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.