Correcting Misconceptions About The Inquisitions

[Treebeard]

This is the first in a series of articles I wrote on the Inquisitions. Among the modern misconceptions about the Middle Ages, our ideas about the Inquisitions are perhaps the furthest from historical reality.


https://www.historyisnowmagazine.com...1-introduction

[Snowball]

You raise some solid points. I'll leave you with an article I read a long time ago and a thought.
Perhaps you've already read this. It dates to 1999 but I see the SSPX has updated it to mobile-friendly:

Defense of the Inquisition By Jean-Claude Dupuis
https://sspx.org/en/defense-inquisition-30851

It may be a small point, but I regard the end of the medieval period (High Middle Ages, the second part)
to be 1492, which is roughly through the 15th century, as do most.

[Treebeard]

You raise some solid points. I'll leave you with an article I read a long time ago and a thought.
Perhaps you've already read this. It dates to 1999 but I see the SSPX has updated it to mobile-friendly:

Defense of the Inquisition By Jean-Claude Dupuis
https://sspx.org/en/defense-inquisition-30851

It may be a small point, but I regard the end of the medieval period (High Middle Ages, the second part)
to be 1492, which is roughly through the 15th century, as do most.

Thank you, I have not read it, just began, seems like it will be a great article and I will get back to you when I have finished reading it.

As for the Middle Ages, In my book, I mention the many reasons why I think the 14th century is the major divide. I can share those with you if you like. To me, the Middle Ages is 700-1300

[Snowball]

Thank you, I have not read it, just began, seems like it will be a great article and I will get back to you when I have finished reading it.

As for the Middle Ages, In my book, I mention the many reasons why I think the 14th century is the major divide. I can share those with you if you like. To me, the Middle Ages is 700-1300

sure, get back to me after you've read it. here is a .pdf link also: https://archive.org/download/DEFENSE...NQUISITION.pdf

[Treebeard]

sure, get back to me after you've read it. here is a .pdf link also: https://archive.org/download/DEFENSE...NQUISITION.pdf

Ok read it, I thought it was very good and informative. I am sure I will link to it in the future! Thanks.

[Snowball]

Ok read it, I thought it was very good and informative. I am sure I will link to it in the future! Thanks.

No problem. The only thing I contest and I was classically educated in history at college with a degree in it, is that nobody I can recall
ever said the High Middle Ages did not include the 14th century en toto. After that, it's debateable and mostly semantic.

[ClaytonB]

I don't want to start a flame-war, but the Inquisitions objectively contradict the clear command of the New Testament that we are not to resist evil with evil: "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing." (1 Peter 3:9) And while the agents of the church did not usually directly apply the rack, the strappado and the water-cure, the King's agents were usually more than happy to oblige with the wetwork, while a priest was standing by commanding confession and recantation for resisting the antichrist "Pope". It is true that the left-hand usually did not strike the blow but only directed the right-hand in doing so. Far from absolving these wicked churchmen of the sin of violence, it makes them doubly guilty of sin, because their employment of a proxy agent from the State to apply the tortures indicates that they knew the Lord's commands prohibiting the use of violence in furtherance of the Kingdom, and disobeyed them anyway.

"My kingdom is not of this world." This is the mix-up that the church of Rome has had since the beginning. While God's kingdom is coming to earth, the Lord Jesus taught us to pray Thy Kingdom come, indicating a future coming. If he had established a carnal church, as the church of Rome has been since about the 4th-century, from which to invade the earth like some kind of alien parasite, then he would have taught us to pray, "Thy Kingdom has come." No, God's Kingdom is not yet come, because this present earth and heavens are reserved unto fire (2 Peter 3:7). What is the point of trying to establish a permanent kingdom on this earth, which is shortly going to be destroyed and replaced with the New Earth? Rather, God's Kingdom is in our hearts (Luke 17:20,21), and it will arrive in fullness on the earth when we enter the New Heavens and New Earth which Jesus is preparing for us.

In the linked SSPX article, John Paul II had it right: the church must collectively and publicly repent of the wickedness of ever employing any form of violence, especially State violence, in the furtherance of God's kingdom. This is more blasphemous than if a prostitute were to preach the Gospel to her clients while engaging in sexual intercourse with them, on the specious theory that the sex should more acutely motivate them to accept the truth of the Gospel. Our carnal, sinful propensity to bloodlust is at least as repulsive to God as our sinful propensity to sexual lust. Violence used in the supposed furtherance of the Gospel can only provoke the wrath of God and is, in fact, one of the most effective methods by which Satan has opposed the Gospel. The veritable ocean of unbelievers being led off into darkness in the name of the very true facts of the Inquisitions is itself one of the greatest proofs of just how wicked it is to try to harness violence of any kind to the ends of God's kingdom.

