Soul liberty - Just a nice theory?

Amen to that DHK,

All true independent fundamental baptist churches agree in all fundamental doctrines of the Bible. Thats the work of the Holy Spirit thru His infallible Scriptures.

Jesus is the head of every local independent fundamental baptist churches.
No magesterium or any infallible pope interpret the Holy Scriptures for us.

Our bond is the Holy Spirit and the Word. This is so amazing that even without man made heirarchical organization with it's man made doctrine and practices, we still agree in major things.

 

Well, I don't believe this for a second, but fill us in, and tell us what the penalty was for interpreting the bible, and who told you of this penalty. They should, of course, be reported to their bishop for teaching false doctrine!

 

But to say "agree in all fundamental doctrines of the Bible" is not to pass on the truth or falsehood of those common interpretations. How do you know that all Baptist churches are not in agreement to false understandings?

 

Well, I don't believe this for a second, but fill us in, and tell us what the penalty was for interpreting the bible, and who told you of this penalty. They should, of course, be reported to their bishop for teaching false doctrine! </font>[/QUOTE]We were "told" not to, for lack of a better word. Obviously a priest cannot police your own home. It didn't affect me much as we didn't have a Bible any way. But that dind't affect the position of the church.
DHK

 

You have a great misunderstanding of the doctrine of ecclesiology. Every church is independent of one another. It was so in the Bible, and among IFB churches, is still is today. Therefore how is it possible for one church to pass on "falsehood" to another church. A true church never passes on falsehood; it exposes it. It never has the chance to enter it. So what you said never made any sense in the first place. Our church, as is every IFB church is the pillar and ground of the truth. It is the pillar, because we hold up the Word of God for all to see. Pillars are structures that hold up the building. The ground is the foundation. Our church is built on the foundation of the Word of God and at the same time exalts His name through the Word of God.
Your church is built on a Catechism and exalts a pope.

When you say all Baptist churches, and refer to all Baptist churches believing the same thing--that only shows your ignorance of the Baptist faith. I am not concerned with what other Baptist churches believe. I do not belong to a denomination. Other churches are accountable to God. Our church has Christ as its head, and we as a church are accountable to God and not to any denomination or any organization.
DHK

 

When you say all Baptist churches, and refer to all Baptist churches believing the same thing--that only shows your ignorance of the Baptist faith. DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Read the post I was responding to and quoting -- he's the one who wrote "All true independent fundamental baptist churches agree in all fundamental doctrines of the Bible."

 

Well, I don't believe this for a second, but fill us in, and tell us what the penalty was for interpreting the bible, and who told you of this penalty. They should, of course, be reported to their bishop for teaching false doctrine! </font>[/QUOTE]We were "told" not to, for lack of a better word. Obviously a priest cannot police your own home. It didn't affect me much as we didn't have a Bible any way. But that dind't affect the position of the church.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]OK, but who told you, and how was it worded? Since it is such a bizarre statement, I'm very curious to get details. Obviously, a human being cannot read anything without interpreting ("make sense of; assign a meaning to") it. Also, obviously, every human being brings into the act of reading a framework within which such interpretation takes place. So it comes down to a question of where did the framework come from, and how do you know its worth?

 

Your questions are absurd! I don't remember exact words from 30 to 40 years or more ago. Nor do I remember priests' names from that long ago either. I do remember principles and teachings.
Why would you believe me?
You don't believe your own catechism
You don't believe the words of Vatican II.
You don't believe in history.
You are like the unbelieving brothers of the rich man in Hell. "neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31)
No matter what the evidence, you will not believe.
DHK

 

Your questions are absurd! I don't remember exact words from 30 to 40 years or more ago. Nor do I remember priests' names from that long ago either. I do remember principles and teachings.
Why would you believe me?</font>[/QUOTE]So you don't remember any details, but you're sure that was what you were taught. OK.

Ah, but I do!

Ah, but I do!

Ah, but I do!

I asked for some evidence and you said my questions were absurd.

