Soul Liberty?

You've set up a straw man that obviously never has or never will exist, and is illogical even to suggest. Rather I would suggest that if you ever do find a perfect church don't join it, for then it will not be perfect.
</font>[/QUOTE]I didn't ask for a perfect church, only a church that teaches the "one interpretation" of the bible without error. You say the bible has only one interpretation. Surely there is a church out there that teaches this interpretation! If not, why not? Otherwise, your statement reduces to "there is one correct interpretation of the bible, but nobody can ever know what it is."

So let me ask another question -- how do I discover with certainty the one correct interpretation of the bible?

Of course, this is not a problem for me as a Catholic, because I know the Church founded by Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth, does teach the one correct interpretation of the bible 100%.

(Flame suit on, as they say! )

 

We can tolerate each others belief, and still state dogmatically what we believe. If I believe that the Catholic Church holds to heresy, I will be sure to let others know about it. I believe that I have the obligation, the freedom, and the soul liberty to do so.

In the verses following Acts 20:28, Paul warned the Ephesian elders that grievous wolves would enter in, not sparing the flock. That is, false teachers would come, leading many astray. We are to warn against such.

Now put the shoe on the other foot. If you sincerely believe you are a Christian and you are being verbally persecuted without cause, what should be your response?

Mat.5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Mat.5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

The gospel by its nature is offensive. Jesus said, "I came to bring a sword." Doctrine divides. It was meant to. But the Word of God is a double edged sword. Doctrine can also unite. In both cases Biblical doctrine will cause one to take a strong stand.
DHK

 

You are living a pipe dream. The Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by sinful men. Every man is sinful. No man or organization can claim perfection, not moral perfection, not doctrinal perfection. Does any man know everything? Does the Catholic Church know everything? If so, why does it keep changing its doctrine every so often. Why was the assumption of Mary not considered a doctrine of the Catholic Church until sometime after I was born?! Why was it just recently that the pope coceded to a belief in evolution?

Heb.13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
--The Word, like Christ, never changes. The Catholic Church, unlike the Word and Christ is in a constant state of change, even doctrinally.
With this in mind is it any wonder that the Catholics hardly know what they believe themselves!

There is no one correct interpretation of the Bible, because there is no one man who is perfect. Every man is fallible. I already explained that to you. Are you going to claim omniscience? How can a finite man understand completely an infinite God? You are asking the impossible. God inspired the Bible in such a way that we would not understand every thing, cannot understand every thing, will only understand everything when we get to heaven--and even then we will still be learning!

1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
DHK

 

There is no one correct interpretation of the Bible, because there is no one man who is perfect</font>[/QUOTE]So when you wrote earlier "It does interpret itself. There is only one interpretation." what exactly did that mean?

You are right, however, that no man is infallible; except, that is, when they are the bishops guided by the Holy Spirit in bringing the Church founded by Christ into all truth, as was promised by Christ (and clearly promised to us here on earth, not just later in heaven).

No, not a pipe dream, but just the same faith that leads me to believe in Christ, leading me to believe also in His Bride. I guess I'd call it Liberty from Doubt!

Anyway, didn't really mean to hijack this thread...

 

(Neal)
However, I am saying that this is not a workable solution, to say that everyone has
liberty to interpret the Bible how they see fit or how they say that the HS leads them.

(Singer)
And the opposite of "Holy Spirit led" would be ...........robotic?

 

Acts 5
29But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.

Galatians 5
1For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

1 Corinthians 10
29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?

Romans 14
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God."
12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of the concept of Soul Liberty is the misconception that it allows anarchy. This is not the case. Each human being, believer or non-believer will need to give an account of him/herself before the Throne of Judgment.

The "liberty" spoken of in this phrase is the freedom from ecclesiastical, or manmade, rules and laws governing one's theology. It does NOT excuse one from God's Judgment.

Soul Liberty applies not only to Christians but to all of mankind. Hence Paul's quoting of Isaiah in Romans 14.

Yes, Grant, your right to believe in the real presence at the eucharist is unstoppable. That liberty comes from God. The question is whether you were led to that conviction by the Holy Spirit or by man. I am not able to answer that question, only you are. However, at the Throne it will be a matter of individual accountability. There will be no clergy to defend or convict. There will be no Protestants to convict or defend. The instructions of the papacy will not be a reasonable defense. It will only be the single man and the One Deity with that lone man pleading his case. That is why Soul Liberty is such an important concept. It does not promote chaos, but rather responsibility.

 

Clint:
I agree with your post. Men must and do exercise free will or liberty. It is a blessing of being God's creation. When God made us, he revealed a part of his divine nature. A nature that includes free will, liberty or choice. He created all things by and for his good pleasure.

