Soul Liberty?

This is no joke Ron. But it is a joke if you have to back to kindergarten to learn how to read English all over again--maybe not a joke but very sad. Do you not understand the first part of the decree made by Vatican II.

“It devolves on sacred bishops, ‘who have the apostolic teaching," Then the entire paragraph is addressed to the cleric: bishops, priests, those with teaching authority within the church. This was not addressed to the common person in the Catholic Church. They weren't present at Vatican II. It is the duty of the priests and bishops to impart sacred truth to the church. In plain English the rest of the church sits like zombies and just absorbs what the priests and bishops impart to them. They alone have the authority to do. "It devolves on the sacried bishops..." Did you bother to read it?

In our church there is teaching, expostion of Scripture, exegesis of Scripture, the preaching of the Word of God, and the people, like those of Berea:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They search the Scriptures to see whether these things are so. They come back with questions. They are active in personal Bible study. They are not just sponges sitting in pew like zombies.
DHK

 

Read the post with the quote from Vatican, then read the above post to Ron. Do you also have to learn how to read, or just don't bother?
As I mentioned above the members of our church, go back to their homes, like the people of Berea, and do personal Bible study. They search the Scriptures. They study them like they are commanded to in 2Tim.2:15

2Tim.2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Neither the Catholic Church nor a cult has the choice to do this according to the dictates of their own conscience. And, you know this very well. You continue to deny it, but Christians have been killed throughout history for either having a Bible or studying one. Read the history of William Tyndalae. Read the history of John Bunyan. Read the history of Wycliffe. Are you ignorant of history?
DHK

 

Read the post with the quote from Vatican, then read the above post to Ron. Do you also have to learn how to read, or just don't bother?
As I mentioned above the members of our church, go back to their homes, like the people of Berea, and do personal Bible study. They search the Scriptures. They study them like they are commanded to in 2Tim.2:15

2Tim.2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Neither the Catholic Church nor a cult has the choice to do this according to the dictates of their own conscience. And, you know this very well. You continue to deny it, but Christians have been killed throughout history for either having a Bible or studying one. Read the history of William Tyndalae. Read the history of John Bunyan. Read the history of Wycliffe. Are you ignorant of history?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

Something isn't adding up here. You say above that only priests and Bishops can have and interprut the Bible. Lay people could not and would be killed for it. But interestingly enough both Wycliffe and Tyndale were priests in the Catholic Church so how could they have been killed for having Bibles. No, I think it is you who are ignorant of history. You believe what the anti-catholic websites have fed you.

[ May 28, 2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

Consider who wrote the scripture.

Consider who the scripture was written to and for, and you have the answer as to who can interpret scripture.

The Scripture was written by common ordinary people that God used in a manner not accustomed to mankind.

The scripture was written to and for common ordinary people whom God desires to call to Himself.

So the answer is the Scriptures are for ALL mankind to read, thus interpret, and take to heart. You see, All reading is interpretation, just as all listening and speaking are interpretation. Shucks, EVEN body language is interpretation.

INTERPRETATION IS WHAT WE HUMANS DO!

INTERPRETATION IS WHAT DIVIDES US INTO BELIEF SYSTEMS (ENCAMPMENTS)!

 

DHK, you have told us that in your church you are not allowed to interpret Scripture contrary to your church's faith statement.

By you definition then, your church is a mind controlling cult.

Glass houses, DHK.

 

DHK, you go farther and farther afield with each post.

How does a letter to the Bishops, instructing them to teach the Church membership = "the rest of the church sits like zombies and just absorbs what the priests and bishops impart to them"?

BTW, still waiting on that quote from the Catechism that proves that Catholics are forbidden from interpreting Scripture.


False witness is very unbecoming of a Christian.

Ron

 

Now that you have the quote of the catechism,
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
"I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE"

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN
paragraph 100

you can start defending it. Did you not know that this rule existed?

