Soul Liberty?

I got it a while back when I posted threads on the topic both here and at Baptistnet.com.

The definition I gave is espoused by those of the 'moderate' Baptists. Since they are allowed to post in Baptist only areas, I take it that the powers of the site also recognize them as Baptists.

Yet you must call them brothers in Christ because of their 'Soul Liberty'. Although you (personally) argue against them, you (Baptists in general) still accept them.

Not at all. It is you and your denomination that is very inconsistant.

Yet the same reasoning is used to accept the teaching that homosexuality is acceptable before the Lord. Does that clear things up?

No, it is Satan's reaction to the gospel that has caused people to be locked up, tortured and killed. You need to quit blaming God for Satan's actions.

No, you just don't understand what I'm trying to say. It is the concept of accepting all interpretations that is of Satan. If you accept everyone else's, they can't say anything about yours. You just won't recognize the fact that 'Soul Liberty' is Satan's teaching.

No, my solution would be to shun heretics and not recognize them as Christians. It is the solution Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 5.

No, that is freedom of religion. Soul Liberty takes the next step and keeps you from saying that they are not Christians.

Yah, neither does Church of Christ, but as we all know this is just word games.

 

Catholics do no do the same. It is not a simple statement of faith that you agree to abide by. It is the entire catechism, the dictates of the priest and the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I can disagree with my pastor. You cannot disagree with your priest.

Catholics don't do the same. First of all they don't have a simple statement of faith as do most baptist churches. Do a search on Independent Baptist Churches. Go to their websites. Look for their statements of faiths. Read them. Most of them could be printed out on a page or two. The catechism would take a small book. I have a copy of the statements and results of Vatican II. It is a book. The Catholic Church has no simple statement of faith to agree to. It has a tome of beliefs and heresies to adhere to. Your problem is that I have the soul liberty to point out your heresies according to the Bible, whereas you can only defend your position according to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. I stand on higher ground than you do, for I appeal to a greater authority than you do.

No you cannot, not according to Catholic teaching. You cannot interpret the Scriptures at all. It has been interpreted for you at all. If you have questions about interpretation, you must go to a proper authority such as a priest or bishop who will interpret it for you.

Not so. I don't have to have the authority of my pastor to interpret the Scriptures. The Scriptures itself is my authority. I am to search the Scriptures, study to show myself approved unto God--not approved unto the Catholic Church. That is your obligation.

It is a big difference. I try and please God. You try and please the Catholic Church. That is the reality of the situation.
DHK

 

Well, do you have anything in your statement of faith concerning "soul sleep"? If a deacon in your church were to start preaching and teaching "soul sleep" would it be acceptable?

Oh yes, I forgot. Your interpretation is a higher authority. That is after all what it comes down to.... merely your interpretation.

Since you have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, why don't you point out your proof of your acusation?

You can't so you won't.

Your silence will be proof enough of your false witness for me.

Ron

 

A statement of faith is what we do believe; not what we don't believe. Yes, we have a statement that covers that:
We believe in eternal life for the saved, and everlasting punishment of the wicked.

 

Paragraph #841 Catholic Catechism
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; ...

My higher authority is the Bible which says that only through Christ one can get to Heaven.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Your catechism is teaching heresy.
BTW, The entire Catechism can be found at:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
So yes I do have the Catechism.
DHK

 

A statement of faith is what we do believe; not what we don't believe. Yes, we have a statement that covers that:
We believe in eternal life for the saved, and everlasting punishment of the wicked. </font>[/QUOTE]Sticken out your neck on that one DHK.

It is comparing apples to oranges to say that the Catholic Church has no simple statement of faith while the baptists do. We have the creed. That is less than a page as you say is a good measure of a statement of faith. Now then you claim the Catechism is not a simple statement. To that I agree. But I went to baptist services for a while and they don't just preach on hell for the wicked and heaven for the saved. They go in to what is more like a book.

Bless you DHK

By the way have you acknowledged yet that you are wrong that the Catholic Church forbid bible reading until recently. Doing so would show that you are an honest person as I showed you a track back through history that proved you were wrong.

 

Paragraph #841 Catholic Catechism
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; ...

My higher authority is the Bible which says that only through Christ one can get to Heaven.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Your catechism is teaching heresy.
BTW, The entire Catechism can be found at:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
So yes I do have the Catechism.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, I see. You apparently can't meet Ron's challenge so you switch the topic to something else. Bait and switch I believe it is called. Answer his question DHK. We can easiliy get in to the staement you just quoted and put an out of context understanding of it below. We would agree that Jesus is the only way. Common DHK, answer Ron's question or be proven a liar. The silence is defening.

 

[QB]

There is a better definition given near the beginning of this thread that most of us agreed on.

Will the real POPE please post-up?

I must call them?? Are you the Grand Inquisitor risen from the dead or the Pope himself. Who are you to tell me what I must or must not do? Weren't you the one who said you also were anti-Catholic??

