Soul Liberty

[Michael Wrenn]

There are a number of principles here, some that overlap each other and some that are often confused with others.

One is the Priesthood of the Believer. Every believer is a priest before God. That being the case we, as priests, can come straight before God. We also are accountable for God for what we do, and for what we believe.

Second, there is both unity and separation. A key phrase in the Book of Acts is: and they were with "one accord." There was unity. They learned to separate from apostasy, and from sin. Unity comes from agreeing in doctrine. Each church should have a statement of faith, in fact an entire constitution, which each member should be in agreement. There is no "soul liberty" there. If you don't agree with the statement of faith, with the doctrinal stand of the church, you should find another church. Otherwise the church is unified in doctrine as stated in their statement of faith.

Third, there is Soul Liberty.
This operates on two different levels. One is simply religious tolerance. It is a principle that Baptists have laid down their lives for throughout history. It is like saying in our age: "I don't agree with the heresy that the J.W.'s preach but I will fight for their freedom to preach it." That is soul liberty. Our forefathers fled from England, the Netherlands, and other countries to find that religious freedom here, but many of the Baptists only found more religious intolerance in some of the States when they got here. We fight for soul liberty.

On another front we also believe in soul liberty among ourselves. It is the right or privilege to believe what we believe the Bible teaches, as we believe we are guided by the Holy Spirit. Now keep in mind that in our churches we already have agreed to a statement of faith. So these differences are going to be more minor in nature. It may be in an area of interpretation of the Book of Revelation, and yet not contradicting the church's stand on pre-mil or A-mil, but more of a minor difference. We have the liberty to disagree for no two people will agree 100% on everything. That is soul liberty: the liberty to disagree with our brother on certain issues of the Bible and still be unified in doctrine.

I think that's a fair post.

No Baptist church I ever joined asked me to agree with a statement of faith. They just asked if I had accepted Jesus as my Savior and been immersed.

The little baptist church I am now considering: The pastor told me that I didn't have to believe in OSAS to join there.

I've never seen a statement of faith of any church that I agreed completely with. So, according to you, I couldn't be a member of any church, right?

 

[DHK]

I think that's a fair post.

No Baptist church I ever joined asked me to agree with a statement of faith. They just asked if I had accepted Jesus as my Savior and been immersed.

The little baptist church I am now considering: The pastor told me that I didn't have to believe in OSAS to join there.

I've never seen a statement of faith of any church that I agreed completely with. So, according to you, I couldn't be a member of any church, right?

One would assume that they would join a church with which they agree with in doctrine. Most statements of faith are basic. But if your beliefs are that different, then you could simply attend without becoming a member. One who disagrees in doctrine would in the end simply cause division IMO. I have seen it happen. If you were asked to teach and have a different doctrine how would that work out? There must be unity, confidence in one another.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

One would assume that they would join a church with which they agree with in doctrine. Most statements of faith are basic. But if your beliefs are that different, then you could simply attend without becoming a member. One who disagrees in doctrine would in the end simply cause division IMO. I have seen it happen. If you were asked to teach and have a different doctrine how would that work out? There must be unity, confidence in one another.

Here are some denominations and key point(s) where I disagree:

Nazarene: entire sanctification
United Methodist: polity, baptism
SBC: OSAS, women pastors
Pentecostal: Holy Spirit baptism, with initial evidence of tongues
Presbyterian: Calvinism
RCC: extreme sacramentalism; popery
Churches of Christ: baptism necessary for salvation

I could go on, but why?

 

[Iconoclast]

There are a number of principles here, some that overlap each other and some that are often confused with others.

One is the Priesthood of the Believer. Every believer is a priest before God. That being the case we, as priests, can come straight before God. We also are accountable for God for what we do, and for what we believe.

Second, there is both unity and separation. A key phrase in the Book of Acts is: and they were with "one accord." There was unity. They learned to separate from apostasy, and from sin. Unity comes from agreeing in doctrine. Each church should have a statement of faith, in fact an entire constitution, which each member should be in agreement. There is no "soul liberty" there. If you don't agree with the statement of faith, with the doctrinal stand of the church, you should find another church. Otherwise the church is unified in doctrine as stated in their statement of faith.

Third, there is Soul Liberty.
This operates on two different levels. One is simply religious tolerance. It is a principle that Baptists have laid down their lives for throughout history. It is like saying in our age: "I don't agree with the heresy that the J.W.'s preach but I will fight for their freedom to preach it." That is soul liberty. Our forefathers fled from England, the Netherlands, and other countries to find that religious freedom here, but many of the Baptists only found more religious intolerance in some of the States when they got here. We fight for soul liberty.

On another front we also believe in soul liberty among ourselves. It is the right or privilege to believe what we believe the Bible teaches, as we believe we are guided by the Holy Spirit. Now keep in mind that in our churches we already have agreed to a statement of faith. So these differences are going to be more minor in nature. It may be in an area of interpretation of the Book of Revelation, and yet not contradicting the church's stand on pre-mil or A-mil, but more of a minor difference. We have the liberty to disagree for no two people will agree 100% on everything. That is soul liberty: the liberty to disagree with our brother on certain issues of the Bible and still be unified in doctrine.

Good post DHK...helpful to frame out the issue:thumbsup: Their is a clear distinction between corporate agreement being necessary, and being able to say that each one of us will give account of himself to God.....

real soul liberty in my mind would be christians being "free" to serve God by voluntary law keeping, toward God and man...Love is the keeping of the law. As unsaved we were lawless for the most part...as redeemed image bearers we are "free" to serve.

