. He did not need to do acts of charity or give anything in order to receive the free gift of eternal life. But of course we immediately see the evidence that his faith is real based on his change of demeanor and words that he says following his belief.

Faith alone, does not exclude grace, works, the blood of Christ, repentance, the agency of the Holy Spirit, or any other essential element of our salvation. It is simply a statement of the criteria of receiving the gift of eternal life. Saving faith has many non-optional qualities. It is a faith that works. It is a faith that perseveres. It is a sincere faith. It is a faith in Christ. It is a faith in the cross. It is a faith in the Gospel. It is a faith in the truth of God’s Word. It is a faith in the faithfulness of God. These are not separate qualities but part of a unity that constitutes the singular requirement for receiving the gift of eternal life: faith.

The relationship between a believer with the law of God is in stark contrast with that of the unbeliever. For believers, the law of bondage has been replaced with the “law of liberty” as James describes in James 2. The law of the knowledge of sin has been replaced with the “law of faith” as Paul describes in Romans 3. The handwritten law has been replaced by the law God has written on our hearts in Hebrews 10:16. The law of wrath (Romans 4:15) has been replaced by the law of love (Romans 13:10).

Perhaps you’re being conciliatory, great. The issues have always been and will always be the same:

1) Tyndale was a heretic.

2) I never said what you claim I said.

If you want to say, or believe, Tyndale was not a heretic, you are free to do so. You also can believe the moon is made of cheese if you like.

What was reprehensible about what you posted, however, was the untruth - the absolute falsehood - you posted: “No one here is justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology, except you.”

What happened after you posted that false statement? I called you on it and noted that YOU would prove it was false by never being able to substantiate it.

But rather than admit the obvious, that if you can’t substantiate it that means it was a falsehood, you made a Clintonesque statement: “You asserted that I would be unable to substantiate this. And I have decided to concede the point.”

What point? Only, apparently, the point that you would not be able to substantiate it and not the point that it would mean you posted a falsehood. In any case, I was absolutely right and you were absolutely wrong. The difference is that I said that was the case and you denied it - until you essentially just now admitted it.

Did you think I was bragging when I said I made no errors in the thread? I was not. It was simply a statement of fact. And you’re proving it.

You wrote: “So, while I do not follow the logic of your position on Tyndale, I withdraw my harsh allegation against your moral character.”

The harshness of the allegation was never the issue. Did Jesus correctly label the Pharisees as vipers or not? I don’t care about the harshness if the harshness is deserved. What matters was this: Was it TRUE??? And it was not. Your claim was false and I don’t see how any rational person could ever claim that he or she - for even a single minute - thought otherwise.

“In my zeal to force your hand, I demanded that you defend your position, by insisting that you also condemn Tyndale’s accusers and executioners.”

I suggest you give that up as a tactic. Stick to the truth instead. You’ll never go wrong. There is zero chance of you or anyone here opposed to the Catholic faith ever being able to “force my hand” in anything or on any issue. I simply don’t work that way. I almost always know what an anti-Catholic will do or say before he does it. It’s their programming. They have to follow their programming and once you see it unfold a few dozen times it becomes almost always predictable. It’s all just so predictable.

“It appears that he had trouble reconciling his understanding of the Pauline epistles and the writings of James.”

True. And what does that mean for Protestantism? If Luther was right and James was wrong, where does that leave Protestantism on sola sciptura let alone sola fide as Luther understood it? If James was right and Luther was wrong, where does that leave Protestantism since he created it? There is no such quandary in Catholicism. Protestants may not like Catholic interpretations of scripture but you never heard of Jesus (the founder of the Catholic Church) or St. Peter disagreeing with a canonical book of the Bible!

Now, about the rest of your post. At first glance, I agree with much of it and have nothing to add on that score. You did write this, however: “I am glad to have learned some things through our debate. I learned more about Tyndale, Joan of Arc, Thomas More, the Reformation, and even Catholic doctrine. I am glad to learn that the official Catholic doctrine is that no one can earn their salvation.”

