In opposition to "Soul Liberty" and the opportunity of the lost to obtain salvation by grace through faith, are the beliefs of John Spilsbury, who founded the first "Particular Baptist" church in 1638. In a nutshell, here is his "Reformed or Particular" view:
I believe God out of the counsel of his will, did, before he made the world, elect and choose some certain number of his foreseen fallen creatures, and appointed them to eternal life in his Son, for the glory of his grace: which number so elected shall be saved, come to glory, & the rest left in sin to glorify his justice.
I do not think that "soul Liberty" has anything to do with TULIP, Free Will, Monergism or Synergism ... except to argue that men are free to believe any of those that they please and answer only to God for their beliefs.
From "
All About Baptists ..."
Baptists have had a long-term determination to adhere to the Biblical doctrine that they call "Individual Soul Liberty."
Church history verifies that Christians have died for this principle. The teaching that individuals are sovereign in matters of faith is one that Baptists will not compromise.
The individual soul is answerable to Almighty God and to Him alone. This precludes giving up that independency to a pope, a priest, a system, an organization, a convention, a fellowship, an association, or any other human being. None of these are given the authority to interpose anything whatsoever between the individual believer and God concerning any matter of faith.
A person may then choose to be a Baptist, a member of another Christian denomination or to choose no religious belief system and neither the church, nor the government, nor family or friends may either make the decision or compel the person to choose otherwise. Furthermore, a person may change his/her mind at any time.
This doctrine springs from the many examples in church history where the independency of the believer was stifled and sometimes even forbidden. Under the rule of Constantine, Roman law demanded that all people in the Roman Empire become Christians. The result of this law was forcing Christianity upon the masses by infant baptism and a meaningless profession by adults. Accordingly, the Dark Ages are a testimony to the absolute failure imposed on believers when the "church" begins to dictate whatever "truth" it deems necessary to force all members to conform. Not only is Roman Catholocism guilty of this but so are many of the mainline Protestant denominations.
Furthermore, Baptists themselves would do well to avoid the denial of this doctrine. Pastors who overlord their flocks or churches that submit themselves to denominational control will need to return again to the Scriptures concerning this vital historical Bapist distinctive. To demand, whether directly or indirectly, that believers submit to any kind of authoritarian rule is both unscriptural and, in fact, questionable. This generation has seen its Jim Jones's and David Karesh's. Whenever believers give up their individual soul liberty in favor of following the demands of another person or affiliation, they do indeed compromise this essential doctrine of the faith.
from "
Highpoint Baptist Church"
Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
(Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9)
from "
Baptist Press"
While Baptists have been known for holding their doctrines firmly and passionately, they also insisted on the rights of others to do the same. The news of radio personality Hank Hanegraaff, the “Bible Answer Man,” recently converting to Eastern Orthodoxy may have surprised many evangelicals, but Baptists support his liberty to convert. It was Baptists who first insisted on religious liberty in Rhode Island. It was Virginia Baptists who wrote to Thomas Jefferson insisting that the Constitution of the United States provide religious liberty for all. Baptists stand for religious liberty, so I am a Baptist.
On Jan. 5, 1527, Felix Manz was executed by drowning. His alleged crime was three-fold. First, following his conversion, he was re-baptized as an adult. Second, he re-baptized others whom he led to Christ. Third, he refused to have his infant children christened.
On the way to his death, Manz would not be silenced. He sang praises to God and preached to the bystanders. Upon arriving at the Limmat River, Manz was placed in a boat, immobilized and tipped into the icy water. Manz gave his life for the convictions for which he had lived.
Manz was one of our Anabaptist forefathers. He lived and died for the Baptist distinctives of biblical authority, believer’s baptism and a believer’s church. Manz was one link in our long heritage of bold, New Testament believers. Following our forefathers’ examples, let us never be ashamed to call ourselves Baptists.
from "
Baptist Bulletin"
Because we believe in the priesthood of the believer, we believe in individual soul liberty. This belief is the unique gift of Baptists—along with their cousins, the Mennonites. But it is often a doctrine we misunderstand or underemphasize. Simply put, the priesthood of the believer is the idea that every believer answers only to God through his or her conscience for his or her religious beliefs and behavior. Believers answer only to God and their own consciences.
So if you are going to persuade believers, you must use the Bible. A believer cannot be persuaded with moral force or individual force or legal force. We do not use human means to persuade people of spiritual things. We do not use the government.
This emphasis on the Bible is why Baptists have always taught that infant baptism is wrong: It’s done without the infant’s permission. Those who practice infant baptism force church identification on a child. The issue here is not just the mode of baptizing the infant; it is the meaning. Infant baptism is done without the conscience agreement and consent and decision of that child. Therefore it violates individual soul liberty.
“Soul liberty” is very different from “Christian liberties.” When we discuss soul liberty, we are not discussing American individualism. Believers are part of a body, and members of the body have a relationship to one another. Believers persuade each other—provoke each other to be godly, to be accountable to one another, to be submissive to one another. That’s a far cry from American individualism.
We cannot have autonomy of the local church without separation of church and state. If the government is permitted to control what we believe or what religion we practice, we have no soul liberty.
