re: Actor Shia LeBeouf converts to Catholicism

quote:

---

Sola Scriptura is anarchic. So you are saying that you (I ) alone am responsible for determining the true meaning of a passage. Talk about chaos. But wait, you say the Holy Spirit is giving you the truth, which is what a Brother once told me is dangerous in that you become the self appointed landlord of the Truth! Remember the devil knows scripture as well, probably better than you or I. Peter said interpreting scripture can be be difficult and at times it ends badly.

---

God had a particular meaning in mind when He gave the scriptures to us through the inspiration of the authors by the Spirit. Whatever God intended a word, verse, passage, chapter, or book to mean, that's what those things ultimately mean; we aren't free to make the passages mean whatever we want them to mean. Individual interpretation is not meant to be authoritative over God, but is meant to rightfully divide the word to discern what God had intended by the analogy of scripture, or rather, letting scripture interpret scripture.

I believe in the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture, meaning that it's core message and doctrines are clearly articulated so that any person can understand it. This is especially true for the gospel, that which is necessary for eternal life.

I also believe that the scriptures, in general, are given to us in a way that can be interpreted without great difficulty, so long as a person is familiar with the scriptures. What I mean is that if a person reads the Bible like they would any writing that is meant to communicate a message to rational human beings, then we can use basic context clues, word means, and grammar (aka, ordinary rules of language) to understand, at least on its face, what a given passage means, and then apply the context of the rest of scripture to understand more fully what it means, given some basic assumptions like: the Bible is the word and revelation of God; the Bible is inerrant and infallible; and the Bible cannot contradict itself because God cannot lie.

In addition, we can add on some basic hermeneutical principles of interpretation, such as: the Bible must be interpreted according to the genre of literature it is written in for a particular passage; the explicit passages are to be used to understand the implicit passages; and that the clear passages should be used to interpret the unclear.

quote:

---

Sola Scriptura is historically problematic. Thomas when he went to India did not have Luke's gospel. Peter did not have Paul's letters when he went to Antioch. So much of the Bible was based on oral tradition.

---

Again, this is a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura even means. It's a matter of authority. The Apostles were given authority to proclaim the word of God (not just anything they wanted to say) as they were carried along by the Spirit. They proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ and taught the very things that would eventually be written down in the scriptures. I don't deny that the teachings of Moses to the people, from God, were not authoritative until Moses wrote them down. What I would deny is that what was orally the word of God was something different from what was the written word of God, and that scripture, after it was written, was something less than the complete word of God.

I'm sure Thomas and Peter provided a lot of good and practical teachings that were based on scriptural principles in addition to the core tenants of the faith that would be recorded in what we call the New Testament. However, those practical (or even cultural) applications of scriptural principles were not authoritative like the word of God is.

The reason why the canon was written in the first place was to have a true accounting of God's revelation for the people, so that when people misremember or when they are told some other "gospel" than what they heard from the Apostles, the source of the authority for knowing what is true would show them what was right and true.

quote:

---

It's not until Constantine convenes the Council of Nicea that we have any organization of the Bible or any agreement as to what gospels were " valid" or for that matter what epistles would be included

---

A formal recognition of God's word is good for clarity and helpful for those who may have struggled in knowing what was what, but that didn't change what was God's word. Creating a table of contents for clarity is good, but just like Robert Estienne, who created the verse numbering, it didn't authoritatively create the Bible as we know it, but received it for what it was and provided useful clarity.

quote:

---

Given that, you come closer to traditions in Islam. Where Mohammed after being " devastated" by God in the cave, comes upon the Angel Gabriel who then orders him to " recite " and he writes the Sura's of the Koran. Hey Mohammed was visited by the almighty, who are we to question his interpretation.

---

The biblical interpretative hermeneutics is nothing close to what Mohammed claimed. That seems to be a misunderstanding on your part. I hope I have clarified my position for your sake in the above.

quote:

---

Since you claim a person who is visited by the Holy Spirit is saved and alone has authority to interpret for himself scripture, then what do you say to those individuals who may find aspects of the Gospels and Epistles problematic to their new worldview? Case in point the Eucharist. Jesus had a last supper he did all those things, why are you not making that a part of EVERY Protestant service?

---

First, I don't believe that a person who is saved and has the Spirit has the authority to interpret scripture. I believe that the Bible has its own authority to interpret it, and it's the duty of every Christian to understand what the Bible interprets for itself.

Second, those who find the Gospels and Epistles problematic to their worldview I would ask where they get their basis for their beliefs, if not from the Bible, and how do they know they can trust that source? Depending on what they say, I would then try to pick apart their own worldview to show its inconsistency and show how the Bible is to be preferred.

quote:

---

I mean is it also Sola Luther....Sola Calvin ( Calvin would think he was the authority on interpretation.....you better agree or he would have you arrested) ....or even more to this conversation, why not Sola Ego which you contend .... you just don't say it.

