<p>I admitted that that mortal sin resulted in Luther’s excommunication from the Church. But his loss of salvation was not due to his excommunication. I never claimed that; I never implied that. To infer that would be to objectively misread my post and expose one’s own ignorance about Catholicism.</p>
<p>Therefore, you have still have not provided a single reference of someone who believes that it was the excommunication itself that resulted in Luther’s possible loss of salvation, which you claimed persons believe in your OP.</p>
<p>In other words, you just state things without any evidence whatsoever.</p>
<p>Let us settle this easily. Where did I claim that it was the excommunication, and not the underlying mortal sin, that was responsible for his possible loss of salvation? Where did I claimed that the excommunication when considered separate from his mortal sin (i.e., the excommunication itself is responsible) resulted in his possible loss of salvation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually have never stated that I didn’t say those things. In fact, I have maintained that I said them the entire time.</p>
<p>I corrected the statement. At no point did anyone, including myself, claim that excommunication was in any way responsible for the loss of salvation.</p>
<p>Could you point to a specific quotation where someone says that excommunication, NOT MORTAL SIN, is responsible for loss of salvation? I’m still waiting for any support whatsoever.</p>
<p>Let’s see … mortal sin gets Luther excommunicated from the Catholic church … according to the Catholic church unrepentant mortal sin results in a loss of eternal salvation … so mortal sin gets one excommunicated and also results in losing eternal salvation in the Catholic churches eyes. OK I would agree Luther was excommunicated and according to the Catholic church lost his eternal salvation due to mortal sin. Since the Catholic church doesn’t equal God, there is a great chance Luther is in heaven and didn’t lose his eternal salvation.</p>
<p>And it should read</p>
<p>Mortal sin = excommunication = loss of salvation.</p>
<p>And you claim
could be interpreted as Luther lost his salvation due to being excommunicated. If he would have received absolution, his excommunication would have been reversed and eternal salvation restored.</p>
<p>False. This is totally false. Nowhere did I claim that mortal sin incurs excommunication. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, in general.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh…okay. You are more than welcome to believe whatever you want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. It cannot be read that way except by those who are deliberately misreading it or unable to read it correctly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again changed for correction. Mortal sin is not the same as excommunication. Excommunication does not lead to loss of salvation inherently. Loss of salvation is not limited or the same as mortal sin. No part of that equality is correct, so I am being extra generous maintaining any component of it whatsoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. First, the lifting of the censure requires different steps in different cases. Second, not being in a state of mortal sin does not give one eternal salvation.</p>
<p>And this still doesn’t change the fact that I never claimed anything other than the mortal sin was responsible for the potential loss of salvation.</p>
<p>You STILL have not provided any example of someone claiming that it was the excommunication, and not some underlying cause for it like mortal sin, that was responsible for Luther’s potential loss of salvation.</p>
<p>So disagreeing with Catholic doctrine is an excommunicatable offense but murdering someone in cold blood, which flies in the face of the Ten Commandments, might not be?</p>
<p>This is the end, as far as I am concerned. Given that you have implicitly acknowledged that your original post includes incorrect statements, either you can retract them and substitute correct ones, or we can move on and you may stew in your own ignorance on this topic however long you want.</p>
<p>There you go again! Ya quit when you get backed into a corner! There is no ignorance on my part only your inability to understand logic! What about my original post is incorrect?</p>
<p>Murder is a direct violation of the Ten Commandments. What Commandment did Luther violate?</p>
<p>There’s no corner. You’re wrong. I am right. I proved it. There’s no room left for disagreement. That discussion is over. You can present a new one, to which I will likely respond, if only to make myself feel better (although, I admit, it’s almost not fair to you – I feel like I’m trampling on a comatose person).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, honey, you’re functionally illiterate. Do you have a job that requires being able to read? If so, please let me know what it is, so I can quit my college and get a job right away.</p>
<p>This is so unsupported:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You even admitted it, given that I proved irrefutably that it was totally unjustified. You STILL, on page four, have NOT presented any proof that ANYONE believes this. You posted two quotations:</p>
<p>1) One I discarded, an act which you implicitly agreed was justified by your subsequent silence</p>
<p>2) One was my own statement, which I explained and which you acknowledged did not support your original statement.</p>
<p>Apparently you have trouble distinguishing something I claim versus a general statement. This was a general statement. I never claimed I believed that. You came to that conclusion all on your own Baelor. You are not right. You got nothing and stooping to personal attacks verifies that!</p>
<p>You better stay in school since you have trouble understanding the difference between a general statement and an opinion.</p>
<p>So a Catholic could violate all the Ten Commandments and still have eternal salvation but if a Catholic publicly claims the Catholic church is full of monkey stuff this Catholic could get excommunicated and possibly lose eternal salvation? That makes no sense at all!</p>
<p>Point to where I stated that I claimed you believe(d) anything other than what you posted in the OP. You cannot because I never did.</p>
<p>I stated that you made a false claim. The claim in question was posted several times, and it was the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I questioned the validity of that claim because I think it is false. In other words, I do NOT think that “some think since he was excommunicated he lost his salvation.” The onus is on you, given that you posted it, to justify it when asked. I asked.</p>
<p>You still have not provided a single example of a person who believes that Luther lost his salvation because he was excommunicated. Thus, the claim you made is false for the purposes of this thread (unproven statements that are verifiable must be shown to be true).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Logic FAIL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OMG. I didn’t realize until you posted such a dumb statement what your deal is. I will start using short sentences and small words. Is…okaaaaay? You…understand…me?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your refusal to cope with reality is not my problem.</p>
<p>Just because you think it is false doesn’t mean it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never claimed I would provide a single example. Just because you don’t agree with the statement (not a claim) doesn’t invalidate the statement. By your logic, statements you have made would be considered false.</p>
<p>And more unnecessary personal attacks! You style of debating went out in the Dark Ages.</p>
<p>It is incorrect because you have been able to produce no proof. Give me ONE example of someone believing that Luther lost salvation because he was excommunicated and my statement will be wrong – and I will admit it as such.</p>
<p>Until then, it is false. That is, the statement, “Some people…” is false (I am NOT saying he did or did not, I am asking you to prove that some people believe that).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I challenged it.</p>
<p>Are you admitting that you are unable to prove a statement that is verifiable? That is, are you saying that you will not provide evidence for a statement that can be scientifically verified?</p>
<p>In the context of this thread, if you are going to make a statement involving statistics/something that can be determined empirically, you should be willing to substantiate it. Otherwise, the following can result:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These statements can all be made without proof, but they are worthless until proof is provided simply because proof/disproof is able to be provided. I can just say whatever I want; it’s meaningless until I prove it.</p>
<p>The statement is not false and it can’t be proven since we don’t know where Luther ended up after he died. Not all statements can be proved. That doesn’t invalidate them. Prove my statement is false.</p>