 

"You've set up a straw man that obviously never has or never will exist, and is illogical even to suggest. Rather I would suggest that if you ever do find a perfect church don't join it, for then it will not be perfect. "


OH BUT IT DOES EXIST DHK!

Isaiah 2:2-3
Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be RAISED ABOVE THE HILLS;
And all the nations will stream to it.
And many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
For the law will go forth from Zion
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Doesn't say some of his paths or some of his ways. Your on a hill, rejecting the possibility that the mountain exists DHK. It is right before your very nose.

"THOU ART PETER AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH"

"2Tim.2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Says study doesn't it. Now when I am taking a math class what is being taught is already set down. I just need to study it. You have to figure out what it is you have to study before you can study it.


Blessings

 

Acts 5
29But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.

Galatians 5
1For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

1 Corinthians 10
29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?

Romans 14
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God."
12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of the concept of Soul Liberty is the misconception that it allows anarchy. This is not the case. Each human being, believer or non-believer will need to give an account of him/herself before the Throne of Judgment.

The "liberty" spoken of in this phrase is the freedom from ecclesiastical, or manmade, rules and laws governing one's theology. It does NOT excuse one from God's Judgment.

Soul Liberty applies not only to Christians but to all of mankind. Hence Paul's quoting of Isaiah in Romans 14.

Yes, Grant, your right to believe in the real presence at the eucharist is unstoppable. That liberty comes from God. The question is whether you were led to that conviction by the Holy Spirit or by man. I am not able to answer that question, only you are. However, at the Throne it will be a matter of individual accountability. There will be no clergy to defend or convict. There will be no Protestants to convict or defend. The instructions of the papacy will not be a reasonable defense. It will only be the single man and the One Deity with that lone man pleading his case. That is why Soul Liberty is such an important concept. It does not promote chaos, but rather responsibility. </font>[/QUOTE]Clint, the mistake you make is that your post implies that we never listen to any man. Every single one of us has to listen to other men period. You don't ever just hand someone a Bible and say go to it. No man is an island and the Bible emphasises by a 10 to 1 margin or better preaching and hearing the word of God rather than just reading it. Check it out. It doesn't say just read scripture to people and let them interprut for themselves anywhere. You have pastors who give long pontificatoins on what they say the Bible says. The influence of other people on our thinking is impossible to remove from the equation. If you look at Psalm 119 and some of the other places that you noted however, it is clear that we are not to listen to evil men. Surely that was the case with Peter in Acts. Yet did Peter tell anyone not to listen to him. Did Paul say to anyone "you don't have to listen to me"? The Israelites listened to and obeyed Moses. When they did not there were consequences. They listened to and obeyed Joshua. When they did not there were problems. Jesus tells the Jews in Matt 23 to do "whatever they tell you" in reference to the scribes and Pharasees. When he commissions the 72 he says "he who listens to you listens to me". So your idea of not listening to men is ridiculous beyond any measure of good scriptural exegesis and logic.

So you see, you do listen to men and you have the same problem as him. The question you should be asking is where is the legitimate authority and teaching. If Jesus asked the Apostles to teach all nations, I would assume that that teaching must have an authority that goes with it. Who has that authority?

It also seems to me that you guys are so proud of your own exegetical skills and being able to interprut for yourselves that getting it right has become immmaterial. Who cares if they don't believe in the trinity. They interpruted the Bible for themselves and that is what is really important. Who cares if the Lutherans say baptism is regenerative. The Catholic say it because they've been brainwashed in it and so it is them that we really have to clobber when a thread gets started asking if the Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration. It becomes quite funny from a Catholic perspective at this point.

God bless.

 

DHK,

I think it time to raise my favorite point once again.

"Rather I would suggest that if you ever do find a perfect church don't join it, for then it will not be perfect. "

So you are sure you are saved. Yet you know your Church is not perfect (i.e. some of their teaching is incorrect). Further there are places that you disagree with them on but you know that you are not 100% correct. You simply don't know where you or your church is incorrect in it's teaching. Now how can you possibly know that the teaching on assured salvation is correct? Put another way, you are 100% certain you are going to heaven. But you are only 90% certain that you have interprutated the scriptures correctly to come to that conclusion. Do you have assurance of salvation?

Seems not.

 

Thessalonian -

At no point in my post did I imply that we are not to listen to other people. The more specific message would be to "Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1Thessalonians 5:21)"

Just as the Bereans tested all that Paul said with Scripture, so too is it the obligation of the professed believer to test everything.

At no point do I imply that we do not gain insight from each other.

 

Further, what Paul DID say on the matter was:

1 Corinthians 14
29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

Peter said:

2 Peter 2
3And in [the false teachers'] greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

and John said:

1 John 4
1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Christ also warned us to:

Matthew 7:15
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

The individual believer is responsible for watching out for themself. One can not trust any other man to do so for him. The stakes are far too high.