I am glad you learned those things. You know what I learned? Essentially NOTHING. I’m not trying to be rude - nor am I simply succeeding in being rude if that was your natural retort. I am just pointing out a fact: I essentially learned nothing from this entire exchange.

I already knew a great deal about Tyndale.
I knew Tyndale was a heretic.
I knew he was executed for heresy.
I knew the timeline of events about Tyndale. And you admitted you did not.
I already knew about St. Joan of Arc.
I already knew about the martyr St. Thomas More.
I already knew about Catholic doctrine.
I already knew about Martin Luther and many of his views on salvation and the canon.
I already knew about the relationship between faith, works and grace.
I already knew about Protestant views about the relationship between faith, works and grace.
I already knew how those who oppose the Catholic faith think and work and even try to manipulate people (”...force your hand...”).

I essentially learned nothing from this entire exchange. I can honestly say I learn things at FreeRepublic every day, but that didn’t happen in this exchange.

I hope you keep learning. Where there’s life, there’s hope.

“Tyndale was a heretic”

I am not conceding this point. I still do not consider Tyndale to be a heretic. Heresy is about twisting scriptures. If the scriptures themselves can be twisted, so can the words of a man like Tyndale. Just because he was interviewed by experts on Catholic theology and declared to be a heretic does not make him one Biblically, in my opinion.

However, I am conceding that your agreement with their assessment does not constitute my unfair claim that you justify murder and torture for disagreeing with your views.

I still do not know what your actual views are on whether you believe it is right to burn someone at the stake for disagreeing with Catholic theology. However, you never said those words.

In my mind, it is the logical conclusion a person must ultimately reach if they persist in holding your views. On the other hand, people often do hold contradictory views. A person could believe that Tyndale was a heretic and burned at the stake as a real consequence of that, and yet be against such a practice in general or for today or possibly have some other way of reconciling the relevant historical events with how they think civil law and Christian theology ought to work together.

I consider Tyndale to be a godly man, much as Catholics regard Joan of Arc or Thomas More. I suspect that Catholics, such as yourself, might get offended if someone were to post repetitive rants against the theology of these people and call them heretics. Or maybe you would not. I certainly would not justify their executions as reasonable actions that church leaders should support and endorse.

“What was reprehensible about what you posted, however, was the untruth - the absolute falsehood - you posted.”

Based on your insults of Tyndale and the Biblical comments about how God ordered the Levites to kill many of the golden calf idol worshippers, it seems like a reasonable question whether you support the execution and / or torture of people who disagree with or even challenge the authorities within the Catholic Church, especially as this has happened factually and historically in the past.

It was, however, unjustified to outright accuse you of holding such views. So far, I believe you have refused to answer what should have been a question asked in sincerity rather than what I did, which was to make an unfair allegation out of anger.

Since you have never agreed with the allegation and stated that it was a false one, I will infer that you do not hold that view. However, it remains unclear in my mind how you can hold some other view while simultaneously asserting that Tyndale was executed for heresy and making what appears to be a direct comparison with the capital punishment of idolaters in the Bible during the days of Moses.

I neither know my assertion to be true or untrue, but I do know that I can not factually substantiate it, as you asserted. So I must concede that point. And after examining my own motives I realize that I allowed my anger over what I perceived to be insults against a martyr and hero of faith to motivate me to make unfair allegations which, as you said, I have failed to substantiate.

Again, I do not know your heart. Perhaps you are a very caring, generous person, who is able to maintain a theoretical position on the historicity of Tyndale’s death and, at the same time, not hold a hateful animosity toward Protestants. But it would be helpful to hear it from your own mouth.

“I suggest you give that up as a tactic. Stick to the truth instead. You’ll never go wrong.”