Understand Tuor, that a Satanist can have soul liberty, i.e. the freedom to believe in his satanism. That does not logically conclude that he is my brother. Where on earth do you get that conclusion?! I have the soul liberty to call him a heretic, a Satanist, and whatever else he may be. He has the right to believe what he wants, as long as what he does or believes, does not go contrary to the laws of the land (human sacrifice for example).

I have not been inconsistent at all. You fail to understand soul liberty and therefore conclude I am inconsistent. You have just posted that I belong to a denomination. I don't. That shows how misinformed you are. If I belong to a denomination tell me which one it is. I really would like to know. This ought to be interesting. Tell me where my "so-called" denomination's consitution is written. I belong to an Independent Baptist Church. It is totally unafilliated. It is independent, and thus the name independent. Until you can link us with a denomination, and prove it, stop with the false accusations.

Of course not. Our church takes a firm stand against homosexuality. So your example means nothing.

Read your own post again. This conclusion came as a result of your logic in your statement. If one Biblical doctrine is from Satan, then it only stands to reason that others are. That is your logic.

Get is straight Tuor. I don't accept all interpretations!! I accept man's right to his interpretation, and my right to disagree with him. I never said I agreed with everyone. You are sadly mistaken. Sad, sad, sad! Soul liberty is of God. It was Christ that said "The Truth shall make you free." He didn't say "the Catholic Church will make you free." He said the "Truth will make you free." How do you find the Truth? Through the CC? Through a Lutheran Creed? Through the Book of Mormon? Through the early church fathers? Through the Talmud? How do you find the "Truth that will set you free," Tuor? It is through Christ, and through the Scriptures. If you have not the Scriptures, you are lost. You will be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. You need to be grounded in the Word of God. That comes through personal Bible Study. Personal Bible study can only properly be done if you have the soul liberty to do so.

As you have admitted that you are anti-Catholic, will you please be more specific what you would do with approximately one billion Catholics, all of whom call themselves Christians.

Sorry my friend, You can believe what you want. But freedom of religion is included in the definition of soul liberty. It is one aspect of it.

If it is just a word game, prove it otherwise. The onus is on you. Otherwise quit with the slander.
DHK

 

Yes, that is what I want.

So far you have failed to do so.

Although you did take the time and effort to type out a long and pointless distraction.

I await either your quote from the Catechism, your admission that you are wrong and bearing false witness, or your continued lack of proof of your acusation which I will accept as proof of your false witness.

It's up to you.

Ron

 

DHK,

It occurred to me that your church's stance on this is quite antiscriptural.

Doesn't the verse say that "no Scripture is a matter of personal interpretation"?

Where exactly is the exception to matters fundamental to your church's statement of faith?

Your church's statment of faith is a matter or personal interpretation isn't it?

The fact that you agreed to it when you joined doesn't change that fact.

DHK, come out from that unscriptural abomination!!

Couldn't help but tease you a little.

Ron

 

If you look at this in context of its passage I think you will find it is dealing more with the origin of Scripture, not necessarily how we understand it. However, it would probably be a good idea to follow Paul's exhortation to Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth.

Neal

 

Neal, that would be the first that I have heard this particular understanding of the verse.

In my experience, Baptists say that this verse means that no church can claim to have the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Based on that, "no personal interpretation" then means every individual can have a personal interpretation.

If you can understand that upside down logic.

Ron

 

Hey, read the verse in context and see what the passage is talking about.

Neal

 

This is not from the Catechism, but it is from one of your official sources. I am sure that will do.

THE DOCUMENTSD OF VATICAN II
Walter M. Abbott, S.J., General Editor

Chapter 6
Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church
Page 128, Paragraphs 25, 26

“It devolves on sacred bishops, ‘who have the apostolic teaching,’ to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels, through translations of the sacred texts. Such versions are to be provided with necessary and fully adequate explanations so that the sons of the Church can safely and profitably grow familiar with the sacred Scriptures and be penetrated with their spirit.
Furthermore, editions of the sacred Scripture, provided with suitable comments, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.”

“In this way, therefore, through the reading and study of the sacred books, let ‘the word of the Lord run and be glorified’ (2Th.3:1), and let the treasure of revelation entrusted to the Church increasingly fill the hearts of men. Just as the life of the Church grows through persistent participation in the Eucharistic mystery, so we may hope for a new surge of spiritual vitality from intensified veneration for God’s word, which ‘lasts forever’ (is.40:8; cf. 1Pet.23-25).”

