Soul Liberty?

Understand the Scriptures Thessalonian,
Peter was a guilty sinner worthy of Hell, just like we all are. 1 and 2 Peter were written in spite of his sinfullness. Paul describes his own sinful state in Romans 7. Read about it there. Elsewhere he describes himself as the chief of sinners. Yet he was mightily used of God.

The fact remains that Peter knew what the Scripture taught and disobeyed it. Not only did he disobey it, he caused others to be led away in his own disobedience and hypocrisy, Barnabas being one of them. It was for this blatant sin, and disregard for Scripture that Paul "withstood him to the face." You can believe what it says in Galatians chapter 2 or deny it. You are in a sorry state if you deny the Scriptures, if you deny what is written in black and white right before your very eyes. Peter wasn't perfect. He was rebuked by Paul for the very reason that you inferred did not happen in the days of Paul.
DHK

 

"But obviously if he interprets the Bible outside the realm of the distinctives of the Baptist faith he would no longer be a Baptist. "

And if he continues to interprut scripture outside of the realm of distinctives of the Baptist faith will he end up in hell?

 

More straw men and distortions. Peter taught no error. He gave a poor example by catering to the Judaziers. He never required anyone to be circumcized for salvation. Had he done that he would have been in error and you would have a point. We don't require our Popes to be perfect any more than we or you require those who write scripture to be perfect. But I am talking to a brick wall.

 

Well good. I'll find the same quote that Clint did.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

"It is entrusted solely to the Magesterium of the Church."

Whatever you say after that doesn't matter to me. There it is in black and white, just as it always has been. I have shown you through the statements of Vatican II. Like the Pharisees of Jesus time, they wouldn't believe even though He backed up his statements with miracles. Here is a statement from your own catechism. I suppose if I were to back it up by miraculously sending you a million signed and sealed documents in my possesion all from Pope John Paul you still would not believe. Your mind is made up. You know what the church believes but you deny it any way.

BTW I was raised a Catholic and I know what I was taught, and what I was allowed to read, and what I wasn't. I know what I was advised not to read, but I couldn't read it without the priests permission or supervision.
DHK

 

Ah, But do not overlook verse 14, the single most important lesson we have in Tolerance.

What an important lesson! Besides, there was no sin committed by Peter! He is after all, the first of the natural born Jewish Apostles who received a vision from God to go to the gentiles. It was fitting that he be there eating with them. It is not fitting, however, that he be demanding that they, the gentiles, live as Jews, being circumcised, celebrating the Jewish holy days, etc.

Thus it is not fitting that the pope demand that non-catholics live as catholics and vice-versa, nor is it fitting that protestants demand change of the Catholics, except in matters of false doctrine, and that is what this bbs is about.

 

PETER TAUGHT ERROR BY HIS EXAMPLE. That is what Paul was pointing out. That is why he "withstood him to the face. He was being a hypocrite, and leading others into error, which is just as bad, if not worse, then actually teaching the error itself.

 

Why doesn't it surprise me that you would say this?

Does it ever matter to you what anyone has to say if they disagree with you?

Ron

 

Why doesn't it surprise me that you would say this?

Does it ever matter to you what anyone has to say if they disagree with you?

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]You like to take my statements out of context and deliberately misrepresent what I said don't you?

What mattered was what was said previous to that statement.
DHK

 

DHK, sometimes it is necessary to consider all the words in a sentence.

One word in this sentence which you seem to overlook, which makes a difference in the meaning of the sentence:

"authentically"

Just trying to shed a little light.

Ron

 

And so what is the difference between an authentic interpretation and a non-authentic interpretation?

 

PETER TAUGHT ERROR BY HIS EXAMPLE. That is what Paul was pointing out. That is why he "withstood him to the face. He was being a hypocrite, and leading others into error, which is just as bad, if not worse, then actually teaching the error itself. </font>[/QUOTE]What Peter taught on the issue of circumcision is there for all to see in Acts 15. That is the word of God. That is the teaching of the Church. It is the word of God that we must follow. When the actions of a man are not in conformity with those words then we must be able to discern that. Barnabas was there in Acts 15. He was responsible for his own behavior. Teaching on Faith and Morals is what the Papacy is about. Your a barking dog along the side of the path. A waste of time. Your arguements are bogus. Jesus picked Apostles leaders of the Church. The foundation of the Church. We recognize the things they wrote as infallible regardless of their behavior at times. The has nothing to do with whether Peter was the cheif apostle or not. What you can't get through your thick head is that Jesus chooses the weak. Why? Becuase when he chooses the weak others can't say that it was because of this man's own wonderful attributes and his own abilities that he accomplished what he did. History undeniably (accept to those who hate the Catholic Church) shows that Peter went to Rome and that everyone recognized the Roman Church as the leader of the Christian world. Read Steve Ray's book, upon this Rock. It is all there black and white, plain as the nose on your faith and scripture supports it clear as day accept by the interprutations of those who hate truth.

God bless DHK. I will waste no more time with you today.

 

authentic: being fully trustworthy as according with fact

So the interpretation of the Church is authentic (fully trustworthy) while my own interpretation may or may not be trustworthy.

Since the interpretation of the Church is trustworthy, my interpretation cannot be in conflict with the Churches because logic would dictate that the conflicting interpretation would be not trustworthy.

