Soul Liberty?

[Eladar]

DHK,

The net result of the way 'Soul Liberty' is being used today is exactly what I've been describing. It is a trump card for heretics. You must call them brother. I don't. Where the Bible speaks, I speak.

'Soul Liberty' is a concept introduced into the church by Satan through Satan. It is man's reaction to persecution.

Fear not the one that can destroy the body.

If people actually did this, they would not hide behind Satan.

 

[thessalonian]

If you haven't the Catholic Church has. The Catholic Church, until recently, didn't even allow the common person to own a Bible much less to read one. Now the common person may read a Bible, but the interpretation still belongs to the priest or church. Personal Bible study is still discouraged.
Further in the past the Catholic church took great pains to burn Bibles in order to keep them out of peoples hands.
DHK

Your kidding right? How recent is rectent because in the 1960's I remember having Bibles around when I was a little kid. I even have seen 1940's Jerusalem Bibles in which indulgences for reading the Bible at least 15 minutes a day were granted.

Lets go back to 1910 or so and see if that is what you mean by recently:

Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914 AD)

"Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day."


Oh, it must be that nasty pope before him.

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903 AD)

"The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us…to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation (the Bible) should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ"

Well then the Council of Trent didn't want anyone to see it because it would expose the evils of the Catholic Church.

Decree of the Council of Trent Session 4, April 8, 1546. "[ The holy synod] following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament-seeing that one God is the Author of both..."

Saint Teresa of Avila (1515 -1582 AD) The Catholic Church strongly recommends the reading of the writings of those who are canonized as Saints. Saint Teresa was canonized in 1622 AD by Pope Gregory XV. She was also declared a Doctor of the Church in 1970 by Pope Paul VI. In her autobiography, The Book of Her Life (La Vida), she writes:

Here I will let you read them all and determine for yourself how foolish you are in making such claims.

http://members.aol.com/johnprh/reading.html

DHK, I think it is time that you stop slandering the Church. You know, the commandment "thou shall not bear false witness". Or do we know longer have to follow the commandments? Killed anybody lately DHK?

God bless you.

 

[Yelsew]

Thessalonian,

Criticizing the beliefs and practices of an organization does not equate to slandering that organization.

The fact that an organization claims itself to be the true church, opens itself up for criticism from all quarters. You have stated repeatedly that the Roman Catholic church is the "True church". We who believe in Jesus Christ and the Scriptures that the Holy spirit has diligently guarded down through time, disagree with you! The Roman church has the longest organizational lineage perhaps, but we all claim the same root! And we all draw our sustenance from that same root! Therefore, we are just as catholic as you claim to be!

Our origin is Jesus the Christ who is the Rock upon which the TRUE CHURCH is builded. Jesus is the Rock of Ages. Jesus is the WORTHY LAMB OF GOD that taketh away the sins of the world. Jesus is our BLESSED REDEEMER! JESUS never gave up any of His authority in that Regard. He did, however, authorize us to go into all the world, making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; thereby building HIS church.

JESUS never commanded us to be stonemasons, building grand and glorious structures amidst the poverty of those from whom we extract tithes. God does not live in these structures! He lives in the hearts of those who believe in Him.

 

[thessalonian]

"Criticizing the beliefs and practices of an organization does not equate to slandering that organization"

Yelsew. There is a difference between a criticism and a lie. If you guys say "hey you boys follow the pope and that's wrong" that's a criticism. If you say the pay boils little children in a pot of stew. That's a lie. If you say the Church forbid Bible reading until recently and it is shown over and over that you are mistaken and that the Church has never done any such thing other than in anti-catholics minds who wish to slander the Church, that's a lie. I'd don't know if DHK knows better or not. But I suspect he does and just refuses to listen to truth. Further, when someone posts something, don't you think they have an obligation to actually check to see if it is factual (that is if they are posting it as a truth). Otherwise it seems to me it is just perpetuating gossip and myth. It becomes especially absurd when people like DHK (and you) for instance, say "don't follow men". The Bible says not to and then post the lies of men on these boards.


And I like how you move on to another mindless arguement. Wish I had the time to waste right now.

Blessings.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tuor:
DHK,

The net result of the way 'Soul Liberty' is being used today is exactly what I've been describing. It is a trump card for heretics. You must call them brother. I don't. Where the Bible speaks, I speak.