---

Luther is not the infallible authority. Calvin is not the infallible authority. That's precisely why I have said scripture alone is the infallible authority, and everything that Luther and Calvin said and wrote should be measured by scripture. I still think you don't understand sola scriptura, which is why you say these absurd things.

quote:

---

Hey guys look at me!!!! The Holy Spirit justified me and I am now the authority on all things pertaining to scripture and Christianity and being saved etc. Got a beef with that, take it up with the Holy Spirit. Well, what about your neighbor who also claims the same experience and listens to you and the comes to the conclusion that you are an Arian heretic ( you're not).

---

I hope what I wrote above is helpful to you. What you keep repeating is not what I believe.

quote:

---

What makes you so competent to freely interpret? Like I said, Landlord of the Truth?

---

The scriptures interpret themselves, and where they are unclear, I'm not dogmatic, unlike Rome.

quote:

---

Annnnddddd now you see the reason why Protestantism has devolved into thinly veiled moral relativism. Denominations have fallen and are ceeding more and more to man amd culture. How is it that such weighty issues as divorce, abortion, assisted suicide, trans surgery, gay "marriage", and contraception are now left up to individual to discern and interpret?

---

I agree with your concern, but I don't agree with your conclusion as to what causes your concern.

It's not sola scriptura (scripture alone) that has caused this problem, but nulla scriptura (no scripture). Modern day Protestants that are not part of confessional denominations seem to have thrown out the Bible completely. Support for gay marriage, no-fault divorce, trans acceptance, etc. are not found in the Bible at all, and there is no reasonable interpretation that can be had to support those things from scripture. It is the ignoring of clear scripture that results in these things, and in my opinion, it's the same fault that Rome has: it is the eisegesis of the scriptures according to tradition, rather than the exegesis of scripture to inform tradition that has led to what we are seeing today. Many professing Christians these days are influenced by culture and try to fit their worldly/fleshly worldviews into the scripture rather than informing their worldview by the scriptures.

quote:

---

Was this the plan? Why have churches at all if the Protestant is bent on radical individuality where self+text is solely sufficient?

---

I agree with you on this part. As a Reformed Christian, I actually do acknowledge tradition and the formal (visible) church--along with government, creeds, and confessions--to be an important part of the Faith that provides clarity, guidance, and order. The difference is that final authority doesn't rest with the church government, creeds, and confessions, but they are all subservient to the scriptures. I, too, am saddened by the individualist views of so many Protestants.

quote:

---

The evil and sad details of the solas are the foundational role they play in the moral relativism of last modernist age. The solas give rise to a "personal" truth that is wholly fabricated in the eye of the beholder and independent of the Truth which lies outside of us and is both binding and observable to all. The RCC and Orthodox never lost their correct appreciation for the Natural Law and appreciation for mother Church. The Protestant is forced to allow and enable through accommodation the numerous abuses of scripture which we see wreaking havoc on denominations throughout the world.

---

I disagree. The solas were rallying cries because they were scriptural, not because they were cultural inventions placed upon the scriptures. The solas didn't lead to moral relativism in the Reformers at all, but rather informed them of their need to submit themselves to the institutions that Christ had formed, as long as they were faithful to the word of God.

Remember that Luther was not attempting to destroy the Church with his protests against indulgences and extravagances of the leaders of the church. He thought he was helping to reform Catholicism by calling the church out on unscriptural issues. He was rewarded with excommunication for it, and that's when he became her enemy.

quote:

---

I also was raised Catholic and fell away (to a few years amongst the reformed). I (with divine help and guidance) returned due in large part to an inability to reason away the disconnect between "bible alone" traditions and their unbiblical treatment of the Eucharist.

How much clearer could it be? How have so many allowed their denomination's little "t" tradition to completely disregard Jesus' own words in the Gospel?

---

Jesus often spoke in metaphors.

Is Jesus a literal shepherd? Is Jesus a literal door or gate? Is Jesus literal water? Is Jesus literal bread? He said these things about Himself, but He was also speaking in word pictures to help people understand a greater meaning.

quote:

---

Wrong - Matthew 16:18 where Jesus tells Peter: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Catholics interpret the verse as saying that Jesus would build his church on Peter, the apostle: Jesus told Peter (Rock) that he would build his Church on this Rock (Peter), and that Peter was made the shepherd of the apostolic flock – hence their assertion of the Primacy of the Catholic Pontif

---

There’s more there than just that. Jesus asking who are the people saying Jesus is? Who do y’all say I am? Peter speaking up saying Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus calling attention to Peter’s creedal confession noting it was a revelation from God. It’s as much (or more) about the confession of who Jesus is as it is elevating Peter. Also there are some nuances respecting stones, rocks, and pebbles and to whom or to what each applies. So Peter may be proven to be in a leadership position but it seems the confession is what Jesus has built his Church upon.

quote:

---

So we're not saved by faith alone? In the end, we're also judged according to our works?

