Heresy and Heretics

[lori4dogs]

Well here is what a Mennonite says about the Waldenses:

"A fitting commentary on the pursuit of pedigree has been provided by Harold S. Bender, a leading Mennonite scholar of the 20th century":

"The tempting and romantic theory of apostolic succession from the apostles down to the Anabaptists through successive Old Evangelical groups, which has been very popular with those among the Mennonites and Baptists who feel the need of such an apostolic succession, always includes the Waldenses as the last link before the Anabaptists. It has...no basis in fact."

 

[Jerome]

Yet Cardinal Hosius said:
"For by side these, there is an other thirde sect more perillouse, the which, because it baptizeth againe those which were lawfully baptized of the Catholics, is called the sect of the Anabaptists: of which sorte the brotherhood called, Waldenses, seemed to be, who without peradventure of late did rebaptise, althoughe some of them but even the other day, as they declare in their Apology, have given over that manner of twise baptising: notwithstanding, as sure as God, they agree in many articles with the Anabaptists."

 

[lori4dogs]

Yet Cardinal Hosius said:
"For by side these, there is an other thirde sect more perillouse, the which, because it baptizeth againe those which were lawfully baptized of the Catholics, is called the sect of the Anabaptists: of which sorte the brotherhood called, Waldenses, seemed to be, who without peradventure of late did rebaptise, althoughe some of them but even the other day, as they declare in their Apology, have given over that manner of twise baptising: notwithstanding, as sure as God, they agree in many articles with the Anabaptists."

I hope you will read the whole article posted on "The Trail of Blood" theory.
It is not an RCC blog-site, but is written by a former Baptist.

http://justinmartyr.blogspot.com/2004/02/i-came-across-couple-websites-today.html

If you aren't up to reading it all, here is one excerpt:

"If Baptists are the real first century Christians, then why do they not teach the Didache, one of the first books used by the early church? Why do they not use the Aramaic liturgy of St. James? Or why do they not have a liturgy older than that of St. James? Strangely, many Baptists claim the Montanists as proof of their lineage while at the same time criticize the 'sign of the cross' as a Catholic invention. Tertullian, who advocated the sign of the cross in the second century was himself a Montanist.

Montanists were known for the heresy of Monarchism, or the rejection of a trinitarian God. It can easily be argued that not all Montanists rejected the trinity, but it was a characteristic of some of them. That begs the question, would a Baptist convention tolerate a set of congregations who denied the trinity? Probably not. Then why tolerate the Montanists?"

 

[lori4dogs]

DHK said: "You are just biased, and will only accept Catholic revisionist history. Do you also deny the holocaust?"

Really? Pot calling kettle . . . and not really very fair. Consider the fact that I once only viewed Church history the way you do now. I started reading Church history from non-Catholic, non-Baptist sources like Bonnell Spencer's 'Ye Are The Body' and realized I had been wrong.

You might try taking those 'Baptist blinders' off.

 

[steaver]

I think you will have to look at this verse more carefully:

"If Calvin was a murderer, then he did not possess eternal life (saved) according to 1 John. He was a pretender."

Calvin may have killed Servetus.
Calvin may have been a Christian when he did it.
That shows us the depravity of the human heart.
It shows us that even a Christian is capable of committing most any sin.
It also shows us that God is able to forgive any sin.

Boy, I don't know brother. John is pretty adamant about those who show no love. Even Jesus said, "love thy enemies". Calvin surely had read all the scriptures and most of them are pretty tough on those who say they love God and at the same time hate thier brothers or even their enemies.

I agree with John, I cannot consider Calvin a brother in Christ at the time of his boastings of hate and death to another, especially over an opinion.

I believe there are many who follow "Christianity" (whatever that means to them, take the KKK for example) and there are FEW who follow Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit.

How about us DHK? We can read the scriptures. Are we more capable of understanding the gospel than Calvin was? Can you tell me what scripture Calvin could have read that led his heart to hate and kill others because of their opinion?

You know the gospel and the mountain of verses that command love, that command us to forgive infinitely. Where would Calvin ever get the idea that his actions and his heart's attitude was in line with one who has been born of God, one who has the Spirit of Jesus Christ indwelling them? As I said, the KKK claims to be Christians who follow the bible.