 

Here's a quote I found today in a story about Scott Hahn:

"Dei Verbum" says that the magisterium alone has the responsibility of authentically interpreting the Word of God. Non-Catholics and dissenting Catholics have sometimes presented this as a demotion -- having to submit to authority outside themselves -- but it's not a demotion. It's actually a promotion.

Who, after all, is more powerful, the mayor of a village or the vice-president of a nation? We are actually more powerful when we place ourselves in the service of a greater power.

So Catholic interpreters are not prevented from going deeper; they're empowered to go deeper. Since we're able to avoid certain errors, we can explore the Bible with greater freedom, power and assurance.

(http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=36229)

Aside from noticing what a fine Catholic Scott has become I notice that he uses the word "interpret" in two different senses, which may be the source of some of the confusion here. The Church doesn't tell us what every verse in the bible means, it only infallibly interprets the big picture, the main truths. Within those boundrys of truth we are free and encouraged to interpret and explore the details which the truth to life. As a Catholic I can interpret many areas of the bible, but I can't interpret it e.g. to teach a denial of the divinity of Christ. Or, that is, I can, but then I have no business still calling myself a Catholic.

 

This is what I like about the ilks of Scott Hahn. They ae sooo good at double-speak.
It's not a demotion. It's actually a promotion. Hah! Wishful thinking!

I believe most of us would rather be the more powerful (i.e., the president), then to place ouselves in the services (as ditch-diggers) in the service of that greater power. Well Mike, I am glad that you and your friend, Scott, would like to aspire to be common ditch diggers, but I have greater goals in my life that that. C.H. Spurgeon once said that "if God has called you to preach God's word never stoop so low as to be a king."

More double-speak. By "Catholic interpreters" it is really meant the Catholic authorities of the Magesterium, or the Bishops. He is not referring to the common person of the Catholic Church at all. The average Catholic is not empowered to go deeper because he cannot interpret the Scripture without the consent and official interpretation of the magesterium itself.

That's too bad that you don't have that kind of scholarship in the Catholic Church.
I am preaching through the Book of Jude. I will have a commentary by the time I will be finished. So far I have 100 pages just on the first three verses. But I make it a practice to study, not just read.
DHK

 

Grace Saves wrote the following:
__________________________________________________
According to DHK, a Baptist tennet is "Soul Liberty," which he defines as: "the right to believe what one believes the Scripture is teaching to be true."

If that is the case, why do you call it idolatry that I believe that Jesus Christ is physically present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Eucharist, if I deduce this from Scripture? According to you, I am allowed to believe what I believe the Scripture is teaching to be true. This is what I am doing. But you then throw in a double standard and call me an idolator.

So, either Baptists don't really believe in Soul Liberty, or DHK's definition is wrong, or there is no such thing, since to be a Baptist really means to believe pretty much what all the other faithful Baptists believe.

In fact, since one has Soul Liberty to interpret Scripture, then he should be free to disregard other tennets of the Baptist faith and still remain Baptist (i.e., to believe there are more than two ordinances that one must observe).

I await an explanation.

God bless,
__________________________________________________

Brief Answer:

First of all, let me say, Baptist are not Protestant, even though we protest a lot.
Baptist were here long before Roman catholics.
Even catholic theologians have stated that in their writings against Baptist. (can give source if you wish).

Soul Liberty is simply, as one already put it, "free will."
However, I may add to that: once we accept Christ as Saviour, we now have the "liberty" to serve Christ, we did not have that "liberty" before we were saved. "Liberty" is NOT the freedom to live any way we want to or to believe anything we want to.
Before salvation, we were dead in tresspasses and sins. Christ has made us "alive" when we were saved.

The issue of someone calling you an idolator because of your belief of transsubstantiation is accurate. However, you may believe that because you were simply taught that from your catholic background and teachings.

As Bible believing Baptist, we use the Bible as the soul rule of faith & practice. NOT the pope, the church (catholic) councils nor tradition.

