Soul Liberty?

Yes I know. My there are some problems in the Baptist Church that need to be dealt with. But lets get back to bashing Catholicism. The reaction to my posts from yourself and clint are not unexpected. Same or rhetoric and ducking the issues raised. Same old falling back on the same old anti-catholic propaganda that has been refuted time and time again.

Have a good weekend boys.


Now are these baptists that were supposedly born again Christians really born again Christians. If not I am sure they think they are so how does one who thinks he is know that he is decieving himself. Especially since sin blinds. Were John Calvin and King James really born again Christians since they killed people? So perhaps they weren't but we really liked their Bibles and the doctrines so let's honor them by placing their names on things. Or is it that a Born Again Christian can kill people because OSAS.

 

Though it is very poor argumentation on the point and I would normally not even comment, this is too good to pass up.

Please show me anywhere on the board in any post that I have quoted a passage from the King James Version of the Bible.

Also can you show me any of the Scripture posted in this thread that runs counter to the liberally and biasly interpreted Latin Vulgate?

Please show me where I said this.

Please show me where I have condoned Calvin or, for that matter, Calvinism.

I can handle an underhanded character attack, but you'll have to do a little better than that, Thessalonian.

[ May 23, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

That's not really what soul liberty is, but your entitled to your opinion. And it is soul liberty that grants you your opinion to believe so.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Not exactly DHK. It is my God given right to do or say anything I like which might include following His will or rebelling against it. This has nothing to do with the Baptist doctrine of Soul Liberty.

It was born out of self defense and is in direct contradiction to the Biblical standard of standing against false doctrine.

 

Maybe that's what you would like to believe, but it isn't true. I find it quite ironic (and somewhat insulting) for a Catholic to try and define a Baptist doctrine of which he knows little about and barely understands himself. It was not born out of self defence, but out of the Bible. Acts 17:11 teaches soul liberty. So does 2Peter 1:20,21. Baptists have held to this historic belief much longer than you care to think--long before the Reformation.

But believe what you will, Catholics are very adept at revisionist history.
DHK

 

Right, I'm a zombie.

Sounds to me like you're just describing freedom of speech and/or freedom of thought. Of course I'm free to say and think whatever I want as a Catholic, but that doesn't mean that, no matter what I say or think I can legitimately claim to be a Catholic in good standing, or that I correctly represent Catholic teaching. I don't get to define what being a Catholic is.

Just as Christ was either Lord, lunatic or liar, so the Catholic Church is either Divine or Demonic. It is different from any other organization on earth, being that it understands itself to be a supernatural organism. You throw around words like "cult" because you don't believe it is the church founded by Christ, just like many non-Christians throw around words like "brainwashed" in regard to all Christians because they don't believe in God and/or Christ as the Son of God. Just as there can be both brainwashed people and people who believe in the revealed Christ, so there can be both cults and the true Church of Christ here on earth. It's another example of where Catholic both-and thinking gets at the truth that either-or thinking cannot reach.

That's good as far as it goes, but Christ didn't write a bible, He founded a Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth." What would happen if every American walked around with a copy of the Constitution and behaved in whatever manner they discerned from reading their copy of the Constitution? Your model simply doesn't work.

Well, duh!

I certainly haven't argued otherwise.

 

You mean like "Bloody Mary" and "Good Queen Bess"? :D

 

DHK, I'm not Catholic!!!!

Ask Ron and he'll probably tell you that I'm more anti-Catholic than you are.

Soul Liberty says that you can't judge false doctrine. It is as simple as that. That is why those who teach that homosexuality is good in the sight of the Lord must be allowed the label Baptist. Therefore the likes of post-it and Joshua can post in about every section of this site.

2 Peter 1:20-21

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

All Paul is saying is that the prophets spoke the words of God, not their own words. If this isn't a twisting of scripture, I don't know what is.

Acts 17:11

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

How this fits Soul Liberty I'll never know. It has everything to do with personal interpretation and discerning truth from false doctrine. Something Baptists aren't allowed to do because of the doctrine of Soul Liberty.

 

Hi Nils, good to see you.

This is exactly opposite of true. We can not keep another from using the name Baptist, but we can certainly discern false teachings. Soul liberty, or more specifiacally "soul competency" (a very related concept) is what enables us to do so.

As I said in the last conversation of this nature, Jim Jones, Charlie Manson, and David Koresh all called themselves "Christian." That does not mean that the label applies but rather that is what they called themselves.