Ron

[ May 29, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Yes, that is the Word of God. And that is precisely what Peter taught contrary to, according to Paul, in Galatians 2:11-14. If you decide to disbeleive the record of God's Worf that is your problem. Take it up with God. He wrote the Book

 

authentic: being fully trustworthy as according with fact

So the interpretation of the Church is authentic (fully trustworthy) while my own interpretation may or may not be trustworthy.

Since the interpretation of the Church is trustworthy, my interpretation cannot be in conflict with the Churches because logic would dictate that the conflicting interpretation would be not trustworthy.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]That's fair enough. But that also causes a problem. No man or group of men is without sin, or infallible. Every one makes mistakes. How can you be sure that the interpretation of the magesterium is absolutely trustworthy, as opposed to mine, or let's say John McArthurs. Why should they be considered right, and another wrong.

If you say that they were guided by the Holy Spirit, then you are saying that both yourself and we cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit. That is false. I don't know about you, but I know that God does give me illumination and guidance in understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. He teaches me "to rightly divide the Word of Truth."
DHK

 

It comes down to a question of authority.

The Apostles wrote many things. Some of which were recognized as inspired, and thus Scripture, and some which were not.

This recognition of certain writings as inspired was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit used men to accomplish this task.

Some say that all the members of all the little independent churches just sort of spontaneously came to recognize which writings were inspired and so all these little independent churches ended up with the very same New Testament with exactly the same books.

The problem with this is that there is no historical record to support it. Also at the very same time there existed incompatible beliefs concerning very funamental doctrines, such as the nature of Jesus. So we have spontaneous independent agreement as to what is Scripture but not what those Scriptures mean.

The other side of the coin is:

There was one Church established by Christ, to which He gave authority.

That authority included recognizing the inspired writings of the Apostles. We have historical evidence to support this. The Church came together in Councils and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit decided these matters.

If you do not accept that Christ gave authority to the Church to do so, you have no reason to accept the Bible in it's current form.

I accept that Christ gave authority to the Church. Therefore, I have a basis to accept the Bible in it's current form. The Scriptures tell me that Christ gave authority to the Church. One of those authorities is to protect and teach the deposit of faith. Thus I submit to the authority of Christ, delegated to the Church, and do not attempt to claim some greater knowledge or revelation through my own interpretation of Scripture.

It is a synergistic system.

Your system of individual interpretation while rejecting authority, on the other hand, fails.

I hope that I have been able to explain this at least a little.

Ron

 

Yes, that is the Word of God. And that is precisely what Peter taught contrary to, according to Paul, in Galatians 2:11-14. If you decide to disbeleive the record of God's Worf that is your problem. Take it up with God. He wrote the Book

Sad that you have to resort to such ignorance. Read Steve Ray's book. It takes direct quotes from just about everybody who was before your dear Constantine who supposedly started the Catholic Church. Have you read them? Irenaus, Clement, Ignatius, Didache, etc. etc. . I have actually read these men's writings before I came accross Mr. Ray's book. In no way can they be distorted in to Baptists. Whose approved history do you read. From this silliness about CAtholics being forbidden from reading the Bible that has been exposed as a fairy tail over and over, it is quite clear who does not have a grasp of history.

The pediphile issue is really getting old. I could post the stories again of the Baptist pastor peds and the statistics on Baptist pastors who cheat on there wives, as well as the vast number of insurance claims with regard to sex abuse in Protestant Churches. But why bother. You don't care. Your blind hatred of Catholicism makes you impossible to reach. So I will pray, hoping that Jesus Christ will enter the locked doors of your heart as he entered the locked doors of the upper room after his resurection.


Blessing DHK

 

This deals with the subject of how the canon of Scripture was completed. Though we many disagree on the process, we agree on the end result--the inspired Word of God as we have it today (except for the disagreement in the Apocryphal books). But that is another subject, not dealing with soul liberty.

This is your interpretation. It wasn't the Catholic Church. Church simply means "assembly." It could simply refer to his disciples at that time which, in time went and established other churches according to the instructions given to them.

[QUOTEThat authority included recognizing the inspired writings of the Apostles. We have historical evidence to support this. The Church came together in Councils and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit decided these matters.[/QUOTE]
No, again it comes down to your interpretation. You have Catholic historical sources, and a twisted interpretation of Scripture which is not consistent with the rest of Scripture.

 

Is this just another attempt to whitewash your own history, to deny the facts of your own history, to say it never happened? Again I repeat the same questions?
What did the church do to John Bunyan? Why don't you tell us publicly.
What did the church do William Tyndale? Explain that one as well.
What about John Wycliffe?
Have you ever heard of Foxes Book of Martyrs? Or have you just heard that it is an unreliable source because some Catholics don't like and therefore try to discredit it?
DHK

 

Is this just another attempt to whitewash your own history, to deny the facts of your own history, to say it never happened? Again I repeat the same questions?
What did the church do to John Bunyan? Why don't you tell us publicly.
What did the church do William Tyndale? Explain that one as well.
What about John Wycliffe?
Have you ever heard of Foxes Book of Martyrs? Or have you just heard that it is an unreliable source because some Catholics don't like and therefore try to discredit it?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I happen to have a copy.

No explanation about governements and romans 13 or anything else I have to say would be of any use. Like I said you have your hands over your ears and your wearing sun glasses in the dark.

It is apparent that you have run out of logical arguements (which you never had in the first place). None of your posts had any substance or proof in this thread. They were just accusations and inuendo. You even used very little scripture.

 

It works both ways Thessalonian. As I read over your post I didn't find any Scripture.