Our Lord went to the Cross rather than use violent force to oppose his enemies. He commanded us to take up our cross daily. The Jesuit priest hovering over the man being drowned to death (literally) on the waterboard, commanding him to recant and to confess his rebellion against the antichrist "Pope" is taking up his daily cross and denying himself how? He is not denying himself, he is gratifying the flesh in the most indulgent and salacious fashion possible. He is rather nailing Jesus to the Cross with his own hands. There is no more exact type and image of the Antichrist than the priest hovering over his torture victim in inquisitional "confession". It is the ultimate expression of the flesh, far more wicked than the most depraved, orgiastic acts of sodomy ever devised by the most wicked fantasies of man. It is antichrist, full-stop.

[Treebeard]

I don't want to start a flame-war, but the Inquisitions objectively contradict the clear command of the New Testament that we are not to resist evil with evil: "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing." (1 Peter 3:9) And while the agents of the church did not usually directly apply the rack, the strappado and the water-cure, the King's agents were usually more than happy to oblige with the wetwork, while a priest was standing by commanding confession and recantation for resisting the antichrist "Pope". It is true that the left-hand usually did not strike the blow but only directed the right-hand in doing so. Far from absolving these wicked churchmen of the sin of violence, it makes them doubly guilty of sin, because their employment of a proxy agent from the State to apply the tortures indicates that they knew the Lord's commands prohibiting the use of violence in furtherance of the Kingdom, and disobeyed them anyway.

Hi Clayton, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure if they were directed at my OP or the article linked above. I am not saying I agree with the Inquisitions; I am just trying to correct falshoods about them!


Are you saying that the death penalty is necessarily "evil"? God endorsed it for many reasons in the OT, and Jesus will do a bit of it himself when he returns; are you saying they are evil for doing so? I argue that, due to our fallen world, war and the death penalty within its proper context are actually the domain of those who love peace. I would say this is the view of the Inquisitors as well.


However, I think you carry a few slight misconceptions; my next article will address those. If you are interested, watch this forum as I will post it here.

"My kingdom is not of this world." This is the mix-up that the church of Rome has had since the beginning. While God's kingdom is coming to earth, the Lord Jesus taught us to pray Thy Kingdom come, indicating a future coming. If he had established a carnal church, as the church of Rome has been since about the 4th-century, from which to invade the earth like some kind of alien parasite, then he would have taught us to pray, "Thy Kingdom has come." No, God's Kingdom is not yet come, because this present earth and heavens are reserved unto fire (2 Peter 3:7). What is the point of trying to establish a permanent kingdom on this earth, which is shortly going to be destroyed and replaced with the New Earth? Rather, God's Kingdom is in our hearts (Luke 17:20,21), and it will arrive in fullness on the earth when we enter the New Heavens and New Earth which Jesus is preparing for us.

In the linked SSPX article, John Paul II had it right: the church must collectively and publicly repent of the wickedness of ever employing any form of violence, especially State violence, in the furtherance of God's kingdom. This is more blasphemous than if a prostitute were to preach the Gospel to her clients while engaging in sexual intercourse with them, on the specious theory that the sex should more acutely motivate them to accept the truth of the Gospel. Our carnal, sinful propensity to bloodlust is at least as repulsive to God as our sinful propensity to sexual lust. Violence used in the supposed furtherance of the Gospel can only provoke the wrath of God and is, in fact, one of the most effective methods by which Satan has opposed the Gospel. The veritable ocean of unbelievers being led off into darkness in the name of the very true facts of the Inquisitions is itself one of the greatest proofs of just how wicked it is to try to harness violence of any kind to the ends of God's kingdom.

Our Lord went to the Cross rather than use violent force to oppose his enemies. He commanded us to take up our cross daily. The Jesuit priest hovering over the man being drowned to death (literally) on the waterboard, commanding him to recant and to confess his rebellion against the antichrist "Pope" is taking up his daily cross and denying himself how? He is not denying himself, he is gratifying the flesh in the most indulgent and salacious fashion possible. He is rather nailing Jesus to the Cross with his own hands. There is no more exact type and image of the Antichrist than the priest hovering over his torture victim in inquisitional "confession". It is the ultimate expression of the flesh, far more wicked than the most depraved, orgiastic acts of sodomy ever devised by the most wicked fantasies of man. It is antichrist, full-stop.

This is directed at the article, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with much, as with most Christians before the rise of forced secular education. Unfortunately, I lack the time to fully engage in this discussion. Further, it strays from the historical topic, IMO. But it is a great discussion, and I thank you for your thoughts on it. I hope you find someone willing to discuss it with you here.