Because of individual accountability between myself and God, I would not attend a church that taught that homosexuality was not a sin. That is my right, my choice as an individual and duty as one who does not forsake the assembly of like-minded believers. I recognize homosexuality as a sin because of the overwhelming evidence in Scripture that it is. Hence, no matter what man says that it is acceptable to God, I know better and conduct my thoughts and conversations to reflect such.

Likewise, I would be quite cautious in allowing a person who espoused such ideas in joining my own church.

True Christian convictions come not from man and his arguments but rather true conviction comes from the Holy Spirit. Hence, I pray for salvation for those folks, I try to act as an instrument in bringing about realization to the lost, but in no way am I under any obligation to believe or espouse their teachings. That is between them and their Judge.

 

Hello Clint!

It is true that you can't keep another from using the name Baptist, but you don't have to recognize the use of the name. It is "soul competency" that mandates that you recognize the others as Baptists. In doing so, you must recognize them as fellow Christians.

 

"Though it is very poor argumentation on the point and I would normally not even comment, this is too good to pass up.

Please show me anywhere on the board in any post that I have quoted a passage from the King James Version of the Bible. "

Your logic is of the nature, well I'm not a member of the KKK. I never killed anybody. But when stuff is associated with your Church you say "they did it". Yet a Catholic does something and the whole Catholic Church did it. Your a hypocrit Clint. Oh yes I know for our leaders there is no such thing as personal sin. If the Pope sins the whole Catholic Church is damned to hell over it.

Why Clint, you mean to tell me your the only Baptist who doesn't own a King James Bible? That was really some slick arguing there Clint. You sure made a fool out of me. KJV the most perfect Bible in the world most Baptists will say. Soul Liberty, now that is a universal Baptist doctrine that only those who excercise there soul liberty don't have to go by. But KJV being the only legit version of the Bible, well that is not a true doctrine unless of course your using your soul liberty to say it is. Then it is the trueest thing since sliced bread.

Try to understand that when I am writing these posts it is not just you that I have in mind. I know full well that no protestant is like another.
I understand that I am not going to convince you of anything. When I post it is for the reading audience. Try not to take it so personal. 90% or better of Baptists use King James Bibles. It is the most purchased version among Protestants. Why would Protestants name their Bibles after someone who burned a Baptist and thought every woman he didn't like was a witch and burned them also. In fact I am trying to remember if any Catholic Bibles have a name attached to them of a man. Seems like a pretty high honor to me for someone who burned people.
While I know of the Tyndale, KJV, and a few others that slip my mind.


Blessings

 

Hey, lighten up, DHK I've never yet seen you with a smile on your face!

Lift your head and smell the beautiful roses, my friend!

 

Thessalonian,

There is one hitch to playing the "Soul Liberty" card. If you want to play it, it must go both ways. In other words, if you want to be covered by it, you must recognize that all others are Christians too.

 

Certainly the Catholic Church considers other Christians as true brothers and sisters in Christ, who are in real but imperfect communion with His Church. After all, they are using most of our bible!

This is why other Christian baptisms are accepted as valid by the Church, if they were performed properly (I think that requires correct intent, trinitarian form, flowing water)

 

No, I don't think you understand. You must call anyone who claims to be a Christian a brother in Christ. If they teach that practicing homosexuality is good in the sight of the Lord, you must still call them a brother in Christ.

 

Sorry for the confusion Tuor.

As you have probably read a few of my posts on other threads, you may know that I have been quite forthright in condemning the falsity of other religions, especially the Catholics.
What soul liberty does, is give me that right to express my condemnation of false doctrine, and at the same time give others the same right to defend or preach their false doctrine.
Almost any country that has a state-religion will not have soul liberty. For example if you go to Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the state-religion, and try and preach Christ freely, you will be either locked up permanently or killed. Neither do you have that freedom in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Where a state-religion exists it is difficult for soul liberty or freedom of religion to exist. This was particularly true during the reigns of Anglican or Catholic monarchs, as they became the official heads of the religion of their country. Many protestants died under their reigns.

2 Peter 1:20-21

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

No, that is not what it means. It says plainly that the Scripture is of no private interpretation. That means that no group of people (such as the Catholic Church) has any claim on the interpretation of the Bible. No group does. We are all priests before God. We are all responsible to God. We all must interpret the Scriptures as we believe the Holy Spirit leads us. Actually the word "interpret" is not really a good word to use. The Bible interprets itself. It is up to us to "rightly divide the Word of truth." That is, to put the parts together properly.

