That is not entirely true. Let me explain. 1) you made a presumption of knowing the Bishops intention. The fact is you don't know the bishops intention therefore it was presumptive of you for making it. 2) Based on your presumption which was he did the debate to seem pious you showed scripture you believe deals with false piety. Therefore your whole premise is based on presumption rather than a fact. Which is to say that if your presumption is wrong which is the premise of your argument. The argument falls apart and therefore your use of scripture becomes moot. Next I did use scripture supplying you a different motive for his actions I chose Matthew chapter 5 and not only Matthew Chapter 5 but two quotes from Pauline epistles and 1 quote from a Peterine epistle. Therefore it isn't true that I didn't supply scripture to support his choice of action.
The bishop (or whatever rank, makes no difference in the real world) knew exactly what the situtation was, who the group was, and the pattern of the reaction. He had preplanned exactly his response and the article that would be published. It is the same as Christ talking about the Pharisees praying on the street corners, with their eyes squinted to see who is paying attention.
What takes a lot of nerve? Telling the truth as I see it? It is clear that during the reformation and before it that whomever was in leadership of a country or region also felt responsible for the religious beliefs of those under their authority. It is my contention that the killing were done by civil governments who allied themselves to a certain faith. And it is these governments to blame and not the Church as a whole. I did say there were certain clergy that were complicit and these were not in line necessarily with the Church as a whole. And for an example I mentioned the Anglican Church because Foxe was Anglican and much of his writing is used as accusation against the Catholic Church. When the King of England put forward his Act of Supremacy and made all Churches in England under his rule. The Anglicans persecuted and killed Catholics. But I'm not really holding the Anglicans as the faith responsible but rather where the responsibility really lies. On the English government. Let me give you another instance to support my assertion Joan of Arc. Both England and France were Catholics but at war with each other. Joan helped the French defeat the English on certain battles when she was captured the English Bishops declared her a heretic but French Bishops did not. She was tried and killed as a heretic but was it the Catholic Church which killed her or the English government? It was the government who had certain bishops colluding with them. So it wasn't the Church as a whole because the Church has declared her a Saint. Therefore bishops acting not in union with the Church but rather under English authority had her killed for religious reasons. But that was common in Europe at the time. So a lot of things get thrown at Catholics which were actually the fault of Monarchs who called themselves Catholics. I can blame the raid on Iran in 1979 by American Special Forces (which failed) on Baptist because the president at the time was Baptist? No. Of course not. However, the Muslims of that country certainly do and not distinguishing Baptist from any other Christian hold that it was a new Crusade against them this time from America. How accurate is that? Not very. So it is with your view of the persecution in Europe at that time..
That is just baloney, the whole paragraph. Both the ruling civil government and the prevailing Catholic authority were melded together in one evil entity. It might as well have been a theocrary. By the way, you can stop with mixing the history of Protestants, Anglicans and Baptists. They are distinct in that you cannot cite one instance of Baptists systematically torturing and murdering fellow believers that disagree with them theologically.
My denomination says outside the Church there is no salvation because the salvific truths which people are saved come from the Church. That doesn't mean other people of other denominations won't be saved but that the truths of Salvation which they adhered to which brings them to salvation came first from the Catholic Church. That is what it means. But of course I find it curious that on one hand you accuse us of saying non Catholics won't be saved and on the other hand you accuse us of saying every one will be saved. Which is it? One or the other? If you believe in the Gospel of Christ which leads to salvation how did it come to you? By the Apostolic faith which was written down and kept in perpetuity by Catholics painstakingly copying it and preserving it through out the 1500 years until the birth of the modern protestants. You claim you descend from Waldasenes or Cathars. Well I find it interesting that it wasn't either of these groups which ensured in the many years before the printing press the accurate copying and preserving of the Bible. No. It was monks. There is no such thing as a protestant monk. It was the Catholic Church Which preserved the writings of Sacred Text. So you can thank the Catholics for bringing to you the bible through the long complicated history of Western Europe. Because claiming to be sola scriptura you have to realize that it was the Catholics that kept it for you until protestants came up with the doctrine. So in a sense you got your truth which leads to salvation by what you believe is scripture alone from the Catholic Church. Therefore if you claim you are saved, then you have in part to thank the Catholic Church for preserving the means of it by preserving scripture.
Again, you can write all the words you want. The bottom line is the RCC teaches Protestants, Baptists, etc are headed to hell. There is no such belief amongst Baptists. Catholics are saved despite their warped doctrine. Catholics have done nothing, nothing, towards preserving the Inspired word of God. Their hierarchy officials occasionally produce an edict that modifies or amends Scripture, and then it becomes Scripture. The promise of Jesus Christ to preserve His church from your founding in 400 until the Reformation around 1600 was accomplished by local, autonomous churches outside the Catholic Church. After the Reformation, yes Protestants did aid in preserving the church.
Salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ. It is not the structure of the Catholic Church, your prayers to idols, your confession of sins to sinful priests, or by your magic acts during communion.