[ClaytonB]

Hi Clayton, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure if they were directed at my OP or the article linked above. I am not saying I agree with the Inquisitions; I am just trying to correct falshoods about them!

Understood. As I said, I'm not trying to start a flame-war, and the purpose of my posts here is not to drag you into an argument, rather, it is just to provide a counterpoint for interested readers.

The problem with the sympathetic view (towards the church of Rome) you are espousing is that it follows the original, and wrong, justification for church-supervised torture that essentially goes something like this: the priest does not himself pull the levers of the rack, rather, the priest is merely the agent who is providing grace to the one who is excommunicated by the church, thus, delivered to the State, who is morally free to torture and kill any mortal who is outside the protection of the church. Thus, only in the rare cases where a priest personally abused a heretic or other excommunicant may we say "the church used violence" and, in all other cases, the church is merely innocent and standing by as an observer and attempting, even in the final moments of life, to persuade the excommunicant to recant and confess, which is a mercy, not an act of hostility. Of course, this entire line of reasoning is as deranged and psychotic as the secular world represents it to be in entertainment, etc. The duty of the believer in the case of someone who is being tortured and killed, whether they are a believer or not, is to pray for them, to pray for their soul, and to commit their care to God who alone is the judge of the souls of men, not the church. The keys of binding, which are given to all believers, not to Peter, are not to be confused with judgment, which is God's alone. And the blasphemous arrangement between the Western powers and the papacy by which the "Pope" pretended to give moral cover to torture and murder by the King's agents, is just stuff and nonsense in the sight of God. It's just a very elaborate excuse for committing crimes in broad daylight.

Are you saying that the death penalty is necessarily "evil"?

No. A criminal may die as a result of a valid act of self-defense by a private citizen, and the fully lawful administration of the death-penalty under the civil law (but note that most DP is not lawfully administered!) is just a logical extension of this situation, where the death is simply administered at a later time, and not as an immediate consequence of the prior emergency that the criminal caused. It is essentially "time-delayed self-defense."

God endorsed it for many reasons in the OT, and Jesus will do a bit of it himself when he returns;

The problem is not that God kills his enemies, the problem is that sinners have no moral foundation on which to kill other sinners, not even the State. The State has no legitimate authority, in and of itself, to kill anyone. And the fact that death may be administered as a penalty for violation of the law is a fact that is not about the State, in other words, the lawful authority to administer the DP exists independently of the State itself. Finally, nothing to do with death can be "done right" -- it's all wrong, except for the final cleansing that is going to restore the world at the end of the Age, and the only reason that God tolerates lawful killing of humans by humans (including the DP) is by extension of the Last Judgment itself. That is, these present deaths, if they are lawful, are only lawful because they participate in the Last Judgment. At the risk of explaining the obvious, the executioner's ax is swung under the eyesight of Almighty God and should his ax be turned upon the innocent, the murder has been committed openly in front of so many more witnesses, thus making that much more secure the damnation of the murderous State officials (and/or churchmen) who signed off on it. In short, the officials who wield the sword of judgment thereby place themselves immediately into God's own throne-room and under his eye, having his full attention. No sinner should be eager to have the full attention of God so those who eagerly wield the sword of judgment are either ignorant of what is really happening, or they are mad. In itself, death solves nothing, it just defers the matter to the Last Judgment, where God places no weight whatsoever upon the various moral theories of the "important" people. The DP may be the just and right action in certain, rare circumstances, but that does not change the dread weightiness of the matter by one iota.

are you saying they are evil for doing so? I argue that, due to our fallen world, war and the death penalty within its proper context are actually the domain of those who love peace. I would say this is the view of the Inquisitors as well.

The church of Rome is infused with bloodlust and has been since it was politically coopted by the Roman empire. I know that Roman Catholics won't share that view, but all I can say is... read history, and don't just read apologetical history, read both sides of the story. "Christian killer" is a blatant oxymoron, but the church of Rome worships this contradiction in all its forms, from the crusader marching away from his homeland as an act of "defense" (obvious contradiction), to the Jesuit priest kneeling over the waterboard as a form of "grace" to the torture/execution victim (obvious contradiction), etc.

However, I think you carry a few slight misconceptions; my next article will address those. If you are interested, watch this forum as I will post it here.

Yes, I'll read it.

This is directed at the article, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with much, as with most Christians before the rise of forced secular education. Unfortunately, I lack the time to fully engage in this discussion. Further, it strays from the historical topic, IMO. But it is a great discussion, and I thank you for your thoughts on it. I hope you find someone willing to discuss it with you here.