Agreed. I think that sometimes I argue out of anger, wrongly imagining that I am following Christ’s example in dealing with Pharisees, when I really am being more like the foolish behavior of James and John who wanted to call down fire from Heaven on those who rejected them, of whom Christ said they did not know what spirit they were of. Christ was rarely angry, and believers are supposed to get rid of anger. The harsh words I used against you were in anger. And that was wrong.

And, as you said, it is important to be sure that arguments are true, right, and correct. What I imagine to be true of my debate opponent is not necessarily the reality. The Bible instructs to “speak the truth in love” and to have our words seasoned with grace. I did not do that. And I intend to change that. I purpose also not to make unsubstantiated allegations in the future. The bottom line is that you and others deserve the benefit of the doubt. And I should never allow my fleshly anger to cloud my judgment about this.

“The harshness of the allegation was never the issue. Did Jesus correctly label the Pharisees as vipers or not? I don’t care about the harshness if the harshness is deserved.”

I think harshness is important. But sometimes it is called for. So I agree in general. However, there are times when Christ had to reprove Peter sternly, and others in which He gently corrected him. But the truth of allegations is something that is nonnegotiable. And it was wrong of me to allege what I had no way of proving or even knowing to be true.

If you were to say that Tyndale deserved what he got and that all Protestants should get the same, that would deserve a harsh and truthful reproof. However, my inferring that this is your position is an unfair assumption. It would be helpful if you asserted to the contrary, but it is not your obligation to stake a position.

“And what does that mean for Protestantism?”

The Protestant movement is made up of many varying views. There is no professed Christian who is right in his knowledge on every matter. Catholics often complain of the many divergent views of Protestants as evidence of Protestantism being in error generally. However, most Catholics neither understand their own Church’s teachings nor agree with all of them. And the Catholic Church seems unable to properly remove public reprobates within their own clergy, as well as politicians like Nancy Pelosi who simultaneously claim to be Catholic while pushing abortion.

The fact that the early church remained faithful to the doctrines and customs of the apostles even though spread apart by vast distances over a period of time demonstrates that there existed a body of consistent and systematic doctrine delivered by those apostles to the churches. It does not, however, prove that God ever intended for the church leaders in one city to have supremacy over all other churches. Nor does it necessitate that all matters of faith and custom be decided upon by a centralized power structure.

While it is sad that the world is full of false Christianity, this is not something unexpected by Christ and the apostles. Indeed they foresaw this. And it is an easily observable fact that this exists within Catholicism every bit as much as it does within Protestantism. And the solution is for local congregations and individual believers to return to the Bible as the final authority for the standards of doctrine and custom.

“I am glad you learned those things. You know what I learned? Essentially NOTHING.”

Unfortunately I did not learn the things I learned on this thread from your comments. It is possible that there is a stray fact here or there that prompted a search or some reading. I am commenting on the aspect of debates such as this being useful even if we do reach an impasse.

If you learned nothing and persuaded no one, what is the point of posting these articles and engaging in needlessly long debates?

“Where there’s life, there’s hope.”

I am not being sarcastic in observing that I appreciate the positivity of your comments.

I know it is difficult sometimes to be positive when a person feels adamantly and passionately that the person they are debating is in grave error and danger. I feel likewise.

Even though I sharply disagree with many issues of doctrine and custom when it comes to the modern practices and teachings of the Catholic Church, I do recognize that there are many Catholics who love Christ and contribute many things to society.

I do not see Muslims contributing similarly to our society. I see Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, and Jewish entities such as hospitals or charities that exist to help people (and not just adherents to their respective religions). So, in this sense I believe that Protestants and Catholics can share many of the same political and social goals, including things like ending legalized abortion.

Even if neither of us share Donald Trump’s theological views, we both can recognize that he is a great president and what this nation needs at this time in history.

So I would like to be sure to avoid exclusively focussing on those areas in which we do not agree. After all, neither of us is presently debating a member of ISIS or a Planned Parenthood advocate. I am ashamed to admit that sometimes I let myself lose sight of this in these types of debates.

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.