1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

The fruit of the Spirit is often expressed corporately.....we are not isolated renegades...God molds us together by His design, so we have some individual liberty,but within a God given structure.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Good post DHK...helpful to frame out the issue:thumbsup: Their is a clear distinction between corporate agreement being necessary, and being able to say that each one of us will give account of himself to God.....

real soul liberty in my mind would be christians being "free" to serve God by voluntary law keeping, toward God and man...Love is the keeping of the law. As unsaved we were lawless for the most part...as redeemed image bearers we are "free" to serve.




The fruit of the Spirit is often expressed corporately.....we are not isolated renegades...God molds us together by His design, so we have some individual liberty,but within a God given structure.

That's a good post; I like what you said.

 

[12strings]

No Baptist church I ever joined asked me to agree with a statement of faith. They just asked if I had accepted Jesus as my Savior and been immersed.

-So just to be clear, Its not that they did not ask you to agree with a statement of faith, they just asked you to agree with a very Simple, Unwritten statement of faith, along with specific practice (baptism), but not to affirm agreement with their longer, more detailed statement of faith, Right?

The little baptist church I am now considering: The pastor told me that I didn't have to believe in OSAS to join there.

-I think that's as it should be. Our (SBC) church does not require this either. The chairman of our deacons does not hold to OSAS, although the Pastors do.

I've never seen a statement of faith of any church that I agreed completely with. So, according to you, I couldn't be a member of any church, right?

I think this question could go either way. I once sense you are right that you may never find a statement of faith you agree with completely (though some non-denominational churches have a very short list of beliefs that nearly any christian could agree with). This should not prevent you from joining a church. But you should find one that is close enough where your differing beliefs will not cause conflict.

For example, for me, I was looking at some church's statements of faith, and near the end it said, "A Dispensational view of scripture is necessary." And went on to detail their dispensational eschatology. Personally, I don't think ANY church should have ANY eschatological position, other than "Jesus is coming back." That's one thing I do appreciate about the BF&M.
-That dispensational church would probably let me become a member there, but I don't know that I would be happy there if they were always harping about dispensational stuff.

Anyway, it sounds to me like the issue for you is not whether a church requires assent to a creed, but how detailed beyond the basic Gospel that the assent goes?
-If they require that I believe in Jesus and be baptized, that "Creed" is acceptable...but if they require that I believe in OSAS or a specific view of end times, that is going too far.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

-So just to be clear, Its not that they did not ask you to agree with a statement of faith, they just asked you to agree with a very Simple, Unwritten statement of faith, along with specific practice (baptism), but not to affirm agreement with their longer, more detailed statement of faith, Right?



-I think that's as it should be. Our (SBC) church does not require this either. The chairman of our deacons does not hold to OSAS, although the Pastors do.



I think this question could go either way. I once sense you are right that you may never find a statement of faith you agree with completely (though some non-denominational churches have a very short list of beliefs that nearly any christian could agree with). This should not prevent you from joining a church. But you should find one that is close enough where your differing beliefs will not cause conflict.

For example, for me, I was looking at some church's statements of faith, and near the end it said, "A Dispensational view of scripture is necessary." And went on to detail their dispensational eschatology. Personally, I don't think ANY church should have ANY eschatological position, other than "Jesus is coming back." That's one thing I do appreciate about the BF&M.
-That dispensational church would probably let me become a member there, but I don't know that I would be happy there if they were always harping about dispensational stuff.

Anyway, it sounds to me like the issue for you is not whether a church requires assent to a creed, but how detailed beyond the basic Gospel that the assent goes?
-If they require that I believe in Jesus and be baptized, that "Creed" is acceptable...but if they require that I believe in OSAS or a specific view of end times, that is going too far.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

You have it essentially correct. My views are diverse; I don't fit neatly into any one denominational "system", if you will.

 

[12strings]

You have it essentially correct. My views are diverse; I don't fit neatly into any one denominational "system", if you will.

Thanks for the reply...It seems then, that I don't have much to disagree with you on this point, Except that unlike you, in my short (5-year) experience at an SBC church, I have found a good balance of centrality on the Gospel, and allowance for differences in Cal/Arm, OSAS, End times beliefs.

I do think they made a big mistake with the IMB/private prayer issue, and feel bad for those missionaries...and of course just as in ANY big orginization, there are people at different levels of authority who make unwise, or selfish decisions. Thankfully our local church is free to ignore most of the silly stuff and support the good stuff.

 

[DHK]

Sometimes sola scriptura and soul liberty have overlapped. Here is a famous quote which is a good example of soul liberty:

Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen."

Martin Luther, April 18, 1521

http://www.christianity.com/ChurchH...com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=04/17/2012/

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Sometimes sola scriptura and soul liberty have overlapped. Here is a famous quote which is a good example of soul liberty:

Martin Luther, April 18, 1521

http://www.christianity.com/ChurchH...com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=04/17/2012/

Yeah, I think Luther got it right that time.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks for the reply...It seems then, that I don't have much to disagree with you on this point, Except that unlike you, in my short (5-year) experience at an SBC church, I have found a good balance of centrality on the Gospel, and allowance for differences in Cal/Arm, OSAS, End times beliefs.

I do think they made a big mistake with the IMB/private prayer issue, and feel bad for those missionaries...and of course just as in ANY big orginization, there are people at different levels of authority who make unwise, or selfish decisions. Thankfully our local church is free to ignore most of the silly stuff and support the good stuff.

I appreciate your contributions to this discussion.