---

I never said,” what we do for God” but. “ what we do towards God.”
In others words, we either repented and accepted his sacrificial death on the cross as payment for our sins or we rejected it and chose to be judged by our works instead.

quote:

---

There’s more there than just that. Jesus asking who are the people saying Jesus is? Who do y’all say I am? Peter speaking up saying Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus calling attention to Peter’s creedal confession noting it was a revelation from God. It’s as much (or more) about the confession of who Jesus is as it is elevating Peter. Also there are some nuances respecting stones, rocks, and pebbles and to whom or to what each applies. So Peter may be proven to be in a leadership position but it seems the confession is what Jesus has built his Church upon.

---

Ephesians 2:19-21 talks about God’s church being built on apostles ( plural) and prophets, not on a single man, Peter. It goes on to say the foundation of the church is Christ, not Peter.


So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles ( plural) and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord


Ephesians 4:11-12
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ
Why isn’t the office of the Pope listed in the hierarchy of church leadership? Paul doesn’t even hint at a chief pastor or leader.

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:

Peter himself describes himself as a fellow elder and makes no declaration of some special role or office.

So we should accept a literalist interpretation of scripture ?

Or a disenchanted seminarian's interpretation or a self taught French preacher humanist lawyer who decides at 21 that he is an authority.

At least in the Catholic Church, they create roadblocks to this type of thinking that says you alone can interpret scripture and that scripture alone explains everything. Where's the formalized rigor? For that matter accountability when things go off the rails....in reality there is none. At least in the Catholic or even Orthodox there are hierarchies which at worst moderate it. Yeah if Rome says it, then it must be....for the time. Otherwise coherence suffers. Reliance on scripture alone isn't going to do it. You'll have competing narratives and interpretation that will assume they are correct. So the Baptists of Jackson believe X but the Baptists of Montgomery not only deny X but assert Y is the only correct interpretation.

If anything Rome and the Church at least seek to bring a certain amount of sanity to the conversation. The Protestant says that's too limiting....besides I'm a pious man

quote:

---

So we should accept a literalist interpretation of scripture ?

Or a disenchanted seminarian's interpretation or a self taught French preacher humanist lawyer who decides at 21 that he is an authority.

At least in the Catholic Church, they create roadblocks to this type of thinking that says you alone can interpret scripture and that scripture alone explains everything. Where's the formalized rigor? For that matter accountability when things go off the rails....in reality there is none. At least in the Catholic or even Orthodox there are hierarchies which at worst moderate it. Yeah if Rome says it, then it must be....for the time. Otherwise coherence suffers. Reliance on scripture alone isn't going to do it. You'll have competing narratives and interpretation that will assume they are correct. So the Baptists of Jackson believe X but the Baptists of Montgomery not only deny X but assert Y is the only correct interpretation.

If anything Rome and the Church at least seek to bring a certain amount of sanity to the conversation. The Protestant says that's too limiting....besides I'm a pious man

---

EXCELLENT POST. Thank you because I don't think that I could have said it as well as you did.

quote:

---

The reason why they were illiterate is because sola scriptura wasn't taught by the Catholic church. When the Protestant Reformation occurred, Protestants made literacy a priority so that they could read the Bible. Even many Christian slave owners (a horrid shame) taught their slaves how to read so that they could read the Bible

---

So you’re saying no one knew about Jesus prior to the 19th c, since they couldn’t read the Bible themselves and the Catholic Church didn’t teach them?

How was Christianity sustained prior to being able to read and write?

If people couldn’t read and the Bible is the only source of information about God and Jesus????

Answer the question, rather than making more accusations against Christ’s church. Before you say it isn’t, show me in the Bible where it says Jesus established 10,000 Christian denominations and he wanted them to be split and all the things they believed.

Is there a trinity?
Do you need to be baptized?
When should one be baptized?
Is they bread and wine the real presence or a symbol.
Should Eucharist be celebrated daily, weekly or monthly?
Is salvation pre-determined?
Can women be bishops?
Is divorce allowed?
Can same-sex couples marry?

If you polled 20 churches, you would get multiple answers to all of those questions.

Show me in the Bible where Jesus says this is what His church would look like.

quote:

---

You'll have competing narratives and interpretation that will assume they are correct. So the Baptists of Jackson believe X but the Baptists of Montgomery not only deny X but assert Y is the only correct interpretation.

---

The avenue for a person to be saved is simple and straightforward. It’s not complex, nor should it be. Everything else in the Bible that men squabble about is secondary.
So if the Baptist in Jackson thinks the Lord’s Supper should be held every 5 Sunday and the Baptist in Montgomery think it should be done every quarter, what difference does it make?