How is Calvin any different then those Catholics who murdered people? I know a Christian can wilfully sin. However, the Christian who wilfully sins also KNOWS he is sinning. Calvin seems to believe he was doing God a service rather than knowing it was sin and using his liberty in Christ to eleminate a rival in doctrinal debate.

According to Jesus, John and Paul, those born of God hears what God says. Those born of God may break the Law, but they do not display a consistent hate for another. While we can transgress the Law, it is quickly and consistently brought under conviction by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

From what I have read concerning Calvin I would not be able to consider him a brother in Christ. I have not read anything where he repented and confessed he had sinned against God and Servetus.

I would rather believe Calvin would fall into this verse...

1Cr 2:14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.


Calvin did not seem to understand the gospel. So what was he then? It seems no more than a forerunner for sects such as the KKK.

:jesus:

 

[DHK]

Boy, I don't know brother. John is pretty adamant about those who show no love. Even Jesus said, "love thy enemies". Calvin surely had read all the scriptures and most of them are pretty tough on those who say they love God and at the same time hate thier brothers or even their enemies.

I agree with John, I cannot consider Calvin a brother in Christ at the time of his boastings of hate and death to another, especially over an opinion.

I believe there are many who follow "Christianity" (whatever that means to them, take the KKK for example) and there are FEW who follow Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit.

How about us DHK? We can read the scriptures. Are we more capable of understanding the gospel than Calvin was? Can you tell me what scripture Calvin could have read that led his heart to hate and kill others because of their opinion?

You know the gospel and the mountain of verses that command love, that command us to forgive infinitely. Where would Calvin ever get the idea that his actions and his heart's attitude was in line with one who has been born of God, one who has the Spirit of Jesus Christ indwelling them? As I said, the KKK claims to be Christians who follow the bible.

How is Calvin any different then those Catholics who murdered people? I know a Christian can wilfully sin. However, the Christian who wilfully sins also KNOWS he is sinning. Calvin seems to believe he was doing God a service rather than knowing it was sin and using his liberty in Christ to eleminate a rival in doctrinal debate.

According to Jesus, John and Paul, those born of God hears what God says. Those born of God may break the Law, but they do not display a consistent hate for another. While we can transgress the Law, it is quickly and consistently brought under conviction by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

From what I have read concerning Calvin I would not be able to consider him a brother in Christ. I have not read anything where he repented and confessed he had sinned against God and Servetus.

I would rather believe Calvin would fall into this verse...

1Cr 2:14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.


Calvin did not seem to understand the gospel. So what was he then? It seems no more than a forerunner for sects such as the KKK.

:jesus:

Sin is sin. It is a transgression of the law. In God's sight there is no sin greater than another. Only the consequence is greater.
"He that keeps the whole law and yet offends on one point is guilty of all."
--Thus if you lie, you are just as guilty as if you murder.
The point that John, the Apostle, was making, was if you hate your brother you are just as guilty as if you murdered him. There are many Christians that go around with hatred in their hearts.
In Matthew 5 Jesus teaches if you are angry with your brother it is the same as murder. Have you ever been angry with another?

Is Moses bereft of eternal life because he murdered a man?
Or was there a special dispensation for the man that saw God face to face and yet was a murderer at the same time?

Perhaps your God is not a God of grace, but mine is.

 

[DHK]

DHK said: "You are just biased, and will only accept Catholic revisionist history. Do you also deny the holocaust?"

Really? Pot calling kettle . . . and not really very fair. Consider the fact that I once only viewed Church history the way you do now. I started reading Church history from non-Catholic, non-Baptist sources like Bonnell Spencer's 'Ye Are The Body' and realized I had been wrong.

You might try taking those 'Baptist blinders' off.

I don't have them on.
I don't know of any Baptist group, or evangelical group for that fact that went out and massacred an entire nation as it were. Thousands upon thousands of people. What is with you? You compare the killing of one individual to the wholesale slaughter and pillaging of an entire village, or many villages or an entire people. How can it be??
Do you deny the holocaust too?
Are you rewriting history for the RCC.