No worries. I will grant that there is a valid historical counterpoint to the Enlightenment narrative surrounding not only the Inquisitions, but many other actions of the church throughout the centuries. But the church of Rome has not learned, and continues to rebel against, God's obvious rod of correction, and I'll leave it at that.

[Treebeard]

The problem with the sympathetic view (towards the church of Rome) you are espousing is that it follows the original, and wrong, justification for church-supervised torture that essentially goes something like this: the priest does not himself pull the levers of the rack, rather, the priest is merely the agent who is providing grace to the one who is excommunicated by the church, thus, delivered to the State, who is morally free to torture and kill any mortal who is outside the protection of the church. Thus, only in the rare cases where a priest personally abused a heretic or other excommunicant may we say "the church used violence" and, in all other cases, the church is merely innocent and standing by as an observer and attempting, even in the final moments of life, to persuade the excommunicant to recant and confess, which is a mercy, not an act of hostility. Of course, this entire line of reasoning is as deranged and psychotic as the secular world represents it to be in entertainment, etc. The duty of the believer in the case of someone who is being tortured and killed, whether they are a believer or not, is to pray for them, to pray for their soul, and to commit their care to God who alone is the judge of the souls of men, not the church. The keys of binding, which are given to all believers, not to Peter, are not to be confused with judgment, which is God's alone. And the blasphemous arrangement between the Western powers and the papacy by which the "Pope" pretended to give moral cover to torture and murder by the King's agents, is just stuff and nonsense in the sight of God. It's just a very elaborate excuse for committing crimes in broad daylight.

No. A criminal may die as a result of a valid act of self-defense by a private citizen, and the fully lawful administration of the death-penalty under the civil law (but note that most DP is not lawfully administered!) is just a logical extension of this situation, where the death is simply administered at a later time, and not as an immediate consequence of the prior emergency that the criminal caused. It is essentially "time-delayed self-defense."



The problem is not that God kills his enemies, the problem is that sinners have no moral foundation on which to kill other sinners, not even the State. The State has no legitimate authority, in and of itself, to kill anyone. And the fact that death may be administered as a penalty for violation of the law is a fact that is not about the State, in other words, the lawful authority to administer the DP exists independently of the State itself. Finally, nothing to do with death can be "done right" -- it's all wrong, except for the final cleansing that is going to restore the world at the end of the Age, and the only reason that God tolerates lawful killing of humans by humans (including the DP) is by extension of the Last Judgment itself. That is, these present deaths, if they are lawful, are only lawful because they participate in the Last Judgment. At the risk of explaining the obvious, the executioner's ax is swung under the eyesight of Almighty God and should his ax be turned upon the innocent, the murder has been committed openly in front of so many more witnesses, thus making that much more secure the damnation of the murderous State officials (and/or churchmen) who signed off on it. In short, the officials who wield the sword of judgment thereby place themselves immediately into God's own throne-room and under his eye, having his full attention. No sinner should be eager to have the full attention of God so those who eagerly wield the sword of judgment are either ignorant of what is really happening, or they are mad. In itself, death solves nothing, it just defers the matter to the Last Judgment, where God places no weight whatsoever upon the various moral theories of the "important" people. The DP may be the just and right action in certain, rare circumstances, but that does not change the dread weightiness of the matter by one iota.



The church of Rome is infused with bloodlust and has been since it was politically coopted by the Roman empire. I know that Roman Catholics won't share that view, but all I can say is... read history, and don't just read apologetical history, read both sides of the story. "Christian killer" is a blatant oxymoron, but the church of Rome worships this contradiction in all its forms, from the crusader marching away from his homeland as an act of "defense" (obvious contradiction), to the Jesuit priest kneeling over the waterboard as a form of "grace" to the torture/execution victim (obvious contradiction), etc.



Yes, I'll read it.

No worries. I will grant that there is a valid historical counterpoint to the Enlightenment narrative surrounding not only the Inquisitions, but many other actions of the church throughout the centuries. But the church of Rome has not learned, and continues to rebel against, God's obvious rod of correction, and I'll leave it at that.

I appreciate your goal! Thank you for adding that perspective. Due to time, I must limit myself to historical matters, but I wanted to let you know you might have a screwed view of the Catholic viewpoint on this and some historical inaccuracies as well. My next article will address some of them, and I hope to receive your feedback. And know that some protestants would dispute your views as well. The winner writes the history, and both Catholics and protestants have been misleading about each other theologically especially.




Judgment, the death penalty is of God, etc. all good stuff, sir, very good.


