Soul Liberty?

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Oh my, Thessalonian, (RE: your post, May 23, 2003 09:50 AM) what you discovered simply shows that ignorance and intolarance have no religious barriers!

Even so, that should have no bearing on our modern, enlightened, religious environment however, because we no longer allow prayer in our public life, schools, workplace, etc. We are rapidly heading for a religion free society instead of a society of free religion. We have essentially taped the mouths of our preachers, banning them from speaking out against "government" from their pulpits. Basically, we are on a return path to the DARK AGES! There is only one way to prevent that, and Daniel is a good example, so is Joseph. Both of them refused to bow down to "other gods". Neither of them prayed to the dead. They honored the living God by their firm beliefs.

But alas, the teachings of the Catholic church when followed strictly, would have you praying to the dead (departed saints), instead of the Living God. It would have you kneeling before images whether graven or painted. Of course the Church calls them ICONs whose purpose is "merely to remind you", which is precisely the purpose of an IDOL.

The Catholic Church would have you substituting bread the product of wheat, for "the real flesh"; and wine the product of the grape, for "the real blood" of Jesus the Living Christ.

The Catholic Church would have you believe that getting dunked in water is essential to your salvation, when clearly it is spirit baptism performed by the Holy Spirit that is essential. Just another "substitution", Counterfeiting the real.

But go ahead, follow the teachings of "The Mother Church" after all, it is your life, you are free to live it as you wish, but you will be judged on the purity of your faith, and all these polutants will have a disastrous effect.

Then again you can renounce the falseness, repent and follow the Lord Jesus Christ the true head of the church instead of the counterfeit or "christ substitute" that heads up the Catholic religion.

Yes I know. My there are some problems in the Baptist Church that need to be dealt with. But lets get back to bashing Catholicism. The reaction to my posts from yourself and clint are not unexpected. Same or rhetoric and ducking the issues raised. Same old falling back on the same old anti-catholic propaganda that has been refuted time and time again.

Have a good weekend boys.


Now are these baptists that were supposedly born again Christians really born again Christians. If not I am sure they think they are so how does one who thinks he is know that he is decieving himself. Especially since sin blinds. Were John Calvin and King James really born again Christians since they killed people? So perhaps they weren't but we really liked their Bibles and the doctrines so let's honor them by placing their names on things. Or is it that a Born Again Christian can kill people because OSAS.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

If King James killed people for their religion are you not honoring him by putting his name on your Bibles.

Though it is very poor argumentation on the point and I would normally not even comment, this is too good to pass up.

Please show me anywhere on the board in any post that I have quoted a passage from the King James Version of the Bible.

Also can you show me any of the Scripture posted in this thread that runs counter to the liberally and biasly interpreted Latin Vulgate?

And in order to fend off attacks on his beloved religion Clint switches back ones again to the Inquisition and calling the Catholic a blind, ignornat zombie who worships the pope.

Please show me where I said this.

John Calvin Burned Servetus which is of course against soul liberty but let's put his name on our Churches and use it as a label for our doctrines.

Please show me where I have condoned Calvin or, for that matter, Calvinism.

I can handle an underhanded character attack, but you'll have to do a little better than that, Thessalonian.

[ May 23, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Eladar]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tuor:
All Soul Liberty means is that if the Catholic Church wanted to change its name to Baptist, but change in no other way, it would be recognized as 'Baptist'.

The same could be said of the Mormon Church, a Buddist Temple, or any other organization.

That's not really what soul liberty is, but your entitled to your opinion. And it is soul liberty that grants you your opinion to believe so.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Not exactly DHK. It is my God given right to do or say anything I like which might include following His will or rebelling against it. This has nothing to do with the Baptist doctrine of Soul Liberty.

It was born out of self defense and is in direct contradiction to the Biblical standard of standing against false doctrine.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tuor:
Not exactly DHK. It is my God given right to do or say anything I like which might include following His will or rebelling against it. This has nothing to do with the Baptist doctrine of Soul Liberty.

It was born out of self defense and is in direct contradiction to the Biblical standard of standing against false doctrine.

Maybe that's what you would like to believe, but it isn't true. I find it quite ironic (and somewhat insulting) for a Catholic to try and define a Baptist doctrine of which he knows little about and barely understands himself. It was not born out of self defence, but out of the Bible. Acts 17:11 teaches soul liberty. So does 2Peter 1:20,21. Baptists have held to this historic belief much longer than you care to think--long before the Reformation.