The belief that the bread and wine turn into the literal blood & body of Christ is false because: 1. it is not taught in the Bible
2. that belief is used by the catholic church to
teach that you receive Christ each time you
receive the eucharist. That would also involve the fact that catholic theology teaches that eternal secutity is "heresy."
3. It involves believing that Christ sacrifice on the Cross was not sufficient, and catholisism adds
sacriments = something with a saving grace.
There is baptism; eucharist; etc. They add good works ... and of course "outside the catholic, there is no salvation."
4. The Bible tells us to have "sound doctrine"
Paul expounds upon that many times in his epistles.


To be a Baptist is to receive Christ as Saviour, follow Him in believers baptism after salvation. believers baptism is baptism by immersion --- just as the Bible teaches.It is the 1st act of obedience that a new Christian can do.
Baptist believe in the Bible as the literally, verbally, Inspired Word of God.
It was written by Holy men of old as Petes tells us. The new Testament was written by apostles under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Not the catholic church, as they claim.

Baptist are NOT protestant
Baptist do not baptise babies
Baptist do not sprinkle etc.
Baptist believe in Eternal security
Baptist have 2 ordinances: baptism and the Lord's Supper which are NOT sacriments.

Now ... dear friend, hope this helps. i wrote it off the cuff. Appreciate your sincere question

 

Gladly.

Yup. Sure nuf.

Clint, if you will read further in the Catechism you will also see paragraphs concerning:

The necessity for free access to Scripture by all Catholics

Explainations on the fundamental principles of interpretation

Exegesis

The Multiple senses of Scripture

Typology

The task of exegetes

Is it likely that such information would be provided to the very people who are not allowed to read and interpret Scripture. Logic would say "no".

Further, you also would have found some information concerning "private revelation". Thats another way of saying "personal interpretation".

It is not the role of private revelation to surpass or correct the deposit of faith but merely to help us to live more fully in the life of Christ.

As I and my fellow Catholics have said previoulsy, we are free to interprete Scripture as long as such interpretation is not contrary to the teachings of the Church (deposit of faith).

BTW, to say that the Church interprets Scripture authoratatively does not mean that "only" the Church may interpret Scripture. It simply means that the Church has the final say.

Is such a position unreasonable?

I would like your answer to that by way of an answer to a set of questions which I asked earlier in this thread.

An honest answer to these questions by all participants in this thread would go a long way.

Ron

[ May 29, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Gladly.

Yup. Sure nuf.

Clint, if you will read further in the Catechism you will also see paragraphs concerning:

The necessity for fee access to Scripture by all Catholics

Eplaniations on the fundamental principles of interpretation

Exegesis

The Multiple senses of Scripture

Typology

The task of exegetes

Is it likely that such information would be provided to the very people who are not allowed to read and interpret Scripture. Logic would say "no".

Further, you also would have found some information concerning "private revelation". Thats another way of saying "personal interpretation".

It is not the role of private revelation to surpass or correct the deposit of faith but merely to help us to live more fully in the life of Christ.

As I and my fellow Catholics have said previoulsy, we are free to interprete Scripture as long as such interpretation is not contrary to the teachings of the Church (deposit of faith).

BTW, to say that the Church interprets Scripture authoratatively does not mean that "only" the Church may interpret Scripture. It simply means that the Church has the final say.

Is such a position unreasonable?

I would like your answer to that by way of an answer to a set of questions which I asked earlier in this thread.

An honest answer to these questions by all participants in this thread would go a long way.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]Great post Ron. I have never seen it in an examination of conscience where it included "did you read and interprut scripture this week". "bless me father I have committed a horrible act this week. I read and interpruted scripture". This arguementation is so silly that we shouldn't even bother responding to it except that it shed light on the darkness of the minds of those who would argue any arguement because of their hatred of Christ's Church. The arguement becomes even more silly when you consider the writings of the many great saints who were not priests or bishops, who used much scriptural interprutation and expanded the bounds of scripture but were not in conflict with the teachings of the Church. Teresa Lisuex and Teresa of Avillia (notable because she lived around the reformation and is declared a Doctor of the Church) come to mind first and formost. Catherine of Sienna and more recently Mother Teresa and many more. Writings far deeper in scripture and thought than any Protestant writer I have come accross. Heretics I guess because they dared to oppose the bishops and priests by interpruting scripture. Give me a break.