Church of Rome. I have read much history, which has helped me understand the history that the winner writes! No matter the subject, the country, etc, history is distorted; I believe you have caught the bug as I once had.

Don't make this theological, it is historical. Protestant also engaged in Inquisitions, witch burning etc noon is sinless. God desires truth, he does not care what sect we belong to.

[ClaytonB]

Church of Rome. I have read much history, which has helped me understand the history that the winner writes! No matter the subject, the country, etc, history is distorted; I believe you have caught the bug as I once had.

Don't make this theological, it is historical. Protestant also engaged in Inquisitions, witch burning etc noon is sinless. God desires truth, he does not care what sect we belong to.

Agreed that there is blood to go around on all sides, and that's precisely the problem. All believers in every branch of the church must universally affirm that the use of violence for the advancement of the Gospel on any grounds, whatsoever, is abhorrent, and there has never been a time or place where this has been excusable on any construction. Insomuch as the church of Rome had enormous influence with the European sovereigns, what it ought to have done was set the example of Christian peace, even at the cost of martyrdom, which is the example that Jesus set. Flagellating yourself, and then going into the next room in order to conspire with the secular powers and help them construct some moral justification for why they may commit murder or illegal war is the opposite of crucifying the self. It is self-gratification, wrapped in the camouflage of showy self-abuse. The problem is not merely that such blood-thirsty men have wormed their way into the church. The real problem is that the church of Rome has never, until this day, truly and sincerely renounced all forms of this kind of activity with binding force. Instead, this behavior has been winked at all through the ages, and it is the nature of such things that what is permitted might as well be commanded, since the blood-thirsty have a boundless incentive to obtain what they (falsely) believe is a moral license to commit murder, from the church.

Also, I understand that a lot of the accusations leveled against the church of Rome (and other churches) are false, twisted, exaggerated, etc. But the problem is that even discounting all of that, Rome's hands are still soaked in blood -- especially the blood of believers in Jesus. (And so are many Protestant churches.) What terrible shoes will those be to stand in on Judgment Day, the shoes of the bishops who authorized the murder of sheep of Jesus's own flock on the outrageous and obviously false construction that those sheep were "of the wrong church". In other words, they had the wrong paperwork. The churchmen throughout the Ages (and I admit, they are a minority, not the majority) who have authorized this kind of murder of believers in Jesus are rank idolators and secret pagans. They believe in a "god" made in their own image -- a petty, vindictive bureaucrat slavering for some excuse, however minor, to execute the innocent. But, then, this should be very easy for the modern church to denounce and vehemently censure, with the light of so much hindsight. Churchmen who give their blessing to men with blood on their hands should be given the same treatment as would be given to clerics who protect sex-rings. But that's exactly the problem: the church of Rome really has bloodlust and uses its immense moral revulsion at sexual sins as cover for its bloodlust. This is utterly transparent guilt-transferrence, such as when a toddler wants to bring attention to the fact they wee-wee'd on the floor to take attention away from the fact that they were caught with their hand in the cookie-jar. It doesn't matter to God at all how seriously you take sexual purity if you're engaging in murder, especially murder of God's own sheep!!

[jmdrake]

Hi Clayton, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure if they were directed at my OP or the article linked above. I am not saying I agree with the Inquisitions; I am just trying to correct falshoods about them!


Are you saying that the death penalty is necessarily "evil"? God endorsed it for many reasons in the OT, and Jesus will do a bit of it himself when he returns; are you saying they are evil for doing so? I argue that, due to our fallen world, war and the death penalty within its proper context are actually the domain of those who love peace. I would say this is the view of the Inquisitors as well.

The death penalty in a religious context post the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ is indeed evil.

In Revelation the harlot (the church of the antichrist) is identified in part because of religious persecution.

Revelation 17:6
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Revelation 13:15
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

The remnant of God are identified as those being persecuted.

Revelation 12:11
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Revelation 6:12
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Jesus told his followers that they would be persecuted. He never said they would persecute others.

John 16:12
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Notice how Jesus predicts this "We're killing heretics to help God out" mentality. God doesn't need your help or the Catholic church's help exacting judgment. Jesus specifically said "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world the would my servant's fight to prevent my capture." John 18:36.

What did Jesus say to do about those who did not accept the gospel?

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Matthew 18:10

And what to do about someone in the church that does not comply with church discipline?

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Matthew 18:17.

In Matthew 18:10 Christians were already instructed to "wipe the dust of your feet" and move on from those who never accepted the gospel and in Matthew 18:17 the same is applied to those who were once in fellowship but, for whatever reason, no longer were.

There is not a single example of New Testament Christians putting anybody to death or beating or stoning anyone. Annanias and Sapphira was slain by the Holy Spirit.