But believe what you will, Catholics are very adept at revisionist history.
DHK

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by DHK:

OK, Mike, You are a Catholic, and I don't expect you to understand soul liberty.

Right, I'm a zombie.

Once you have chosen Catholicism I don't expect you to practice it, even though you must have for all practical purposes. You do have an intellect and a will that God created you with. You are competent to make your own decisions, even ones related to theology and the Bible, however great or small they may seem to be. The very fact that you are on this board without a priest or bishop standing behind your back telling you every word to type is evidence that you have soul liberty. You have the liberty to put down your thoughts on any given subject, and according to the number of your posts you have already said quite a bit. You have exercised you soul liberty without the priest's permission. Am I correct?

Sounds to me like you're just describing freedom of speech and/or freedom of thought. Of course I'm free to say and think whatever I want as a Catholic, but that doesn't mean that, no matter what I say or think I can legitimately claim to be a Catholic in good standing, or that I correctly represent Catholic teaching. I don't get to define what being a Catholic is.

Secondly, it is you that has chosen to believe that the Catholic Church's teachings are divinely revealed, and you must submit to them, just like any other cult must submit to the "divinely" revealed authority of their sect. You have made that choice. That is where your soul liberty ended if you carried it out perfectly.

Just as Christ was either Lord, lunatic or liar, so the Catholic Church is either Divine or Demonic. It is different from any other organization on earth, being that it understands itself to be a supernatural organism. You throw around words like "cult" because you don't believe it is the church founded by Christ, just like many non-Christians throw around words like "brainwashed" in regard to all Christians because they don't believe in God and/or Christ as the Son of God. Just as there can be both brainwashed people and people who believe in the revealed Christ, so there can be both cults and the true Church of Christ here on earth. It's another example of where Catholic both-and thinking gets at the truth that either-or thinking cannot reach.

We believe that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

That's good as far as it goes, but Christ didn't write a bible, He founded a Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth." What would happen if every American walked around with a copy of the Constitution and behaved in whatever manner they discerned from reading their copy of the Constitution? Your model simply doesn't work.

No man has the authority to force an interpretation upon us. We all are priests before God; each one of us will give account before God, not some earthly priest. And the knowledge that I have from the Bible, I gain primarily from my own study. I will give account not just for what I know, but also for what I have acted upon. You will not give accounnt in the day of judgement to the Catholic Church. You will give account to God. It is He who will be sitting on the Throne. And He will be the one to judge you, not the priest, bishop or Catholic Church.

Well, duh!

If God has given us the Bible as our guide, I believe He expects us to know it. He was the One who said "Search the Scriptures." He wasn't speaking to the Catholics. He was speaking to all.
DHK

I certainly haven't argued otherwise.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by DHK:
But believe what you will, Catholics are very adept at revisionist history.
DHK

You mean like "Bloody Mary" and "Good Queen Bess"?

 

[Eladar]

DHK, I'm not Catholic!!!!

Ask Ron and he'll probably tell you that I'm more anti-Catholic than you are.

Acts 17:11 teaches soul liberty. So does 2Peter 1:20,21. Baptists have held to this historic belief much longer than you care to think--long before the Reformation.

Soul Liberty says that you can't judge false doctrine. It is as simple as that. That is why those who teach that homosexuality is good in the sight of the Lord must be allowed the label Baptist. Therefore the likes of post-it and Joshua can post in about every section of this site.

2 Peter 1:20-21

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

All Paul is saying is that the prophets spoke the words of God, not their own words. If this isn't a twisting of scripture, I don't know what is.

Acts 17:11

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

How this fits Soul Liberty I'll never know. It has everything to do with personal interpretation and discerning truth from false doctrine. Something Baptists aren't allowed to do because of the doctrine of Soul Liberty.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Hi Nils, good to see you.

Originally posted by Tuor:
Soul Liberty says that you can't judge false doctrine. It is as simple as that.

This is exactly opposite of true. We can not keep another from using the name Baptist, but we can certainly discern false teachings. Soul liberty, or more specifiacally "soul competency" (a very related concept) is what enables us to do so.