 

[DHK]

I hope you will read the whole article posted on "The Trail of Blood" theory.
It is not an RCC blog-site, but is written by a former Baptist.

http://justinmartyr.blogspot.com/2004/02/i-came-across-couple-websites-today.html

If you aren't up to reading it all, here is one excerpt:

"If Baptists are the real first century Christians, then why do they not teach the Didache, one of the first books used by the early church? Why do they not use the Aramaic liturgy of St. James? Or why do they not have a liturgy older than that of St. James? Strangely, many Baptists claim the Montanists as proof of their lineage while at the same time criticize the 'sign of the cross' as a Catholic invention. Tertullian, who advocated the sign of the cross in the second century was himself a Montanist.

Montanists were known for the heresy of Monarchism, or the rejection of a trinitarian God. It can easily be argued that not all Montanists rejected the trinity, but it was a characteristic of some of them. That begs the question, would a Baptist convention tolerate a set of congregations who denied the trinity? Probably not. Then why tolerate the Montanists?"

Perhaps your real question is: Why do they avoid fiction, and use the Bible as their final authority in all matters pertaining to faith and doctrine?
And that is precisely what they do.

 

[lori4dogs]

Perhaps your real question is: Why do they avoid fiction, and use the Bible as their final authority in all matters pertaining to faith and doctrine?
And that is precisely what they do.

Yeah, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, christadelphians, etc. say they do the same thing.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed a great many denominations do claim to use the rule "Sola scriptura" to test all faith and doctrine.

As far as I know the RCC denomination and the Eastern Orthodox are the only ones that do not make that claim.

Am I missing something?

Does the RCC think that each of those denominations "would do better" to argue "we no longer rely on scripture as the test of faith and doctrine - from now one we also add in whatever our own church magesterium tells us to think - in the mix. " - the way the RCC does?

Is it the view of the RCC that having everyone go down that road would "solve something"???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Christian, Christ like attitude of your hero Calvin and his followers?? I guess that doesn't count, right?? He probably repented later, right? How about the Salem witch trials? Doesn't count either, right?

The thing many Baptists know about the Inquisition is the caricature in Catholic urban legends. History should never be ignored. There can be no denying that the inquisition courts existed. As described in the papal apology of Pope John Paul II at the beginning of the New Millennium, "Men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospels in the solemn duty of defending truth."

Right off of Answer.com:

. . . "Penalties ranged from prayer and fasting to imprisonment; convicted heretics who refused to recant could be executed by lay authorities."

Huge problem there. Nothing "specific" is identified such that Lateran IV could be declared "fallible" or "wrong" in it's Laws. What if the Pope had said "it was WRONG of us to call for the extermination of dissenters... it was WRONG of us to burn anyone at the stake.. it was WRONG of us to torture anyone... it was WRONG of us to compel civil authorities to comply with our demands for the extermination of those who opposed our doctrines".

What a fallout that would have created!!

How well crafted then the resulting "appearance" of an apology in the year 2000 - such that it avoided all those land mines for a church claiming to be "infallible" in its canon laws.


1. No OTHER christian group ever claims to have done anything "infallibly" regarding the burning or torture or torment of anyone. For that claim there is "only ONE" group still sticking to their guns on that point.


Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100
The question:
A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony. These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”

In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.
Catholic apologists like Catholic Digest’s Fr. Ken Ryan quoted above often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).

The Fourth Lateran Council, the council that dogmatized transubstantiation, offered indulgences to those who would "exterminate heretics" and participate in a Crusade. Since this council refers to the RCC's influence over the state (John 19:11), it points to the fact that the state was acting at the command of the RCC. The council declared (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-c3.html):

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff [the Pope], that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

This then is the "infallible" position of the RCC not only demanding the extermination of dissenters but also describing the methods to force the civil authorities to comply with the RCC command.

Pretty hard to miss that point. Makes it very difficult to pin this on the civil authorities that are themselves being threatened by this decree if they fail to comply with it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic church on anti-Semitism,
Will Durant writes in The Story of Civilization:

The Council of Vienna (1311) forbade all association between Christians and Jews. The Council of Zamora (1313) ruled that they must be kept in strict subjection and servitude. The Council of Basel (1431-33) renewed canonical decrees forbidding Christians to associate with Jews...and instructed secular authorities to confine the Jews in separate quarters, compel them to wear a distinguishing badge, and ensure their attendance at sermons aimed to convert them.

In 1243 the entire Jewish population of Belitz, near Berlin, was burned alive on the charge that some of them had defiled a consecrated Host. [...] In 1298 every Jew in Rottingen was burned to death on the charge of desecrating a sacramental wafer. Rindfleisch, a pious baron, organized and armed a band of Christians sworn to kill all Jews; they completely exterminated the Jewish community at Wurtzburg, and slew 698 Jews in Nuremberg.