Further I find it interesting that in scriptures there is no one walking along the street who comes up to Paul and says, "he Paul I came accross this verse and like my interprutation. What do you think". To which Paul says "I don't agree" and they run off and start their own Church because they don't agree. The Bereans do not really come up with their own interprutation. The go and see if Paul's interprutation is actually in scripture. Yes they need to think and apply scripture. But they don't come back to him and say "Paul here is what you missed". Now it does seem that the Thessalinians do but then they did not recieve his word (Paul's) readily.


Blessing to all

 

You, as a Catholic are at full liberty to believe in "idolatry" as I call it, without fear of persecution. Consider John Bunyan. If he preached what he believed in (the simple gospel), he was thrown in jail--no soul liberty). I have the soul liberty to not only defend what I believe in according to the Scriptures, but to prove you wrong according to the Scriptures, even if that means calling you an idolater and a heretic. I ought to be able to do that without fear of persecution surch as John Bunyan faced, and I can. It is called freedom of religion. Soul liberty on that plane is simply freedom of religion.

When it comes to interpretation of the tenets of the faith within the Baptist faith itself, one is still able to interpret the Bible whatever way he wishes. But obviously if he interprets the Bible outside the realm of the distinctives of the Baptist faith he would no longer be a Baptist. If he would interpret the Bible according to the dictates of the Catholic faith, he would be defining himself as a Catholic. You define yourself by what you believe more than by the name you attach to yourself.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

When it comes to interpretation of the tenets of the faith within the Catholic Church itself, one is still able to interprete the Bible in whatever way he wishes. But obviously if he interprets the Bible outside the realm of the deposit of faith of the Church he would no longer be a Catholic in standing with the Church.

DHK, still looking for your quotes from the Catechism that prove that Catholics are not allowed to interpret Scripture.

As I said, I will accept your lack of ability to do so as evidence of your false witness.

Ron

 

Further I find it interesting that in Scriptures there is this one that the Catholics dare to call "Pope Peter," who said and did things contrary to what Paul had said and "interpreted."

Galatians 2:11-15
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Poor Peter!! Disobeyed the Word of God. Rebuked by Paul! To such an extent that Paul "withstood him to the face!" He not only was a hypocrite but influenced others to be hypocritical, Barnabas included. What things we can learn from the Bible.
DHK

 

Don't be so high-minded Ron. Clint posted that part of Catechism for you. Accept it.
DHK

 

Further I find it interesting that in Scriptures there is this one that the Catholics dare to call "Pope Peter," who said and did things contrary to what Paul had said and "interpreted."

Galatians 2:11-15
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Poor Peter!! Disobeyed the Word of God. Rebuked by Paul! To such an extent that Paul "withstood him to the face!" He not only was a hypocrite but influenced others to be hypocritical, Barnabas included. What things we can learn from the Bible.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, better throw his books out also. Peter 1 & 2 are in your Bible aren't they? Was that guy Peter infallible when he wrote them? Rip em right out of that Bible of yours DHK. Go ahead.


Geeze. I guess Peter wasn't a part of that foundation that Paul talks about in Ep 2:20. How could he be. Being such a hypocrit and all.

 

Further evidence how you guys either don't understand the Bible, or are unwilling to believe what was written.
DHK

 

Further evidence how you guys either don't understand the Bible, or are unwilling to believe what was written.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]God Bless you DHK

 

I answered Clints post.

The paragraphs he offered don't say what you and he wish that they did.

Besides, you were the one who claimed to be able to do it.

You haven't.

So I'm still waiting.

Ron