As I said in the last conversation of this nature, Jim Jones, Charlie Manson, and David Koresh all called themselves "Christian." That does not mean that the label applies but rather that is what they called themselves.

Because of individual accountability between myself and God, I would not attend a church that taught that homosexuality was not a sin. That is my right, my choice as an individual and duty as one who does not forsake the assembly of like-minded believers. I recognize homosexuality as a sin because of the overwhelming evidence in Scripture that it is. Hence, no matter what man says that it is acceptable to God, I know better and conduct my thoughts and conversations to reflect such.

Likewise, I would be quite cautious in allowing a person who espoused such ideas in joining my own church.

True Christian convictions come not from man and his arguments but rather true conviction comes from the Holy Spirit. Hence, I pray for salvation for those folks, I try to act as an instrument in bringing about realization to the lost, but in no way am I under any obligation to believe or espouse their teachings. That is between them and their Judge.

 

[Eladar]

This is exactly opposite of true. We can not keep another from using the name Baptist, but we can certainly discern false teachings. Soul liberty, or more specifiacally "soul competency" (a very related concept) is what enables us to do so.

Hello Clint!

It is true that you can't keep another from using the name Baptist, but you don't have to recognize the use of the name. It is "soul competency" that mandates that you recognize the others as Baptists. In doing so, you must recognize them as fellow Christians.

 

[thessalonian]

"Though it is very poor argumentation on the point and I would normally not even comment, this is too good to pass up.

Please show me anywhere on the board in any post that I have quoted a passage from the King James Version of the Bible. "

Your logic is of the nature, well I'm not a member of the KKK. I never killed anybody. But when stuff is associated with your Church you say "they did it". Yet a Catholic does something and the whole Catholic Church did it. Your a hypocrit Clint. Oh yes I know for our leaders there is no such thing as personal sin. If the Pope sins the whole Catholic Church is damned to hell over it.

Why Clint, you mean to tell me your the only Baptist who doesn't own a King James Bible? That was really some slick arguing there Clint. You sure made a fool out of me. KJV the most perfect Bible in the world most Baptists will say. Soul Liberty, now that is a universal Baptist doctrine that only those who excercise there soul liberty don't have to go by. But KJV being the only legit version of the Bible, well that is not a true doctrine unless of course your using your soul liberty to say it is. Then it is the trueest thing since sliced bread.

Try to understand that when I am writing these posts it is not just you that I have in mind. I know full well that no protestant is like another.
I understand that I am not going to convince you of anything. When I post it is for the reading audience. Try not to take it so personal. 90% or better of Baptists use King James Bibles. It is the most purchased version among Protestants. Why would Protestants name their Bibles after someone who burned a Baptist and thought every woman he didn't like was a witch and burned them also. In fact I am trying to remember if any Catholic Bibles have a name attached to them of a man. Seems like a pretty high honor to me for someone who burned people.
While I know of the Tyndale, KJV, and a few others that slip my mind.


Blessings

 

[Glorious]

Not very amusing when the observation is not very Biblical.
DHK

Hey, lighten up, DHK I've never yet seen you with a smile on your face!

Lift your head and smell the beautiful roses, my friend!

 

[Eladar]

Thessalonian,

There is one hitch to playing the "Soul Liberty" card. If you want to play it, it must go both ways. In other words, if you want to be covered by it, you must recognize that all others are Christians too.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Tuor:
Thessalonian,

There is one hitch to playing the "Soul Liberty" card. If you want to play it, it must go both ways. In other words, if you want to be covered by it, you must recognize that all others are Christians too.

Certainly the Catholic Church considers other Christians as true brothers and sisters in Christ, who are in real but imperfect communion with His Church. After all, they are using most of our bible!

This is why other Christian baptisms are accepted as valid by the Church, if they were performed properly (I think that requires correct intent, trinitarian form, flowing water)

 

[Eladar]

No, I don't think you understand. You must call anyone who claims to be a Christian a brother in Christ. If they teach that practicing homosexuality is good in the sight of the Lord, you must still call them a brother in Christ.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MikeS:

Sounds to me like you're just describing freedom of speech and/or freedom of thought. Of course I'm free to say and think whatever I want as a Catholic, but that doesn't mean that, no matter what I say or think I can legitimately claim to be a Catholic in good standing, or that I correctly represent Catholic teaching. I don't get to define what being a Catholic is.