 

I hope you realize Mike, that hundreds, if not many more, read this every day. They see what foolish logic and nonsense you are posting here. I looked at your profile. You are younger than I. I do not even pretend to remember names of priests, much less even the names of any of the school teachers that I have had from Kindergarten through grade 12. Priests I met occasionally, compared to elementary teachers who I spent 30 hours a week with, or six hours every day. If I don’t remember their names, how do you expect me to remember the name of some obscure priest?
Also, My father was in the Armed Forces. Every 3 to 4 years we would move. From Quebec, to Ontario, to Germany, to Manitoba, to Alberta: and in some of those areas we lived in more than one city. There were many schools, and thus many churches, and many, many priests. Do you see the ridiculousness of your question?

Let’s put it this way. I know what the first and second laws of thermodynamics are. I have been taught them, and taught them well. I don’t know the name of the teacher who taught them to me. I don’t even know the name of the school where I was taught them. It is the principles that I was taught that was important, not the teacher, not the school, not the place—but the principles of thermodynamics. The fact that they were taught was the most important thing.
Likewise, the fact was that the reading of the Bible was discouraged; the fact that it could only be interpreted by a priest was taught. It was taught by the Catholic Church. It was taught consistently. I could not tell you the name of the priest or priests, or not even all the churches. The reason for that is obvious. I left the Catholic Church a long time ago—over thirty years ago. I remember principles Mike, not who the principles were taught by. That part is irrelevant.

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."[42]
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."[43]

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."[47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome

88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them.

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them[53] and guides them into all truth.[54]

HOWEVER
93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."[56]

The church does not teach soul liberty. It is obvious that only the Magesterium can interpret the Scriptures. You do not believe your own Catechism, do you? You have been outright dishonest on this board, or just plain ignorant—which do you choose?

I will continue some of your other point later.
DHK

 

Well, I don't believe this for a second, but fill us in, and tell us what the penalty was for interpreting the bible, and who told you of this penalty. They should, of course, be reported to their bishop for teaching false doctrine! </font>[/QUOTE]Just to make it a bit more clear to all:

From: "A NEW CATECHISM"
Catholic Faith for adults
Palm Publishers Ltd. 1973
Imprimatur: Robert F.Joyce, Bishop of Burlington

Page 329, Paragraphs #361,262
It was formerly the custom in religious instruction to warn people emphatically against private interpretation.

Is that plain enough?
DHK

 

Quite. A custom is not a dogma. Obviously this custom, to the extent that it existed, was a reaction against Sola Scriptura. Even so, this is only a 3rd-hand account, and perhaps "private interpretation" was language specifically meant to denote interpretation incompatible with the Church's teaching. Who knows? Show me the Church documents that deny what we have been stating, which is that we are entirely free to interpret Scripture within the infallible teachings of the Church. Otherwise, at worst what you would have is an example of poor catechesis, and something to be corrected back into line with the teachings of the Church.

Is it the word "interpet" that throws you? As I mentioned before, we humans interpret everything that comes through our senses, and certainly everything we read. It is unavoidable! The Church alone, OTOT, has been given the gift of infallible interpretation, but the Church by no means interprets every jot and tittle of the Scriptures. The Church provides the island of Truth, but each of us is both free, and encouraged, to search out and dig up all the treasures we can from the island.

As Cardinal Newman noted, "the sacred text was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it." (Apologia Pro Vita Sua)

 

Quite. A custom is not a dogma.

Obviously this custom, to the extent that it existed, was a reaction against Sola Scriptura. Even so, this is only a 3rd-hand account, and perhaps "private interpretation" was language specifically meant to denote interpretation incompatible with the Church's teaching. Who knows? Show me the Church documents that deny what we have been stating, which is that we are entirely free to interpret Scripture within the infallible teachings of the Church.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Your logic (especially the lack thereof) makes on sense at all.
"This custom" simply means a change. The Catholic Church does this all the time--changes its doctrine. Since 1950 it has been the custom of the Catholic Church to believe in the Assumption of Mary. Before 1950, the Catholic Church had no such custom. The invention of this doctrine only came in 1950. Custom used in this sense only means change. In other words the Catholic church taught the people emphatically against private interpretation. In other words there is no soul liberty. They were not to read their Bibles and they did not have the right to interpret them if they did. The teaching is very clear, and yet you deny it. It is also taught in all those previous paragraphs quoted straight from your catechism which is found on-line.