Rather it is a principle of freedom that religions such as the Catholic Church have been fighting against for years, if not centuries. They fear it. Once they give in to this Biblical doctrine it takes away the power that their organization has over its people. Such religions, and other cults, operate on two basis: one is fear, and the other is power. In the Catholic Church all the power comes from the top: from the pope down. The authorities keep the people in fear of disobeying the catechism or committing a mortal sin. There is no soul liberty; only fear of breaking the authortity--the word of the church and those who carry it out. Every cult is the same way. Think of it. Would Jim Jones give any "soul liberty" to his followers, that is, any other way of thinking than his way? What about the follers of Joseph Smith? Of Sun Myung Moon? They all have no soul liberty--can only think one way--can only believe one authority; are kept in fear of believing any thing else or any other way.
Soul liberty gives freedom as it should. The freedom to believe the Bible as the Holy Spirit directs you. That is one aspect of it. It also gives freedom of religion. It is me saying to the J.W. "I don't agree with what you teach, but I will defend your right to believe and to teach it." I won't torture you and put you to death like the Catholics did for so many centuries to the Protestants. They don't believe in soul liberty.

'Soul Liberty' is a concept introduced into the church by Satan through Satan. It is man's reaction to persecution.

Hardly a concept introduced by Satan when it is Jesus Himself who commands us to "Search the Scriptures." The implication is clear. Why would he tell us to search the Scriptures if we cannot interpret it. That doesn't make sense does it?

1Cor.2:12-14
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

These verses are not of Satan, not the trump card of heretics, nor of the Catholic Church.
They teach that the believer (all believers) has the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit). And for that reason we are able to understand the things that the Holy Spirit teaches (in the Word of God). But the unsaved man (the natural man of verse 14) cannot understand the Bible (receives not the things of the Spirit of God) for they are foolishness unto him. He is spiritually discerned. He cannot discern Biblical truth. He is blind to it.

Fear not the one that can destroy the body.
If people actually did this, they would not hide behind Satan.

Who was hidiing behind Satan when they took John Bunyan's freedom of religion away, would not allow him to preach the simple gospel, and threw him in prison for twelve years just because he did preach the gospel. To the Church of England it was a crime to preach the gospel. Bunyan had no soul liberty and so remained in prison for over 12 years. He did indeed fear the one that can destroy the body. Can't say much for the Catholics and Anglicans though.

Or how about William Tyndale, who they hated and tortured, and then burned all his Bibles. They didn't want the Bible in the vernacular or common man's language where he would be able to understand it. Greek and Latin was sufficient for the Catholics. Keep the Bible out of the hands of the people. Burn it! No soul liberty there either.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
DHK, I think it is time that you stop slandering the Church. You know, the commandment "thou shall not bear false witness". Or do we know longer have to follow the commandments? Killed anybody lately DHK?

God bless you.

According to the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, Catholics are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without first checking it out with the Catholic Church. They are required to find out how the Catholic bishops interpret Scripture passages, and they are to accept what the bishops teach "with docility" as if it came from Jesus Christ Himself. They are not allowed to use their own judgment or to follow their own conscience. They are required to believe whatever the bishops teach without questioning it.

"Catechism of the Catholic Church," paragraphs numbered 85, 87, 100, 862, 891, 939, 2034, 2037, 2041, and 2050.


In Mexico, Catholics have been persecuting Evangelical Christians.

Many Chiapas Indians in Mexico have become Evangelical Christians. A book of their personal testimonies is available online. A video about them is also available. [Note 1]

Mexican Catholics have been torturing and killing these Evangelical Christians. They have been burning their homes and churches. Many Chiapas Indians have become refugees. The local Mexican government officials rarely attempt to arrest or prosecute the Catholics who do these things. (You can read about this online.) [Note 2]

Modern Persecution

DHK

 

[Singer]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
DHK, I think it is time that you stop slandering the Church. You know, the
commandment "thou shall not bear false witness". Or do we know longer
have to follow the commandments? Killed anybody lately DHK?

Bearing false witness would not include:
1) Warning others of false teachings

Bearing false witness would be:
Preaching a doctrine that says the Catholic Church is:

1) the Body of Christ
2) the Bride of Christ
3 )the Kingdom of God
4 )the Church that Jesus Established
5) the purpose of creation
6) the Mother Church
7) Christ's Church
---------------------------------------------

Did I miss anything?

 

[Eladar]

DHK,

I'm afraid that you are defining 'Soul Liberty' as freedom of religion. These are two totally different concepts. Freedom of religion states that you can believe what you want to believe without persecution. Soul Liberty states that no interpretation of the Bible is any more or less valid than another. In other words, there is no truth that brothers and sisters in Christ are to hold each other accountable about. There is no such thing as a false teacher.

Yes, this concept was born of Satan. Any time people are put into prison or killed over religion Satan is having his way.

Having said that, Satan having his way really isn't that important for a Christian. Did any of the imprisonments or killings change the final destination of these people? Will they prevent God from preserving his people?

Evidently you believe the answer to that question is yes. If you didn't believe this to be true, you wouldn't believe that it needed such a reactionary fix.

You continue to recognize false teachers as Christians. Just know that you only do so because you trusts man's solution to this problem.