This is directed at the article, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with much, as with most Christians before the rise of forced secular education. Unfortunately, I lack the time to fully engage in this discussion. Further, it strays from the historical topic, IMO. But it is a great discussion, and I thank you for your thoughts on it. I hope you find someone willing to discuss it with you here.

The whole point of the American experiment, more than for any other reason, is to have a land where people were free to worship God as they pleased without the threat of religious persecution. "Secular education" has nothing to do with this. Americans understood that religious persecution was wrong back when there was still prayer in public schools. Yes there were the Salem witchcraft trials but that was nearly a century before the United States was formed and almost universally seen, even back in the 18th century, as a travesty and dark chapter on U.S. history.

[ClaytonB]

The death penalty in a religious context post the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ is indeed evil.

Edit: jmdrake pointed out I misread his post...

But the problem with this view (taken to its fullest limit) is then I can't defend my wife and children from some thug breaking into my home because that might (and probably will) cause him to die. This is throwing out the Bible in order to misinterpret one verse. Rather, we are to defend the innocent with Christ-like bravery. And if I may defend the innocents by killing an intruder, then the State may also defend the innocents by killing an intruder in my home. If the intruder happens to be taken alive, nothing changes... he can still be put to death, if convicted, because he already hazarded his life upon entering the home.

That said, I do think that the State is always evil, because it is part of Satan's world-order (Matt. 4:8,9), and so it is a poor instrument for administering the death penalty. And furthermore, the attempt to use any State punishment or any form of State power for the Gospel is antichrist. As a political question, the godless government may make Christianity the state-religion or not, but Christians themselves must never support the use of State power in this way. We cannot stop the godless government from doing bad things, but we must never support its doing so.

[jmdrake]

But the problem with this view (taken to its fullest limit) is then I can't defend my wife and children from some thug breaking into my home because that might (and probably will) cause him to die. This is throwing out the Bible in order to misinterpret one verse. Rather, we are to defend the innocent with Christ-like bravery. And if I may defend the innocents by killing an intruder, then the State may also defend the innocents by killing an intruder in my home. If the intruder happens to be taken alive, nothing changes... he can still be put to death, if convicted, because he already hazarded his life upon entering the home.

That said, I do think that the State is always evil, because it is part of Satan's world-order (Matt. 4:8,9), and so it is a poor instrument for administering the death penalty. And furthermore, the attempt to use any State punishment or any form of State power for the Gospel is antichrist. As a political question, the godless government may make Christianity the state-religion or not, but Christians themselves must never support the use of State power in this way. We cannot stop the godless government from doing bad things, but we must never support its doing so.

Please re-read what I wrote.

The death penalty in a religious context....is indeed evil.

If you kill someone in self defense or in defense of your wife and child then 1) that's not a "death penalty", it's self defense and 2) it's not in a "religious context.'

For something to be a "penalty" it is applicable even if the threat is no longer there. Someone who is secure in prison for life is no more a threat to your wife and kids than someone on death row. Killing them is a penalty. But even then, that person isn't being killed in a "religious context." They aren't being killed because the "sinned." They are being killed because they broke a secular law. An atheist country can have a law against murder, and in fact they all do. An atheist country isn't going to have a law against blasphemy.

And again, this is in the New Testament and beyond. In the OT Yahweh did indeed institute the death penalty for all sorts of things, many being a "religious context."

[Treebeard]

The death penalty in a religious context post the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ is indeed evil.

In Revelation the harlot (the church of the antichrist) is identified in part because of religious persecution.

Revelation 17:6
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Revelation 13:15
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

The remnant of God are identified as those being persecuted.

Revelation 12:11
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Revelation 6:12
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Jesus told his followers that they would be persecuted. He never said they would persecute others.

John 16:12
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Notice how Jesus predicts this "We're killing heretics to help God out" mentality. God doesn't need your help or the Catholic church's help exacting judgment. Jesus specifically said "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world the would my servant's fight to prevent my capture." John 18:36.

What did Jesus say to do about those who did not accept the gospel?

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Matthew 18:10

And what to do about someone in the church that does not comply with church discipline?

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Matthew 18:17.

In Matthew 18:10 Christians were already instructed to "wipe the dust of your feet" and move on from those who never accepted the gospel and in Matthew 18:17 the same is applied to those who were once in fellowship but, for whatever reason, no longer were.

There is not a single example of New Testament Christians putting anybody to death or beating or stoning anyone. Annanias and Sapphira was slain by the Holy Spirit.