Acts 17:11

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

It is the doctrine of soul liberty that allows us to discern truth from false doctrine. That is precisely why the Bereans could go to the Scriptures and see if Paul was right or wrong. They had the liberty to do so. Paul could not force them to believe otherwise. Before he was converted, Saul was trying to force them not to believe by carrying out a great persecution.
DHK

 

I am not Clint, but I'll give you an answer anyway. The difference is: the Catholic Church acts as one organism, one body. You have one catechism in which you boast--one doctrine; you proudly tell us of how united the Catholic Church is, and how it is the one and only true church it is. So naturally if the Catholic Church is caught up in its own degradation and sin, it reflects on the organization as a whole. After all, it is you as a whole organism that claims to be the true church. If you are corrupt you are corrupt. You are the one playing the hypocrite. You are trying to paint yourself beautiful when your sin is ugly.

By this post you have shown your ignorance still of soul liberty. In previous posts and/or threads we have described what are Baptist distinctives. In fact it was that particular thread that this is an offshoot of. Soul liberty is just one of our baptist distinctives. We have the liberty among ourselves to disagree in certain areas--not in those things that make us Baptist, or in those things that are fundamental to the faith. The KJV issue is not important. I use the KJV; Clint does not. It is not going to affect either one's salvation. Some use the KJV; some don't. So what!
It is not a baptist doctrine. But it is a good example where we have the soul liberty to disagree with each other, and are not forced to agree--even in the same church (at least some of them).

People use the KJV by choice. I use it because I believe it is the most accurate translation that we have today. It also is the only Bible (other than the NKJV) that comes from the textus receptus, which I also believe has more accurately preserved the Word of God, then the Critical text. For those reasons I use the KJV. Others have other reasons. It is not a Baptist book or doctrine. It has been a popular Bible because it is a good translation well accepted by the people for the last 400 years.
The Bible itself was named in honor of the King who gave permission for the Bible to be written, and commanded that the best scholars in the land be summoned to translate such an undertaking. Read the preface sometime.
DHK

 

Southeastbaptist:

Avro Manhattan is a Knight Templar (Freemasonry) and has no degree or credentials which qualify him as a historian, or an expert on Vatican politics and world history. This is not a real history book. Jack Chick publishes his books now, not a reputable publisher.

God Bless

 

OK, I'm running out of steam here, so I'll be short. I can "think" and "interpret" all I want as a Catholic. But I don't want to "interpret" the bible, any more than I want to "interpret" 2+2. I want the truth, and the Catholic Church, the living, supernatural organism founded by Christ, has the truth in its Scripture, and Tradition, and Magesterium. I study them all so that I may come to know more of the truth, not to "interpret" my way to something I decide is the truth. The truth is not mine to decide, only mine to accept, believe, and understand. It's that submission to the Church of Christ thing again. Truly, it does go against our proud human nature, no denying that.

That old Reformation mantra, still going strong: "Gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church,..."

One, holy, catholic and apostolic church -- one truth. Thousands of other churches -- thousands of other truths, contradicting each other at every turn. Holy headache, Batman! :D

I think my Jesuit-implant chip must be acting up. Might need to get the bishop to fix it.

:confused: :confused:
Where do you come up with this stuff???? This isn't a Jack Chick thread in disguise, is it?
:confused: :confused:

Oh yeah, "Gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church, gotta discredit the Catholic Church,..."

Nighty-night, I'm all tuckered out! Gotta go rest my ignorant zombie little head ;) .

 

A true Muslim at heart! Islam means submission. They have their Scripture (the Koran), and their Tradition (Hadith). They can study them, but primarily submit to them. Only the Mulvis, the Muslim clerics interpret them. The true Muslim simply submits. Allah is the true God, and Mohammed is the greatest of all the prophets. They are firmly convinced in their innermost heart and soul that their religion is divine, and that yours is not. They are the true descendents of Abraham, not you. But Mike you talk just like them. You don't have to interpret; just submit.

Blame everything on Islam. We're the persecuted ones. Just because of 9/11, everything in the world now is our fault. Go ahead discredit us. Are you sure you are not a Muslim??

[QUOTEOne, holy, catholic and apostolic church -- one truth. Thousands of other churches -- thousands of other truths, contradicting each other at every turn. Holy headache, Batman!</font>[/QUOTE]I know Mike, Muslims don't understand Baptist ecclesiology either. It is a difficult concept for them. They just can't understand that the simple word church (ekklesia) does not mean denomination, but it means "assembly." It is really a simple concept taught in the Bible. Are you sure you are not a Muslim?

Aah Mike, You have that Islamic persecution complex again. And also that zombie-submission attitude that keeps one in ignorance. Are you sure your not a Muslim?
Lot of similarities there.
DHK