1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Soul liberty - Just a nice theory?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by trying2understand, May 30, 2003.

  1. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    You paradigm leaves no room for further study of Scriptures then - unless they submit to your church's private interpretation and interpret Scripture the way that your faith statement tells them that they must.

    After signing the faith statement, members of your church must become mind numb robots marching in lock step with your faith statement - or get shown the dooor.

    No soul liberty there. No sireeee Bob.
     
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Round and round the circle you go Ron. Do you enjoy this? Or do you deliberately show your ignorance to the public.

    I have said many times before: You define yourself by the things that you believe.

    If you want to believe SDA doctrine join an SDA church.
    If you want to believe Mormon doctrine join a Mormon church.
    If you want to believe Catholic doctrine join a Catholic church, etc.

    Are those hard concepts to grasp? You have the soul liberty, the freedom to believe what you want. If you want to beieve like a Satanist then go join them. But if you don't agree with any of the aforesaid groups don't stay and create a fuss, and oppose the pastor, quietly leave, enjoy your soul liberty, and join a church that you can agree with.

    On another plane there is plenty of soul liberty within the Baptist churches themselves, outside of the statement to agree to disagree on many issues. I have also pointed that out to you. That is the difference between the Catholic Church and the Baptist churches. You don't have that liberty. All your doctrine must, of a necessity, be handed down by the Magesterium. If you don't like that concept quit the Catholic Church, and find a church that you can agree with. But don't belittle the churches that have the soul liberty to believe what the Holy Spirit has led them to believe what the Scriptures teach to be true (Acts 17:11).
    DHK
     
  3. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    But you keep saying that Catholics don't have soul liberty.

    By saying that are you saying that Catholics can not make a choice to leave the Church?

    No.

    You say that Catholics don't have soul liberty because they are not allowed to interpret Scripture contrary to the teachings of the Church.

    Your definition as to "soul liberty" changes when you are talking about Catholic and when you are talking about Baptists.

    Surely, I am not the only one to have noticed this.

    Shall I go back and pull more of your posts to demonstrate?

    Isn't that great? You have the liberty to disagree with your church in areas that your church says that you can.

    That's liberty?
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    But you keep saying that Catholics don't have soul liberty.

    By saying that are you saying that Catholics can not make a choice to leave the Church?

    No.

    You say that Catholics don't have soul liberty because they are not allowed to interpret Scripture contrary to the teachings of the Church.

    Your definition as to "soul liberty" changes when you are talking about Catholic and when you are talking about Baptists.

    Surely, I am not the only one to have noticed this.

    Shall I go back and pull more of your posts to demonstrate?

    Isn't that great? You have the liberty to disagree with your church in areas that your church says that you can.

    That's liberty?
    </font>[/QUOTE]We have liberty to disagree outside the statement of faith. That liberty, then is quite extensive. You can probably discern that from a quick oveview of the many topics discussed in the Baptist only forum, especially the one for Fundamental Baptists only.
    Two of the more heated forums among Baptists are the Calvinists/Arminian and the Versions forum. You will find much disagreement among Baptists in those areas. Even in our church there is disagreement. It is not part of our statement of faith to be either a Calvinist or an Arminian. I am neither. It is not part of our Baptist of faith to be KJVO. I am not, but respect the beliefs of those who are. Those are matters of soul liberty.
    I suspect on the matter of Calvinism the Catholic Church has taken its stand, and as a good Catholic you will be required to believe whatever the church's stand is. You have no soul liberty in this matter. Am I correct?
    Also in the matter of versions: the Catholic Church has two official versions--the Dhouay-Rheims (sp?), and the New American Bible. They have no other official Bible in the English language. You have no soul liberty in this matter either.
    DHK
     
  5. neal4christ

    neal4christ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, and using my soul liberty I disagree! [​IMG] I just don't think that does it justice based on the context of the whole passage. Also, Zodhiates acknowledges this position (seems to prefer it) and your position in his study Bible notes:

    See, I am not just making this up! [​IMG]

    Neal
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I think I see your point. Nevertheless, the important thing in this discussion is to see that we both have the soul liberty to disagree with one another and still maintain fellowship while searching for the true meaning of this verse. I don't claim infallibility. It may be that you or I may change our minds in the future on the meaning of this verse. That is our right. And that is the essence of soul liberty--to believe what we believe is right according to our own study of the Scriptures (Acts 17:11).
    DHK
     
  7. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I know. As I said, you have the liberty to disagree with whatever your church allows you to disagree with.

    Catholics - free to interpret Scripture so long as such interpretation is not contrary to the teachings (faith statement) of the Church.

