Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by mandym, Apr 14, 2012.
So how do these verse line up with "Soul Liberty"?
They don't. They have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at all.
Frankly, I had not heard the term "soul liberty" until a discussion bloomed here on the BB. I have always heard it as "soul competency." At least I think we're talking about the same thing by different names.
Here's part of what Mark Wingfield wrote
Here's the link to the full article in the Baptist Standard:
There are some beliefs that are so contrary to the clear teaching of scripture that those that hold them cannot rightly claim the name of "Christian".
Those who are Christians must do their best to educate such a person, and if they reject instruction, they must be considered an unbeliever.
The issue, of course, becomes what beliefs rise to the level that require such action? That is where "soul liberty" comes in.
I'll give a couple of examples of what I consider beliefs that require separation and those that do not. You can give your own, of course.
Beliefs that require separation: Essential Christian doctrine:
Any belief that denies...the full deity and/or full humanity of Christ...the death and/or the resurrection of Jesus...the authority and inspiration of scripture...that faith in Jesus is the one and only way to salvation.... and so on.
Beliefs that don't require separation:Church polity/other
Belief in a/an/that....private prayer language...women can serve as deacons/servants of the church...open or closed communion...types of church music...whether the pastor had been divorced prior to salvation...and so on.
There are many others. We must have great discernment is what is essential and what is merely desireable.
peace to youraying:
What absolutely amazes me is that when we really stressed soul competency, we produced mostly truly conservative, Bible believing and living it out church members.
Now, we are so afraid that the Holy Spirit won't do His job and want to make sure everyone sees things exactly the same, and we have the same miserable track record as the unsaved.
Maybe we need to back off and let God be God.
Gosh, what a wonderful concept -- a novel one, no doubt, to today's SBC! This would require that many who are now trying to occupy that position (of being God) would have to step down.
Nodak & Michael, I still don't understand what you are saying current SBC disagree with in Soul competency/Soul Liberty. It sounds like many SBCers would agree in general witht he idea, and I may be one of those, except I can't figure out exactly what you mean by it PRACTICALLY: See if you can help me out by commenting on the following hypothetical examples:
1. Should a pastor stand up in his pulpit and say, This passage teaches _________________. For example, can he tell his congregation that John 1 teaches the eternality of the Son of God, or should he leave that to their individual interpretations? What if he is teaching about soul competency? Can he say, This passage teaches that each of you can interpret the bible for yourself, and do not need me to tell you what to believe? Can he make that assertion, or should he simply say, "some people believe this passage teaches soul liberty, and you will have to make your own determination?
2. If you find a good, Soul-Liberty Baptist church, and you have only been baptized as a infant, and believe that to have been your valid baptism; would they let you join thier "Baptist" Church?
3. Should the SBC have statement of Beliefs at all? Should ANY church?
4. Should a church have any basic doctrines that must be agreed with to join the church?
This is a ridiculous and unncessary statement. Why is it that right now we have more missionaries and church planting going on convention wide than during these time when we stressed this error laden theology?
Your statement is ad hominem and ad hoc.
Again, my question stands for anyone who wants to defend soul liberty/comptency...at what point do I have the obligation to challenge your reading of a text that is so erroneously drawing a point not within five country miles of orhtodox theology? When can I do that and do I have permission as a theologian/pastor/Christian under the nature of soul competency to challenge error laden interpretation?
One of the great issues with soul liberty/competency is that it is a denial of humble accountability to each other to elevate modernist individualism. This is Mullins' error in suggesting it too. We must be reconciled to our communities, pursuing right doctrine and belief in community, and seeking appropriate theological accountability with each other. I am not an island of interpretation.
First of all, what do you mean by soul liberty?
The first two passages are dealing with sin and the last one is dealing with false teaching. The only one that may really factor in is submitting to authority with the 3rd passage. Let's see what you are meaning by "soul liberty" and we can go from there.
At any point you may do that -- that is what soul liberty is. And I have the liberty to reject you challenge.
I don't know why people are so afraid of differing views.
So even in the face of clear biblical theology soul liberty/competence allows for/justifies error laden teaching without submission to more informed sources?
You man, objection isn't fear.
I object to the notion that the SBC is no longer a Baptist group because of their (rightful) dismissal of this 20th century modernist theological invention. I am happy to have this and many other conversations and surely have adequate mental faculties to both understand opposing viewpoints and defend my own. I enjoy other viewpoints and enjoy being able to challenge them. Just because I object to your conclusions doesn't mean I am afraid of your conclusions. I just plainly find them wrong.
So don't attempt to dismiss the conversation by saying "fear" is what is behind my/our objections.
When you cannot really prop up your own statements and you are filled with bitterness that is all you have.
"You" not meaning you specifically.
See one of my answers in red, under yours above.
It has been proven that this is not a "20th century modernist theological invention." You have at least been honest up until now; don't forsake that in the heat of the argument.
Nobody has suggested that your mental faculties are lacking.
Not trying to dismiss anything, and not trying to make this personal to you or anyone else. I was making the observation that it appears the objection to being Baptist in regard to soul competency is based in fear.
Which is itself dishonest and a personal attack.
It has been shown that soul competency is a historic Baptist principle; it doesn't need propping up. What needs propping up is today's SBC.
I am not bitter.
I believe you are. That is my "observation". And when you are wrong (as you are) you need personal attacks like "fear" to prop up your position.
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.
Don't you believe that we should humbly submit to one another? Ephesians 5:21; 1 Peter 1:20?
Actually I'll challenge that and say no one has actually proven it at all. Nodak has only suggested a list of names with no accompanying citations. Nobody has proven that it is an accepted historical Baptist position that defines SBC life.
And hear me when I say this...my objection is not based in fear it is based in a desire to be faithful to biblical doctrine. I don't believe soul comptency/liberty defines what is and isn't a Baptist and I don't believe it is a helpful doctrine in its present incarnation.
I've had to basic points this whole time which have gone unanswered:
1. To define both soul liberty/competency and priesthood of all believers.
2. That no one has shown the SBC isn't a Baptist denomination per the OP.
I don't you and nodak have appropriately defined soul liberty/competency and I think, furthermore, that you've misidentified the priesthood of all believers.
Thus my objections aren't in fear, they are based in a desire for appropriate theological knowledge in conversation. I enjoy robust dialog and thank you for engaging thoroughly in this.
See my replies in red, above.
I thank you, too.