The whole point of the American experiment, more than for any other reason, is to have a land where people were free to worship God as they pleased without the threat of religious persecution. "Secular education" has nothing to do with this. Americans understood that religious persecution was wrong back when there was still prayer in public schools. Yes there were the Salem witchcraft trials but that was nearly a century before the United States was formed and almost universally seen, even back in the 18th century, as a travesty and dark chapter on U.S. history.

Thank you for your perspective my brother in Christ! As I said before, due to time I need to limit what I engage in, just know that entire books have been written that would disagree with you as would the majority of protestant through history! But I think you carry Misconceptions of the historical nature as well and my next article will address those. And no, no one has said a Christian should kill someone, but the governance does have the ability to render Biblical justice.

Not everything American is automatically good, just see where we are today! America was flawed from its origins that inevitably led to where we are today.

[jmdrake]

Thank you for your perspective my brother in Christ! As I said before, due to time I need to limit what I engage in, just know that entire books have been written that would disagree with you as would the majority of protestant through history! But I think you carry Misconceptions of the historical nature as well and my next article will address those. And no, no one has said a Christian should kill someone, but the governance does have the ability to render Biblical justice.

Not everything American is automatically good, just see where we are today! America was flawed from its origins that inevitably led to where we are today.

Disagree with me on what? I'm sorry but you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one had you say "The church have never killed anyone based solely on his religious beliefs." Then you come back and say I'm wrong for saying that it's wrong, post the cross, for a follower of God to kill someone based solely on his religious beliefs. I don't care if a lot of Protestants in history "disagree" with my position on that. They were wrong. And YOU should agree with me on that! Oliver Cromwell was in many ways a great leader, but he was wrong to persecute Catholics. And he wasn't simply wrong to persecute Catholics because they are Christians. He was wrong to persecute Catholics because Jesus has no interest in advancing His church or "protecting" His church based on killing people who don't agree or no longer agree with its teachings. If you don't understand that, then I just feel sorry for you.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, but humans have a bad habit of not listening to the Lord.

There were similar atrocities in the Lord's name all over Europe, and elsewhere (like Massachusetts) too. I've read that Spain wasn't as bad as other places, but I don't personally know if that's Church apologia or not. It probably wasn't, but I'm betting there were places with less "central authority" which did better.

[Snowball]

It was the Protestant revolt, rooted in greed and heresy that started all the bloodshed. By the way, it was the Church's development of the court system that RESTRAINED governments and gave rights to those accused to witchcraft and revolution. There sure was a lot of it to follow... hate the Church, love what we GOT. Pass!

[ClaytonB]

It was the Protestant revolt, rooted in greed and heresy that started all the bloodshed.

Ah, <checks notes>, I didn't realize that the the Fourth Crusade actually happened after 1517 when Luther nailed the 95 theses to the Wittemburg cathedral. Oh wait, nope, I'm looking at my notes again, nope, the Fourth Crusade was definitely *before* the Reformation. Look, these kinds of verbal jabs are a dime-a-dozen and I can craft 10 of them for every 1 you throw at me. How about we forego factionalism and partisanship (as the Lord Jesus commanded us to do) and deal with the substance of the issues? Protestant murder of the sheep is just as abhorrent to me as Catholic murder of the sheep, or anybody for that matter. It happened. A lot. And no, the devil Luther didn't make them do it. They did it long before Luther, and they kept on doing it (to this day), because they are murderers. And they need to be called out and put to a stop. God's revulsion at bloodlust is equal or greater to his revulsion at sexual impurity. The church of Rome has been in systematic denial of this point since at least Augustine. The bloodshed (and clerical winking at it) must stop.

By the way, it was the Church's development of the court system that RESTRAINED governments

Sure, granted. I'm not a secularist or an anti-Rome zealot. Rome's sins are manifest. The Reformation was one of the loudest wakeup calls God has given to Rome. I fear the next wakeup call will be fire from heaven, so the warnings I'm raising here are given in love. Believers in the church of Rome need to either change their church, or leave it. The Reformers attempted to make the necessary changes, failed, and Rome left them. There is just one church, and it is the church of Jesus, not the church of Rome. Wake up!

[Snowball]

@ClaytonB, I don't have any problem with the Crusades, and for someone with Islam issues, I don't know why you would, other than you see everything through an anti-Catholic lens. I regard the Kingdom of Jerusalem to be one of the best of all governments in the Holy Land, historically. It recapured the Holy Land which Christians held for centuries before the Mohammedans and Jews took that place over by bloodshed. (See Mamilla Pool massacre link here).
I'm glad the Church went back there and took it back. I wish we never lost it.