    DHK's church - free to interpret Scripture so long as such interpretation is not contrary to the faith statement (teachings) of DHK's church.

    I know that it is very important to you to convince everyone (especially me) that there is a night and day difference between the two situations. I am sorry to have to be the one to tell you: there is not.

    Ron
     
  8. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I know. As I said, you have the liberty to disagree with whatever your church allows you to disagree with.

    Catholics - free to interpret Scripture so long as such interpretation is not contrary to the teachings (faith statement) of the Church.

    DHK's church - free to interpret Scripture so long as such interpretation is not contrary to the faith statement (teachings) of DHK's church.

    I know that it is very important to you to convince everyone (especially me) that there is a night and day difference between the two situations. I am sorry to have to be the one to tell you: there is not.

    Ron
    </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, but the difference Ron is that he has the liberty to disagree with you and say there is a difference even though it is quite clear there is not. You are forced to say there is no difference because there is not. [​IMG]
     
  9. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless your church's faith statement is involved. [​IMG]

    In that case, you may not change your mind in the future on the meaning of a particular verse.

    In that case, you may not believe according to your own study of the Scriptures but must conform to the infallible faith statement.

    Ron
     
  10. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Why don't you quit playing games Ron. It is clear for every one to see. Go to any Baptist web site and read their statement of faith. It is one or two pages at the most.

    I have a copy of the "New Cathechism" It is 574 pages in length. It covers very extensively everything that a Catholic should or should not believe. You are comparing apples to oranges. It is called being a hypocrite and not admitting to the truth.
    DHK
     
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Yes, I know. As I said, you have the liberty to disagree with whatever your church allows you to disagree with.

    Catholics - free to interpret Scripture so long as such interpretation is not contrary to the teachings (faith statement) of the Church.

    DHK's church - free to interpret Scripture so long as such interpretation is not contrary to the faith statement (teachings) of DHK's church.

    I know that it is very important to you to convince everyone (especially me) that there is a night and day difference between the two situations. I am sorry to have to be the one to tell you: there is not.

    Ron
    </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, but the difference Ron is that he has the liberty to disagree with you and say there is a difference even though it is quite clear there is not. You are forced to say there is no difference because there is not. [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]You have the soul liberty to believe anything you want. If you choose to believe that white is black, and black is white you are at perfect liberty to do so. I won't stop you. I promise.
    On the other hand, you cannot force me to say any thing, as you just claimed--unless you plan to bring on the Inquisition again. Even then I doubt if you could get me to recant my words and break my spirit. We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion in this land. I am sorry you don't believe that, and still believe in the "dark age," where the Catholic Church tortured people beyond imagination in order to get them to recant or change their mind. I truly am shocked at your attitude.

    There is a big difference. But alas, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. You will not believe no matter what the evidence is. Neither did the Pharisees. That is why they crucified the Lord. I feel sorry for both you and T2U.
    DHK
     
  12. SolaScriptura in 2003

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    And no one will stop you from believing that black is white and white is black, that is no one will stop you from believing that "baptism doth also now save you" means "baptism has nothing to do with salvation." In fact, even God Himself will allow you to believe this lie. (2 Th 2:11)
     
  13. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    And no one will stop you from believing that black is white and white is black, that is no one will stop you from believing that "baptism doth also now save you" means "baptism has nothing to do with salvation." In fact, even God Himself will allow you to believe this lie. (2 Th 2:11) </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and that is the essence of soul liberty. That is why you have your church and can believe what you believe to be true in your church. Baptists have fought for this one principle throughout history more than any other, and have left a trail of blood in so doing. They used to be called anabaptists, meaning "Baptizing again," or "re-baptizers." Because they baptized individuals that professed Christ as their Saviour, it obviously had to be at a later age (most often teen-age or adult), they angered the Catholic Church because they baptized those who had already been baptized as infants by the Catholic church. They re-baptized them. This so angered the Catholics that the anabaptists were persecuted to death. Many were burned at the stake, tortured beyond all recognition. Not only hundreds, but thousands perished.

    Why? Because these people wanted the freedom to believe the Bible, the gospel; the freedom to baptize saved individuals, the freedom to interpret the Bible apart from the Roman Catholic Church. This is what they were fighting for. You have that liberty today (which is a part of the definition of soul liberty) because of what our spritual forefathers fought for.
    DHK
     
  14. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are these the same spiritual forefathers who gave our country the doctrine of Manifest Destiny? ....will of God for the white man to own North America, the new Promised Land for God's people..... will of God that Indians perish from disease of the white man. "Only good indian is a dead indian." Manifest Destiny didn't acknowledge these people had souls.