As for your allegation that this is a third hand account, you are grasping at straws and sound like you don't know what you are talking about. It is the Catholic Catechism. It is an official Catholic publication. You cannot get much more authoritative than that.

Look again at Luke 16:31. Though one rose from the dead yet you would not be persuaded. Am I not right in these things? Your mind is made up not to believe, no matter what the evidence presented to you is.
DHK

 

Except for you?

May 31 at 4:19 a.m. in this very thread </font>[/QUOTE]Have your laugh, Ron. Is it at the expense of blasphemy. You don't knnow what our statement of faith says. Are statements taken straight out of Scripture infallibly true or not?
I didn't make the statements. God did.
DHK

 

I would just ask that you look at the context of this Scripture. It has to do with the origination of Scripture.

Neal

 

I would just ask that you look at the context of this Scripture. It has to do with the origination of Scripture.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]No I don't believe it has simply to do with the origin of Scripture Neal. Consider Young's Literal Translation of thiis passage:

2 Peter 1:20 this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,
2 Peter 1:21 for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

That makes it clearer, doesn't it? "No prophecy of the writing comes of private exposition." Remeber how you yourself gave a secondary definition of the word "prophet," as one who proclaimed the truth of God's Word. This is how it is use here also. The preacher who expounds the Word is not permitted to have his own private interpretation, or exposition of God's Word forced upon any group of people such as the Catholic's do their people, or other cults to their people.

Consider the context of the entire passage:
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Here Peter describes his "mountain top experience. He literally saw Jesus Christ glorified, along with Elijah and Moses in transfigured bodies. He heard the very voice of God coming out of Heaven. It was the most remarkable experience of his life that he was recounting here. He was an eyewitness of this event. This was not just some cunningly devised fable he was telling them. It was the truth; for he was an eyewitness of these things. In spite of what he saw; in spite of what he experienced, look what he says in verse 19:

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

We have a more sure word of prophecy. I believe this refers to the New Testament as well as the Old. The Word of God is more reliable then his own testimony. More reliable then what he had just described to them is the Word of God, that was placed in their hands. Trust in it. "Take heed" to it.

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
--But realize that this prophecy (this Word of God) is of no private interpretation. No man has any private claim to a sole interpretation of this Book. That is why Paul commended the believers at Berea when they searched the Scriptures daily, studied them, interpreted them on their own, to verify what Paul was saying; to see if it was the truth or not. Paul said they were "noble" for doing so. This is the context of this verse. Then he goes on and explain how holy men of God wrote the words of God by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
DHK

 

Do you revel in character assassination. I said no such thing. I went over step by step with you the policy of our church. Let me repeat it.
1. They must be first saved, then second baptized, and third voted upon into membership as to their testimony of being saved by the entire congregation of the church.
2. The prerequisite to them joining is the reading of the statement of faith and a total agreement thereof. If they don't like what they see they can find another church. Ours statement of faith basically defines a Baptist church.
3. If a some later time they come publickly out and say they don't agree with the foresaid statement of faith, and publickly say so we act according to the precepts that Jesus laid down in Matthew 18:

First, one goest to him and tries to reconcile him to the church. In this case it would be try to understand what his doctrinal position is, and why it differs.
Second, if he has not changed, and repented, the same person will take one or two others from the church and verify the man's unwillingness to repentance, and yet at the same time try to win him over, and see the error of his way.
Third, if he still does not change, at a business meeting of the church, he is to present his case, and the church would vote, upon his unwillingness to change; his unwillingness to repent, to drop his membership (you can call this whatever you want--disfellowship, excommunicate, etc.). The end result would be the same. He would no longer be a member of our church.

Mat.18:15-17
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.

This the teaching of Jesus. Take your quarrel up with Him. We acted in precisely the manner he instructed us to do.

What would be the result had not we done so?
We would have a false teacher from within our own ranks teaching false doctrine. This is the very thing that Jesus in Mat.21, Jude in his epistle, Peter in 2Peter, Paul in Acts 20:29-32, John in his first epistle, all warned of us. Beware of false prophets.

Don't be a hypocrite. If you read a document over say you agree to it, and really don't, then why did you say you agreed to it in the first place?
If you say you are a Christian, just saying it doesn't make you a Christian does it? Why say it, if you are not a Christian in the first place?
DHK