"the ecclesiastical Council of Zamora (1313) decreed the imposition of the badge, the segregation of the Jewish from the Christian population, and a ban against the employment of Jewish physicians by Christians, or of Chrsitian servants by Jews
The Story of Civilization: Part IV "The Age of Faith" by Will Durant. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950.


Pope Eugenius IV (1431-47)...added that [b]Jews should be ineligible for any public office, could not inherit property from Christians, must build no more synagogues, and must stay in their homes, behind closed doors and windows, in Passion Week[/b] (a wise provision against Catholic violence)....

In a later bull Eugenius ordered that any Italian Jew found reading Talmudic literature should suffer confiscation of his property. Pope Nicholas V commissioned St. John of Capistrano (1447) to see to it that every clause of this repressive legislation should be enforced, and authorized him to seize the property of any Jewish physician who treated a Christian.

As one of many examples of the decrees issued by Popes in support of persecuting and murdering non-Catholics, a 1487 bull of Pope Innocent VIII commanded that people "rise up in arms against" the Waldensians and "tread them under foot".
[/B]
Catholic historian Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988), [b]"Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine."

 

[BobRyan]

Consider the following news stories from the Vatican City. This was at a time when a number of RCC leaders thought the Pope was really going to come clean on the dark ages inquisition and torture thing.

Vatican Hosts Inquisition Symposium

By CANDICE HUGHES

.c The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) – The Vatican assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars Thursday to examine the Inquisition and declared its readiness to submit the church's darkest institution to the judgment of history.

The three-day symposium is part of the Roman Catholic Church's countdown to 2000. Pope John Paul II wants the church to begin the new millennium with a clear conscience, which means facing up to past sins.

For many people, the Inquisition is one of the church's worst transgressions. For centuries, ecclesiastical ``thought police'' tried, tortured and burned people at the stake for heresy and other crimes.

``The church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without pressing its children to purify themselves in repentance for their errors, infidelity, incoherence,'' Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference.

The inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression.

Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition, which the Holy See only recently opened.

``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee.

Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium.

The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves.

Etchegaray on Thursday swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities. There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was undeniably an ecclesiastical institution.

The pontiff may give a hint as to his thinking on Saturday, when he meets with participants in the conference.

About 50 scholars from Europe, the United States and Latin America are taking part.

AP-NY-10-29-98 1403EST

 

[BobRyan]

These guys were so convinced that the Pope was going to own up for the history of the Church - that they were even willing to publically admit that the canard about the civil authorities being to blame for what happened under the iron fisted rule of the RCC during the dark ages - was just a smoke screen.

Catholic Church says must own up for Inquisition

By Alessandra Galloni

VATICAN CITY, Oct 29 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Thursday said it had to take responsibility for one of the darkest eras in Roman Catholic church history and not lay blame for the Inquisition on civil prosecutors.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, head of the Vatican's main committee for the year 2000, opened a three-day symposium on the Inquisition saying it was time to re-examine the work of the special court the church set up in 1233 to curb heresy.

Etchegaray said some scholars claimed there were several inquisitions: one in Rome, which worked directly under the Holy See's control, and others in Spain and in Portugal which were often aided by the local civil courts.

``We cannot ignore the fact that this (attempt to distinguish between inquisitions) has allowed some to make apologetic arguments and lay responsibility for what Iberian tribunals did onto civil authorities,'' he said.

``The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese crowns...had powers of intervention...on inquisitory tribunals does not change the ecclesiastical character of the institution,'' he said.

Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition to help curb heresy, but church officials soon began to count on civil authorities to fine, imprison and even torture heretics.

One of the Inquisition's best known victims was the astronomer Galileo, condemned for claiming the earth revolved around the sun.

The Inquisition reached its height in the 16th century to counter the Reformation. The department later became the Holy Office and its successor now is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which controls the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching.

Some of the conclusions of the international symposium, which ends on Saturday, could be included in a major document in which the church is expected to ask forgiveness for its past errors as part of celebrations for the year 2000.

The church ``cannot pass into the new millennium without urging its sons to purify themselves, through penitence, of its errors, its infidelities and its incoherences...,'' Father Georges Cottier, a top Vatican theologian and head of the theological commission for the year 2000, told the symposium.