    God Bless
     
  15. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    No. It is not the Baptists that advocate uprisings and violence.
    Your facts are entirely wrong. I remember someone else trying to slam this one on the Baptists as well. I am a Canadian and can figure out your American history better than that. Manifest Destiny was not a religious movement. It was a political movement. It involved just as many Catholics as it did other religions. Read and learn:

    You are blaming this politcal movement on the Baptists?? For what reason? Baptists believe in a separation between church and state. They stand against racism of any kind. They fight for the freedom of others. I don't know what you are talking about, unless you just feel guilty about your sordid Catholic past, and are trying to shift some of that blame on someone else.
    DHK
     
  16. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does the number of pages have to do with the principle?

    Sort of like the idea of getting a girl just a little bit pregnant. :rolleyes:

    It doesn't work that way.

    You either have soul liberty or you don't.

    Your church tells you what you may and may not believe.

    Your church does not allow soul liberty.

    Ron [​IMG]
     
  17. faithcontender

    faithcontender New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Concrete examples of Soul liberty among baptists and catholic church:

    When the Catholic church is in power they persecuted the Baptists and other dissenting sects. When i say persecution it means they suffered because of their religious belief, it is different from so called "baptists" who were involved in political movement outside the baptist churches who opposed catholics. Now in this situation the catholic church don't believe in soul liberty, what they believed is that every person should conform to established catholicism otherwise you will be killed.

    On the other hand, when baptists were in powers they gave religious freedom to others. Example of this is in Rhode Island, this was once baptist's colony but they never persecute others but rather granted them the liberty to practice what they believed according to their conscience. That is what we called - SOUL LIBERTY.
     
  18. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've seen other definitions of SOUL LIBERTY.

    What you've described would be called religious freedom by most people. [​IMG]

    There is a big difference between the belief that everyone has the right to believe what they see fit and the belief that the you must call every person who claims to be a Christian a 'brother/sister'*.

    *As long as their beliefs have been voted on a passed by a local congregation.
     
  19. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, you are comparing a universal church with a church that claims local autonomy. Thus, one Baptist church does not have to take any responsibility for the actions of another. Which is quite convenient, don't you think?

    Second, what you claim as actions of the "Catholic Church" were often actions of a "Catholic state" or nation, in which you have individual Catholic monarchs or groups of Catholics doing things under their state, not under the universal Church.

    God bless,

    Grant
     
  20. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    You have just hung yourself Grant.
    1.
    A good comparison since the "universal" church is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and is totally unScriptural. The only universal church described in the Bible is the church of the Antichrist. Whereas the Bible describes in detail local churches. God ordained the local church as his instrument to carry out His divine will in this day and age. Strike One Grant.

    2.
    It is very convenient, and that is exactly the way it was in the Bible, and should be today. There is no denomination, denominational headquarters, or organizational monster like the Catholic church described in the Bible unless you speak of the one world church of the antichrist descriptive of the Catholic Church. What is Scriptural is this: The church at Philippi did not take responsibility for the actions of the church at Corinth. The church at Corinth did not take responsibility for the church at Rome. The church at Rome did not take responsibility for the church at Smyrna, etc. All of the churches (including the 7 in Revelation 2 and 3) were all independent churches, none of which had any power over any other. They were independent autonomous local churches, not responsible to anyone but themselves. The congregation was responsible to the pastor, and he to God. Notice in Revelation how Christ addresses the angel (messenger) or pastor of each church. He was the one in authority and accountable to God for his flock. He had no accountability to any such creature as a "pope." Strike Two, Grant.

    3.
    That is right. He did. Much of history shows that in countries such as Britain and France, Catholicism became the state-religion. When it is the state relgion the monarch is as much the head of the religion as the pope is. Bloody Mary of Tudor was a powerful and zealous Catholic, beheading many a protestant who disagreed with her, wasn't she? It didn't take the pope's approval. It was the state religion. Catholicism was carried out under the direction of the Queen.

    It is the same today with other state religions. Slander Mohammed in an Islamic nation and see what happens. Whether it is the President of Pakistan, or the King of Saudi Arabia, or the Shaw of Iran, they will all give an edict for some kind of harsh punishment. Any defamation of the name of Muhammed in the nation of Pakistan can result in the death penalty. Any adult Baptism in Catholic Britain in the Dark Ages could result in the death penalty. Not much difference. No freedom of religion. No soul liberty. There never is under a state run religion. Srike Three Grant. You are out!
    DHK
     
Loading...