And according to Catholic teaching you don't even get the right to "think" or "interpret" what the Bible says. Only a priest can do that. So next time you say, "Well I think it means..." don't! As a Catholic you are not permitted. When it comes to Biblical interpretation, the Catholic church calls all the shots. As a Catholic, in their eyes, you have no soul liberty.

Secondly, it is you that has chosen to believe that the Catholic Church's teachings are divinely revealed, and you must submit to them, just like any other cult must submit to the "divinely" revealed authority of their sect. You have made that choice. That is where your soul liberty ended if you carried it out perfectly.

Just as Christ was either Lord, lunatic or liar, so the Catholic Church is either Divine or Demonic. It is different from any other organization on earth, being that it understands itself to be a supernatural organism. You throw around words like "cult" because you don't believe it is the church founded by Christ, just like many non-Christians throw around words like "brainwashed" in regard to all Christians because they don't believe in God and/or Christ as the Son of God. Just as there can be both brainwashed people and people who believe in the revealed Christ, so there can be both cults and the true Church of Christ here on earth. It's another example of where Catholic both-and thinking gets at the truth that either-or thinking cannot reach.

Yes, I believe in Biblical Christianity which started with Christ; not in Catholicism which started with a pagan emperor named Constantine. You can be adamant as you like that you are the one true church. You can call black white if you wish, but that won't change the facts of history any. Ask Frank. He believes that he belongs to the one and only true church. I don't agree with him either.

We believe that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

That's good as far as it goes, but Christ didn't write a bible, He founded a Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth." What would happen if every American walked around with a copy of the Constitution and behaved in whatever manner they discerned from reading their copy of the Constitution? Your model simply doesn't work.

Your working from a false premise. Study it out. The word church (ekklesia) means assembly. Christ established his assembly, a group of disciples at that time which assembled together with Christ. Later when the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost came, there was an assembly at Jerusalem that had gathered together where 3,000 were saved. And the Lord added to that assembly daily. There were also assemblies found at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Smyrna, and other places. There was no universal assembly, and never will be until all believers are gathered together in one place in Heaven. There is no such thing as a denomination in the Bible. No church had any control over another in the Bible. They were all independent of one another. You need to study what a church or an assembly is.

Every Bible-believing church has its own statement of faith and constitution, and the members of that church full agree to it, or they wouldn't join the church. We understand that, because we understand what a church is. Our church is the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

No man has the authority to force an interpretation upon us. We all are priests before God; each one of us will give account before God, not some earthly priest. And the knowledge that I have from the Bible, I gain primarily from my own study. I will give account not just for what I know, but also for what I have acted upon. You will not give accounnt in the day of judgement to the Catholic Church. You will give account to God. It is He who will be sitting on the Throne. And He will be the one to judge you, not the priest, bishop or Catholic Church.

Well, duh!

I am glad you agree. This is what soul liberty is all about--our personal responsibility to study the Bible (and interpret it) knowing full well we will give account of ourselves to God. Here you agree with me. Previously you disagreed with me.

If God has given us the Bible as our guide, I believe He expects us to know it. He was the One who said "Search the Scriptures." He wasn't speaking to the Catholics. He was speaking to all.
DHK

I certainly haven't argued otherwise.

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

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tuor:
DHK, I'm not Catholic!!!!

Ask Ron and he'll probably tell you that I'm more anti-Catholic than you are.

Sorry for the confusion Tuor.

Acts 17:11 teaches soul liberty. So does 2Peter 1:20,21. Baptists have held to this historic belief much longer than you care to think--long before the Reformation.

Soul Liberty says that you can't judge false doctrine. It is as simple as that. That is why those who teach that homosexuality is good in the sight of the Lord must be allowed the label Baptist. Therefore the likes of post-it and Joshua can post in about every section of this site.

As you have probably read a few of my posts on other threads, you may know that I have been quite forthright in condemning the falsity of other religions, especially the Catholics.
What soul liberty does, is give me that right to express my condemnation of false doctrine, and at the same time give others the same right to defend or preach their false doctrine.
Almost any country that has a state-religion will not have soul liberty. For example if you go to Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the state-religion, and try and preach Christ freely, you will be either locked up permanently or killed. Neither do you have that freedom in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Where a state-religion exists it is difficult for soul liberty or freedom of religion to exist. This was particularly true during the reigns of Anglican or Catholic monarchs, as they became the official heads of the religion of their country. Many protestants died under their reigns.