“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Constitution has won the consent of the Fathers of this most sacred Council. We too, by the apostolic authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the Venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory.”
Rome, at St. Peter’s November 18, 1965
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church
(Then followed the signatures of the Fathers)

This is the last part of the chapter. It is basically directed to the clergy of the church, as they should be the ones that should study and interpret the Scriptures for others.
Frederick C. Grant (in the same book) printed this response:

“But we get the impression that from being forbidden, the reading of the Bible is now commanded. Why not simply invited, and encouraged?
Why is not more said about the importance of Bible study in the training of the clergy, and in their whole way of life? By that I mean more than the selections use in the liturgy and the Offices, and much more than patristic or mediaeval allegorism in interpretation, or purely homiletical expositions, whatever the date. I mean the solid linguistic, historical, critical study of holy Scripture in the ‘sacred languages,’ Hebrew and Greek as well as Latin, and with all the most up-to-date texts and reference books—such, for example, as the magnificent ‘Dictionary of the Bible’ by father John McKenzie, S.J. (Bruce, 1965). This is the kind of scholarship all clergy should aspire to, and should constantly use—and also all layman and women seriously concerned with the study of holy Scripture. And teachers—of course! Many of the outstanding works of Catholic biblical scholarship, especially those produced on the Continent but also some in Great Britain (and therefore in the English language), are almost unknown over here.
Finally, how can such study continue without freedom for research? The appendix to Cardinal Bea’s ‘The Study of the Synoptic Gospels’ (Harper, 1965) warns Ordinaries (bishops and superiors) to ‘keep watch with great care over popular writings…on biblical subjects.’ This is clearly censorship, and suffocating. The Constitution doe not go that far, but it could—and should, I think—have said something about the scholar’s liberty of conscience, and his duty to follow truth wherever it leads, for ‘Truth is mighty, and prevails’ (1Esd.4:38), as all modern efforts at suppression and dictation of religious convictions and of scientific research are making dreadfully clear! For the sake of safeguarding the common faith of all Christians, the Church’s scholars must be free and unfettered in pursuing their tasks. Of course they must be responsible. But to whom? To God, not merely the ecclesiastical authorities with their interpretations.”

I hope this will give you some satisfaction.
DHK

 

You have it quite backwards here. I have pointed this out to you before, but you fail to see the significance of it. The Catholic Church, like almost every cult, has their own private interpretation of the Bible. There is no soul liberty within their ranks for one to interpret it otherwise. The same goes for Mormons, Jim Jones, The J.W,'s, the S.D.A.'s, the Moonies, etc. They must follow the interpretation of their founder/leader. Every cult is like that. There is no soul liberty in a cult, catholicism not withstanding. They all have their own priate interpretation. It is not us/me that has my own p;rivate interpretation that I force on others. I agree to disagree. I allow others their freedom. Mine isn't a private interpretation at all. The Catholic Church's interpretation is private because it is forced on approximately one billion people. Therefore it is entirely unbiblical.
DHK

 

I guess I missed it. Where does this say that Catholics are forbidden to interprete Scripture?

In your church do you simply tell the people to read it for themselves with no instruction from your church?

I thought that you said that you teach in your church.

DHK, this is a joke right?

Ron

 

Did you not say that no one in your church can interpret Scripture themsleves where it comes to your church's "faith statement"?

What kind of a cult did you join?

Forced on one billion people?

Really, these one billion people can't leave and just go to a little cult like yours?

DHK, you are really reaching of late.

Still waiting on that offical Church teaching that says that I can't interpret Scripture.

Ron

 

"The Catholic Church, like almost every cult, has their own private interpretation of the Bible. There is no soul liberty within their ranks for one to interpret it otherwise."

This is interesting. DHK, could you please show me a listing of all the verses in the Bible and the Catholic interprutation of each one? I know of about 8 that have an interprutation that the Catholic Church holds to (though interestingly enough does not limit the believer to). Now if you could show me a listing of the interprutations 31095 verses so that I can know how to be a proper zombie I would appreaciate it. You might do this in the same post where you substantiate your claim that we as Catholics are fobidden from interpruting scripture that seeker has posed to you. And I see there is a holdover questoin to you regarding a claim you made that Catholics couldn't even read the Bible until recently. Perhaps I should look up the quote so as not to speak in error in your behalf. i.e. I take the 8th commandment a bit more serious than you. Ah here it is:

"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."
You seem to like the scattergun approach. Making so many accusations that it is impossible to handle them all, while never owning up to any of them and actually verifying your claims for us so that we may find you a credible witness for Christ. Is lying okay as long as it is done in his name . Is it okay when it is done toward those who do not agree with what you believe. God forbid! A lie is a lie DHK. Now it is apparent that you get most of your material from anti-catholic websites rather than from your own research. But in accepting and posting what they say you are taking ownership of it. Either prove your statements or own up to what you have done, i.e. carelessly violated one of God's commandments.

[ May 28, 2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

"Mine isn't a private interpretation at all. The Catholic Church's interpretation is private because it is forced on approximately one billion people."

This is some of the most bizarre logic I have ever witnessed. First of all I am not forced to be a Catholic contrary to your dillisional opinion, incited by hatred. Secondly you have so twisted things that private means public or widely held but from someone else while not to be private means individual. This is bizarre.

By the way DHK, I wonder where you get all your theology on interpruting. The word in context of interpruting scripture is only used once in scripture and that is the verse that we are currently discussing. So if the Bible is your soul rule of faith, I wonder if you could show me where in scripture it talks about interpruting in the manner that you are using it, since this verse quite obviously doesn't. Perhaps it is implicit somehow? Oh, but when we Catholics bring up implicitness of certaint things that is a big no-no.

[ May 28, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]