The litmus test is always the Gospel. It is unchanging and not prone to the agenda of man, whether he be false or real in his prophecy.

 

"The litmus test is always the Gospel. It is unchanging and not prone to the agenda of man, whether he be false or real in his prophecy."

No, the litmus test is also the witness of the Church. Paul tells timothy was he has spoken pass on to others who will be the witnesses. 2 Tim 2:2. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).


You can't even say for certain what the Gospel specifically is because it is based on your interprutation of scripture, based on the biases planted in your mind by men. Sorry Clint, it's empty rhethoric. Some protestants say OSAS is a part of it, some not. There was a thread titled what is the Gospel back a while ago. Alot of answers in there but I am not sure there was a real consensus.

 

Absolutely, I am know am saved. If I would die tonight I am sure I would go to Heaven just as surely as if I had been there a thousand years already.

That is incorrect and uniformed to say that. Every Baptist church has a statement of faith, and probably a consitution to go with it. Otherwise it would be difficult for it to operate. In order to join our church you must agree to our statement of faith. I am a missionary. I preach in hundreds of churches. Before I preach in any church I must agree with their statement of faith. I must believe what they believe. Take for example what Briguy and I believe concerning the Charismatic movement. Our statemenet of faiths from our churches (if his does mention the Charismatic movement) would be very similar. We take a stand against. It is wrong. Tongues have ceased They are not for today. There would be a statement in there opposing the Charismatic movement. Now we disagree besides tongues, what other gifts ceased, how and exactly when they ceased. Do those points really matter? No. We agree to disagree on those things and it does not hinder our fellowship whatsoever. But our disagreements with the Catholic Church are so vast that there is no way that our churches can cooperate with them, or have spiritual fellowship with them.

As mentioned above, on basic fundamental doctrine, such as salvation, we agree 100% There is no quesion in our minds what salvation is. It is by grace through faith alone without works. Jesus paid it all. Trust Him and Him alone. Works cannot save. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. We both are assured of our salvation and the message of the Bible that it teaches. There is no question in our mind that our interpretation is the correct one.
People differ in areas of Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
Perhaps in areas of eshatology.
In areas where the Bible gives no clear cut answerr.
Tell me: do the two witnesses of Revelation 11 prophesy in the first half of the Tribulation Period or the Second half? How do you know? Only by study. Is there room for disagreement? Of course there is. That is called soul liberty.
DHK

 

No, I can be assured that I do know what the Gospel is:

2 Peter 1
3His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

 

"As mentioned above, on basic fundamental doctrine, such as salvation, we agree 100%"

Briguy says that a ONENESS type can be saved, rejecting the doctrine of the trinity. So it is quite apparent that you don't agree with him 100%. Or maybe you do, but most baptists would not. Lee Strobel says that 60% of his students doen't agree with OSAS so there certainly isn't as widespread agreement as you claim among Protestants. Most Pentcostals I run in to say you have to speak in tongues or you don't have the Holy Spirit and are not saved, so it seems to me there is a bit larger a problem there than you are letting on.

God bless.

 

28Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Again, just because a man says it, it does not mean that it is of God, even if that man is in the church. Paul warned the Ephesians for three years of this danger. He wept as he did so.

 

No, that is not the point I was making. I am very much not a Calvinist or Reformed in my theology. I believe in the power of moral choice. I agree with soul liberty in the sense that we have the power to make a choice, but I do not agree that the choice we make is the right one just because we have the ability to choose. And if you read what you quoted from me you will noticed I said that people say the Holy Spirit leads them. I have heard two different people claim that the Holy Spirit leads them to two conflicting conclusions. Which one is right? I have heard others claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them when what they are doing is contrary to God's revealed Word. How can the Holy Spirit do such a thing? If we all go around claiming the Holy Spirit leads us and it is contrary to God's Word, and maybe (I am just starting to investigate this) even traditional interpretations of God's Word, then I have to wonder if it is really the Holy Spirit leading. If our gauge for truth is just to say the Holy Spirit is leading us then this will lead to nothing other than pure existentialism and subjectivism. There must be something against which to gauge these experiences to correctly interpret them.

Neal

 

"Take for example what Briguy and I believe concerning the Charismatic movement. Our statemenet of faiths from our churches (if his does mention the Charismatic movement) would be very similar. We take a stand against. It is wrong. Tongues have ceased They are not for today"

So DHK there is one issue that you are ignoring in all of this. They do speak in tongues of some sort at Briguy's Church. Now what are these tongues specifically. Some sort of a psychosimatic response? Demon possession? Or are these people just decieving others, making them think they are spiritual people. Putting on a show, so to speak? Seems there are huge problems with whatever way you answer this.