2 Peter 1:20-21

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

All Paul is saying is that the prophets spoke the words of God, not their own words. If this isn't a twisting of scripture, I don't know what is.

No, that is not what it means. It says plainly that the Scripture is of no private interpretation. That means that no group of people (such as the Catholic Church) has any claim on the interpretation of the Bible. No group does. We are all priests before God. We are all responsible to God. We all must interpret the Scriptures as we believe the Holy Spirit leads us. Actually the word "interpret" is not really a good word to use. The Bible interprets itself. It is up to us to "rightly divide the Word of truth." That is, to put the parts together properly.

Acts 17:11

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

How this fits Soul Liberty I'll never know. It has everything to do with personal interpretation and discerning truth from false doctrine. Something Baptists aren't allowed to do because of the doctrine of Soul Liberty.

It is the doctrine of soul liberty that allows us to discern truth from false doctrine. That is precisely why the Bereans could go to the Scriptures and see if Paul was right or wrong. They had the liberty to do so. Paul could not force them to believe otherwise. Before he was converted, Saul was trying to force them not to believe by carrying out a great persecution.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:


Your logic is of the nature, well I'm not a member of the KKK. I never killed anybody. But when stuff is associated with your Church you say "they did it". Yet a Catholic does something and the whole Catholic Church did it. Your a hypocrit Clint. Oh yes I know for our leaders there is no such thing as personal sin. If the Pope sins the whole Catholic Church is damned to hell over it.

I am not Clint, but I'll give you an answer anyway. The difference is: the Catholic Church acts as one organism, one body. You have one catechism in which you boast--one doctrine; you proudly tell us of how united the Catholic Church is, and how it is the one and only true church it is. So naturally if the Catholic Church is caught up in its own degradation and sin, it reflects on the organization as a whole. After all, it is you as a whole organism that claims to be the true church. If you are corrupt you are corrupt. You are the one playing the hypocrite. You are trying to paint yourself beautiful when your sin is ugly.

Why Clint, you mean to tell me your the only Baptist who doesn't own a King James Bible? That was really some slick arguing there Clint. You sure made a fool out of me. KJV the most perfect Bible in the world most Baptists will say. Soul Liberty, now that is a universal Baptist doctrine that only those who excercise there soul liberty don't have to go by. But KJV being the only legit version of the Bible, well that is not a true doctrine unless of course your using your soul liberty to say it is. Then it is the trueest thing since sliced bread.

By this post you have shown your ignorance still of soul liberty. In previous posts and/or threads we have described what are Baptist distinctives. In fact it was that particular thread that this is an offshoot of. Soul liberty is just one of our baptist distinctives. We have the liberty among ourselves to disagree in certain areas--not in those things that make us Baptist, or in those things that are fundamental to the faith. The KJV issue is not important. I use the KJV; Clint does not. It is not going to affect either one's salvation. Some use the KJV; some don't. So what!
It is not a baptist doctrine. But it is a good example where we have the soul liberty to disagree with each other, and are not forced to agree--even in the same church (at least some of them).

Try to understand that when I am writing these posts it is not just you that I have in mind. I know full well that no protestant is like another.
I understand that I am not going to convince you of anything. When I post it is for the reading audience. Try not to take it so personal. 90% or better of Baptists use King James Bibles. It is the most purchased version among Protestants. Why would Protestants name their Bibles after someone who burned a Baptist and thought every woman he didn't like was a witch and burned them also. In fact I am trying to remember if any Catholic Bibles have a name attached to them of a man. Seems like a pretty high honor to me for someone who burned people.
While I know of the Tyndale, KJV, and a few others that slip my mind.

People use the KJV by choice. I use it because I believe it is the most accurate translation that we have today. It also is the only Bible (other than the NKJV) that comes from the textus receptus, which I also believe has more accurately preserved the Word of God, then the Critical text. For those reasons I use the KJV. Others have other reasons. It is not a Baptist book or doctrine. It has been a popular Bible because it is a good translation well accepted by the people for the last 400 years.
The Bible itself was named in honor of the King who gave permission for the Bible to be written, and commanded that the best scholars in the land be summoned to translate such an undertaking. Read the preface sometime.
DHK

 

[Kathryn]

Southeastbaptist:

Have you ever read a history book on an inquisition?