Etchegaray said the conference could also draw on examples that scholars had been able to examine since January, when the Vatican opened secret files.

The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books which Roman Catholics were not allowed to read or possess on pain of excommunication. Even the bible was on the blacklist.


Pope John Paul has said in several documents and speeches that the Church needs to assume responsibility for the Inquisition, which was responsible for the forced conversion of Jews as well as the torture and killing of heretics[/b].

While there may have been mitigating historical factors for the behaviour of some Catholics, the Pope has said this did not prevent the church from expressing regret for the wrongs of its members in some periods of history.

He initiated the procedure that led to the rehabilitation of Galileo, completed in 1992.

19:01 10-29-98

 

[DHK]

Yeah, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, christadelphians, etc. say they do the same thing.

There are (among many) three doctrines that all Baptists dearly treasure:
1. sola scriptura.
2. soul liberty.
3. priesthood of the believer.

What these three have in common is that the RCC hates them all.
1. Sola Scriptura or as we define it: The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It is not so with the RCC. Their authority becomes Tradition, the Magesterium, the ECF, papal decrees, the Catechism, etc. They have many authorities. We have but one.

2. Soul Liberty. Catholics hate this as well. They have denied it to people all over this world, and killed to deny people of it. They have set up state-churches and denied freedom of religion or soul liberty to all that did not bow the knee to the RCC. The terror of their reign was in part the reason for the founding of America.
As for a Baptist, we are tolerant and grant soul liberty.
"I may not agree with the doctrines of a J.W., but I will fight for the liberty of the J.W. to believe his own doctrine."
--The RCC would never do this.

3. The Priesthood of the believer. Every believer is a priest before God and need not go through any man, but is able to go straight before the throne of God.
The RCC demands every person go through a priest, a priest who is a sinner himself and has no power to forgive sins. Some of the priests who walk the streets of North America are the most wicked men known to the public--pedophiles that prey on small children. And you think they have the power to forgive sins??

 

[steaver]

Sin is sin. It is a transgression of the law. In God's sight there is no sin greater than another. Only the consequence is greater.
"He that keeps the whole law and yet offends on one point is guilty of all."
--Thus if you lie, you are just as guilty as if you murder.
The point that John, the Apostle, was making, was if you hate your brother you are just as guilty as if you murdered him. .

You need to finish what John said...

1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

There are many Christians that go around with hatred in their hearts.

According to the letters I read from the Apostles these would not be true children of God.

In Matthew 5 Jesus teaches if you are angry with your brother it is the same as murder. Have you ever been angry with another?

Anger 'without a cause' is murder. Hatred is the same as murder. In your anger do not sin.

Eph 4:26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

I wonder how Calvin missed all of these commands. I understood them the very first time I read them.

Have you ever been angry with another?

Yes, but I had a biblically righteous cause and I did not hate them.

Is Moses bereft of eternal life because he murdered a man?
Or was there a special dispensation for the man that saw God face to face and yet was a murderer at the same time?

We are speaking of "murder" here. That is a predetermined hatred in the heart for another human being. I believe Moses struck the man in anger for the man's inhumanity towards another. Was this sin? Yes, was it "murder"? I don't think so.

Why do you believe Moses was saved at this time? Because he was a Hebrew by birth? Because he believed in God? Because God chose him?
Just curious.

Perhaps your God is not a God of grace, but mine is

And this comment does what? Did it make you feel good?

:jesus:

 

[DHK]

And this comment does what? Did it make you feel good?

No, hopefully it was to help you see the truth about God.
Murder is murder and God does not differentiate or is not biased.
Whether it was Calvin, Moses, or Paul.
They murdered. It was sin. They were forgiven. If it were not for the grace of God, there go I.

 

[steaver]

No, hopefully it was to help you see the truth about God.
.

So you believe from what you know of me from my post that I do not understand God's grace?

 

[DHK]

So you believe from what you know of me from my post that I do not understand God's grace?

Please don't take it personally. I am referring to how far God's grace extends in forgiving us. Is there any sin so great God cannot forgive. No, I don't believe there is. I believe that you are putting limitations on "God's grace."

 

[Melanie]

Ummm, what on Earth is soul liberty....I have never heard the term before?