 

[trying2understand]

I propose that "soul liberty" is a theoretical concept that is not actually practiced in reality.

What would be the reponse in your church to a deacon who started teaching and preaching a belief that is contrary to your church's beliefs?

Would he be allowed to continue to lead a Bible study group and argue for his contrary belief?

Would he be allowed to teach children in the church?

Or would he be asked to stop?

Ron

 

[Eladar]

Ron,

'Soul Liberty' stops at the front door of the local congregation. Baptist theology teaches that each local denomination gets to define its own valid definition of God's truth. If the local congregation votes on it, the result is God's truth.

I guess a better name for this belief is 'Local Congregation Liberty'.

Thanks for your last post, it brought out this realization.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Tuor:
Ron,

'Soul Liberty' stops at the front door of the local congregation. Baptist theology teaches that each local denomination gets to define its own valid definition of God's truth. If the local congregation votes on it, the result is God's truth.

I guess a better name for this belief is 'Local Congregation Liberty'.

Thanks for your last post, it brought out this realization.

How is this different than DHK saying that Catholics may only interpret Scripture in a way that is consistent with the teachings of the Church?

The practice of soul liberty is then you can interpret Scripture but don't bring your interpretations into the church?

I fail to see a difference.

Ron

 

[Eladar]

The difference is that you don't recognize their 'Soul Liberty'. If you are going to play that card, then you must allow every congregation (even within your own denomination) to vote in or out their own version of God's truth and recognize it as such.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Tuor:
The difference is that you don't recognize their 'Soul Liberty'. If you are going to play that card, then you must allow every congregation (even within your own denomination) to vote in or out their own version of God's truth and recognize it as such.

I don't understand what you are saying.

BTW, as a Catholic, I don't ever play the soul liberty card.

I'm just pointing out that in practice, soul liberty doesn't exist.

Ron

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tuor:
DHK,

I'm afraid that you are defining 'Soul Liberty' as freedom of religion. These are two totally different concepts. Freedom of religion states that you can believe what you want to believe without persecution.

No, soul liberty does indeed include the concept of freedom of religion. You must understand that.

Soul Liberty states that no interpretation of the Bible is any more or less valid than another. In other words, there is no truth that brothers and sisters in Christ are to hold each other accountable about. There is no such thing as a false teacher.

This is really a warped definition of soul liberty. It is not what Baptists believe. Where did you get it from? First and foremost, no one said that there is no such thing as a fales teacher. That is a wrong conclusion to come as the Bible teaches there are, and you know very well that I point out the false teachers right here on this very board. Your statement is very inconsitent and false. It does not say that on interpretation is any more or less valid than another. What it does say is that among Christians: there is room for disagreement in areas in the Bible. However, if your interpretation of a passage is heretical, you will be labeled as such. That is soul liberty. I have the liberty to call you a heretic if your interpretation fits that description. Let me give you an example. If you go the thread in the theology forum on the New Birth you will find a discussion on what does the "water" mean. We have had that discussion down here. There have been three possibilties put forward: baptism, amniotic fluid, and the Word. If you believe that water in this passage refers to baptism then I believe you that you are believing in a heresy. The are two interpretations are both acceptably, though I personally believe that it refers to the Word of God. Soul liberty in this case means that the person that believes water in John 3:5 refers to baptism is believing a heresy. Those that believe it refers to the amniotic fluid of a woman (born in the flesh) have the soul liberty to believe that way. I am not going to argue with them. It is possible. But that is not what I believe. I believe that it refers to the Word of God, and can back it up with Scripture. Does that clear up the picture any?

Yes, this concept was born of Satan. Any time people are put into prison or killed over religion Satan is having his way.

According to your definition the gospel was born of Satan. It, more than anything, has caused people to be locked up in prison, tortured, and killed. People have died for the preaching of the gospel. By your conclusion, the gospel is of Satan. Soul liberty is taught in the Bible. It is not an invention of man.

Having said that, Satan having his way really isn't that important for a Christian. Did any of the imprisonments or killings change the final destination of these people? Will they prevent God from preserving his people?

Satan is having his way in many people who do not obey the Bible. Isn't that important for a Christian? Did imprisonments and killings change the final destiny of these people? No! Most of them held firm to their faith. But the torturers will give account for their terrible misdeeds before God, and suffer all the more in Hell because of it.

You continue to recognize false teachers as Christians. Just know that you only do so because you trusts man's solution to this problem.

False Accusation. I have never recognized a false teacher as a Christian and you know that very well. What would you advise? Is it your solution to round up all the heretics, the one billion Roman Catholics and slaughter them all? I don't think so. Soul liberty gives them the right to believe what they want to without persecution. Whether you want to believe that or not, that is part of the definition of soul liberty. It also gives me the liberty to stand up and declare that their teaching is false and heretical, which I have been doing, without fear of persecution. It also gives one within the same churh as I the right to disagree with me without fear of persecution. After all no two people agree 100% on everything.
Is it clear yet?
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
I propose that "soul liberty" is a theoretical concept that is not actually practiced in reality.