I have read many, including the 20th century book entitled " The vatican's holocaust " by Avro Manhattan.

Avro Manhattan is a Knight Templar (Freemasonry) and has no degree or credentials which qualify him as a historian, or an expert on Vatican politics and world history. This is not a real history book. Jack Chick publishes his books now, not a reputable publisher.

God Bless

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by DHK:
And according to Catholic teaching you don't even get the right to "think" or "interpret" what the Bible says. Only a priest can do that. So next time you say, "Well I think it means..." don't! As a Catholic you are not permitted. When it comes to Biblical interpretation, the Catholic church calls all the shots. As a Catholic, in their eyes, you have no soul liberty.

OK, I'm running out of steam here, so I'll be short. I can "think" and "interpret" all I want as a Catholic. But I don't want to "interpret" the bible, any more than I want to "interpret" 2+2. I want the truth, and the Catholic Church, the living, supernatural organism founded by Christ, has the truth in its Scripture, and Tradition, and Magesterium. I study them all so that I may come to know more of the truth, not to "interpret" my way to something I decide is the truth. The truth is not mine to decide, only mine to accept, believe, and understand. It's that submission to the Church of Christ thing again. Truly, it does go against our proud human nature, no denying that.

...Catholicism which started with a pagan emperor named Constantine.

That old Reformation mantra, still going strong: "Gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church,..."

Our church is the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

One, holy, catholic and apostolic church -- one truth. Thousands of other churches -- thousands of other truths, contradicting each other at every turn. Holy headache, Batman!

Here you agree with me. Previously you disagreed with me.

I think my Jesuit-implant chip must be acting up. Might need to get the bishop to fix it.

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

Where do you come up with this stuff???? This isn't a Jack Chick thread in disguise, is it?


Oh yeah, "Gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church,..."

Nighty-night, I'm all tuckered out! Gotta go rest my ignorant zombie little head .

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MikeS:

If I didn't know any better Mike I'd mistake you for a Muslim.

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />OK, I'm running out of steam here, so I'll be short. I can "think" and "interpret" all I want as a Catholic. But I don't want to "interpret" the bible, any more than I want to "interpret" 2+2. I want the truth, and the Catholic Church, the living, supernatural organism founded by Christ, has the truth in its Scripture, and Tradition, and Magesterium. I study them all so that I may come to know more of the truth, not to "interpret" my way to something I decide is the truth. The truth is not mine to decide, only mine to accept, believe, and understand. It's that submission to the Church of Christ thing again. Truly, it does go against our proud human nature, no denying that.

A true Muslim at heart! Islam means submission. They have their Scripture (the Koran), and their Tradition (Hadith). They can study them, but primarily submit to them. Only the Mulvis, the Muslim clerics interpret them. The true Muslim simply submits. Allah is the true God, and Mohammed is the greatest of all the prophets. They are firmly convinced in their innermost heart and soul that their religion is divine, and that yours is not. They are the true descendents of Abraham, not you. But Mike you talk just like them. You don't have to interpret; just submit.

...Catholicism which started with a pagan emperor named Constantine.

That old Reformation mantra, still going strong: "Gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church,..."

Blame everything on Islam. We're the persecuted ones. Just because of 9/11, everything in the world now is our fault. Go ahead discredit us. Are you sure you are not a Muslim??

Our church is the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

[QUOTEOne, holy, catholic and apostolic church -- one truth. Thousands of other churches -- thousands of other truths, contradicting each other at every turn. Holy headache, Batman!</font>[/QUOTE]I know Mike, Muslims don't understand Baptist ecclesiology either. It is a difficult concept for them. They just can't understand that the simple word church (ekklesia) does not mean denomination, but it means "assembly." It is really a simple concept taught in the Bible. Are you sure you are not a Muslim?

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

Where do you come up with this stuff???? This isn't a Jack Chick thread in disguise, is it?

Oh yeah, "Gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church,..."

Nighty-night, I'm all tuckered out! Gotta go rest my ignorant zombie little head .

Aah Mike, You have that Islamic persecution complex again. And also that zombie-submission attitude that keeps one in ignorance. Are you sure your not a Muslim?
Lot of similarities there.
DHK