[ClaytonB]

@ClaytonB, I don't have any problem with the Crusades, and for someone with Islam issues, I don't know why you would, other than you see everything through an anti-Catholic lens. I regard the Kingdom of Jerusalem to be one of the best of all governments in the Holy Land, historically. It recapured the Holy Land which Christians held for centuries before the Mohammedans and Jews took that place over by bloodshed. (See Mamilla Pool massacre link here).
I'm glad the Church went back there and took it back. I wish we never lost it.

I never said anything about Palestine, I was talking about the Fourth Crusade.

[Snowball]

I never said anything about Palestine, I was talking about the Fourth Crusade.

You're always twisting things. You mentioned the Crusades and then you RE-NAMED the link "the Fourth Crusade" which doesn't even GO to Wikipedia (not an unbiased source of history) page for the Fourth Crusade, but rather it links to the Sack of Constantinople. They are NOT the same thing. Wikipedia has a Fourth Crusade page, and that's not it, so you RE-NAMED it. I prefer not to even write against you. It's a waste of time because you don't listen.

[ClaytonB]

You're always twisting things. You mentioned the Crusades and then you RE-NAMED the link "the Fourth Crusade" which doesn't even GO to Wikipedia (not an unbiased source of history) page for the Fourth Crusade, but rather it links to the Sack of Constantinople. They are NOT the same thing. Wikipedia has a Fourth Crusade page, and that's not it, so you RE-NAMED it. I prefer not to even write against you. It's a waste of time because you don't listen.

Yes, I re-named it... because the Sack of Constantinople just is the Fourth Crusade.

[jmdrake]

You're always twisting things. You mentioned the Crusades and then you RE-NAMED the link "the Fourth Crusade" which doesn't even GO to Wikipedia (not an unbiased source of history) page for the Fourth Crusade, but rather it links to the Sack of Constantinople. They are NOT the same thing. Wikipedia has a Fourth Crusade page, and that's not it, so you RE-NAMED it. I prefer not to even write against you. It's a waste of time because you don't listen.

Okay. The point still remains that the Catholic church was engaged in wonton bloodshed long before there official Protestant reformation kicked off. And yes the Orthodox church gave back as good as it got with the "massacre of the Latins." Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Snowball]

Okay. The point still remains that the Catholic church was engaged in wonton bloodshed long before there official Protestant reformation kicked off. And yes the Orthodox church gave back as good as it got with the "massacre of the Latins." Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No, the point is that people who know next-to-nothing about history shoudn't attempt to form opinions on it, especially in important matters, and those who need to quickly pull up "muh wikipedia" in order to find a hot line that supports their bias should perhaps not be making wide historical judgements.

There not even a "Fourth Crusade" anyway. The armies sacked Constantinople against papal orders. It's an example of the beginning decline in Catholic power in European kingdoms and the East/West schism. If they did what Innocent III wanted, (the Pope is supposed to call and direct the nature of a Crusade), then there wouldn't have been a grimy Sack of Constantinople, that happened because secularist politics and Venetian powers interfered, like ClaytonB's precious Republics of which Venice was one.

Clayton should direct his ire against those who disobeyed Innocent III and followed Republicans.

[fisharmor]

Okay. The point still remains that the Catholic church was engaged in wonton bloodshed long before there official Protestant reformation kicked off. And yes the Orthodox church gave back as good as it got with the "massacre of the Latins." Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Not accurate.

Orthodox laity committed the "massacre of the Latins". There was no official Church missive calling for or defending these actions.
Even if you could find a priest or bishop or even a patriarch who expressed support for it, the Eastern churches do not operate in the same way. There is no top-down pronouncement unless what is being said tracks with the entire corpus of Orthodox Holy Tradition.
Which, obviously, this does not.

You can say both sides had blame. You can say the entire situation snowballed for 200 years. You can say it was wrong.
You cannot say it was committed by the Church. It wasn't.

[Treebeard]

@ClaytonB, I don't have any problem with the Crusades, and for someone with Islam issues, I don't know why you would, other than you see everything through an anti-Catholic lens. I regard the Kingdom of Jerusalem to be one of the best of all governments in the Holy Land, historically. It recapured the Holy Land which Christians held for centuries before the Mohammedans and Jews took that place over by bloodshed. (See Mamilla Pool massacre link here).
I'm glad the Church went back there and took it back. I wish we never lost it.

I also LOVE the Kingdom of Jerusalem as well. It was one of my favorite kingdoms ever! Very libertarian!

[acptulsa]

T.E.R.

He popped up on April Fool's to wish us a happy Easter. It was nice to hear from him.

[jmdrake]

He popped up on April Fool's to wish us a happy Easter. It was nice to hear from him.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.