It is practiced in reality, and I will proceed to give you some examples.

What would be the reponse in your church to a deacon who started teaching and preaching a belief that is contrary to your church's beliefs?

This happened. Our statement of faith teaches the doctrine that you know as "once saved always saved." In other words the gift of God is eternal life, and God is not going to take it away from you. One of our members began to teach otherwise and spread his doctrine to otherwise. We took the appropriate steps according to Mat.18 to try to stop and correct his belief, but he would change or desist from spreading this doctrine. At a business meeting, therefore, he was disciplined from the church.

However there are many things that the pastor and I disagree on, and have the soul liberty to do so. As I mentioned no two people agree exactly the same on 100% of everything. I ask you: Will the two witnesses of Revelation 11 prophecy during the second half of tribulation or the first half? He happens to believe the second half, and I happlen to believe the first half. I could be wrong. But this will not affect our fellowship. And neither one will be disciplined for believing differently. We have the soul liberty to do so. I dare say that Catholics probably don't have a clue what I am talking about, and don't even bother to study such things out.

Would he be allowed to continue to lead a Bible study group and argue for his contrary belief?

Concering th one that believed you can lose your salvation--absolutely not!!

Would he be allowed to teach children in the church?

The obvious answer is no.
A heretic after the first and second adominition, reject.

Or would he be asked to stop?

He would first be asked. Then would be commanded.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tuor:
Ron,

'Soul Liberty' stops at the front door of the local congregation. Baptist theology teaches that each local denomination gets to define its own valid definition of God's truth. If the local congregation votes on it, the result is God's truth.

I guess a better name for this belief is 'Local Congregation Liberty'.

Thanks for your last post, it brought out this realization.

When you join a local church you agree to abide by the statement of faith of that church. If you don't want to do that why would you join? Are you a false teacher trying to invade the church--a wolf in sheep clothings that not only Jesus spike of but Paul and John as well?

Soul liberty is allowed within a church to some degree. As explained in an above post it depends what the doctrine is. If it is not fundamental to the statement of faith then usually there is room for some disagreement, which is termed as soul liberty--the right to believe as you see the Scriptures teach to be right.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tuor:
The difference is that you don't recognize their 'Soul Liberty'. If you are going to play that card, then you must allow every congregation (even within your own denomination) to vote in or out their own version of God's truth and recognize it as such.

We don't believe in denominations. They aren't taught in the Bible. Every church is independent of another. I belong to IFB church--Independent Fundamental Baptist Church.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tuor:
The difference is that you don't recognize their 'Soul Liberty'. If you are going to play that card, then you must allow every congregation (even within your own denomination) to vote in or out their own version of God's truth and recognize it as such.

I don't understand what you are saying.

BTW, as a Catholic, I don't ever play the soul liberty card.

I'm just pointing out that in practice, soul liberty doesn't exist.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]Of course. As a Catholic you don't have soul liberty, don't believe in soul libery, and fight against those that do have soul liberty. What else would one expect from a Catholic?
DHK

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tuor:
The difference is that you don't recognize their 'Soul Liberty'. If you are going to play that card, then you must allow every congregation (even within your own denomination) to vote in or out their own version of God's truth and recognize it as such.

I don't understand what you are saying.

BTW, as a Catholic, I don't ever play the soul liberty card.

I'm just pointing out that in practice, soul liberty doesn't exist.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]Of course. As a Catholic you don't have soul liberty, don't believe in soul libery, and fight against those that do have soul liberty. What else would one expect from a Catholic?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I would like to point out that the Sadducees and Pharasees did not know soul liberty either. The Priesthood of the Temple did not know soul liberty. That is why Jesus came, to set them free!

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
When you join a local church you agree to abide by the statement of faith of that church. If you don't want to do that why would you join?

Then why do you have problems with Catholics for doing the same?

Soul liberty is allowed within a church to some degree. As explained in an above post it depends what the doctrine is. If it is not fundamental to the statement of faith then usually there is room for some disagreement, which is termed as soul liberty--the right to believe as you see the Scriptures teach to be right.

Why do you have problems with Catholics doing the same?

As a Catholic I may interprete Scripture but must do so in a manner that is consistent with the teachings of the Church.

You do the same but the requirement is "as long as it is not fundamental to the statement of faith".

And no doubt it is your church that decides what is and is not fundamental to the statement of faith.

Not a big difference in my eyes.

You know what they say about glass houses,DHK.

Ron

[ May 26, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]