How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What did Peter say after this?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life

Again, this is as clearly stated as it can be. Jesus’ words (doctrine) have eternal life.
Peter found it hard to understand as well, but he trusted the Lord. I think that interpretation is consistent.
 
I would argue that one’s authority is dependent upon faithful interpretation, not the other way around. This seems to be the dividing line between our viewpoints.
Scripture seems to imply that faithful interpretation needs some sort of authority.
Acts 8:27-31 "Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch… who had come to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah… Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone instructs me?’
 
Actually, what is implied here is that since the Eunuch was unaware of Christ, he would be unable to see how this prophecy was fulfilled in him. Philip then used the scriptures to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, demonstrating how the prophecy he was reading was fulfilled. That being said, yes, the Church was founded to do just that, proclaim the gospel.
 
I would say that it also implies that authority is needed for interpretation of Scripture, but we can agree to disagree here.
 
Although I would also argue that common sense mandates an authority. 20,000+ different interpretations, presumably all of well meaning people, often in vital issues, is a little much. And I went with a very conservative estimate.
 
The same study you are citing says there are over 900 sects of Roman Catholicism.
 
The disciples that left did so because they didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah nor did they believe his teachings from the beginning, Jesus said. This passage Jesus talks about wasn’t what made the ones that walked away unbelievers. They simply never believed.

24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Not only did many of the disciples not believe but the multitude of people that just witnessed and was part of the miracle of loaves of bread and fishes not believe.

Jesus tells the multitude the same thing he told his disciples that it’s the belief in Jesus and his doctrine which is what gives eternal life. He says Labour not for the meat which perisheth. The human body and all flesh dies and perishes. He’s telling them to believe, nothing more. But they didn’t believe.

Verse 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Again, this is Jesus talking. If they just believe they may have everlasting life.

He repeats this again in verse 60 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world

By sacrificing his life he is giving all the world a chance for eternal life because his death is the atonement for our sin. All that is required from us is belief in him.
 
I wasn’t citing a study. What do you mean by “sect” of Catholicism? Many Catholics are not submissive to the Magisterium.
 
Last edited:
Just look at the context of the verse I cited. The only reasonable interpretation of it is that they left because of that teaching.
 
I would argue that one’s authority is dependent upon faithful interpretation, not the other way around. This seems to be the dividing line between our viewpoints.
Yes, but there exists interpretation of Bible which suggests Pope has authority- there is no interpretation saying each Christian can interpret Bible authentically, and Peter actually forbids that too.
I am not seeing how Jesus telling Peter that he has prayed for Peter’s faith so that once he turns back after having deserted the Lord he can strengthen his brothers translates to Peter and his successors are prevented from error.
There might be better exegesis but this is one I heard is being used- anyway, infallibility of Pope and Church are logical consequences of Bible, not necessarily things stated in it (again, I am open to correction). Why else would Lord even establish Church on Peter or mention preserving him? Why would it matter if Peter was not to lead the Church? Why would Peter leading Church matter if such leadership ended with his death?
 
Jesus clearly said they didn’t believe from the beginning. They simply never believed.
 
Again, this is Jesus talking. If they just believe they may have everlasting life.
Interesting. How does that interpretation square with say 1 Corinthians 12:2? "If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. Taken in the context of the rest of Scripture, faith without love is nothing.
 
Jesus clearly said they didn’t believe from the beginning. They simply never believed
Where does it say that these particular ones never believed? An unbiased reader would conclude without any hesitation that they left because of this particular teaching.
 
Verse 64 says But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Those who never believed walked away.

To your other point about
1 Corinthians 12:2?
Jesus gave the parable of talents. The servant that took one talent and hid it knew there was a master right? In this case it was the Lord. If you believe in Jesus, and love God with all your heart as Jesus instructed all of us to do, we should strive to God’s will correct?

The Bible says even the devils also believe and tremble. The bread of life from Jesus is his entire doctrine. If you believe in Jesus and do what he says you will have everlasting life. We can’t earn our way into Heaven with works but we must work to do God’s will and believe that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead.
 
Verse 64 says But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Those who never believed walked away.
It doesn’t necessarily mean those particular disciples. If my faith is right, but I become convinced that yours is, it doesn’t mean that I never believed in Catholicism in the first place. Again, an unbiased reader would conclude that the reason they left was the teaching on Christ’s Body and Blood.
 
I think we’re going in circles.

You take that as literal and I, along with millions of others as I’m not alone in this belief, believe Jesus is being figurative because he goes out of his way to tell the disciples the words he’s speaking (doctrines) are the way to everlasting life not cannibalism.

Jesus said It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
 
I disagree with your assessment that an unbiased reader would have your conclusion.
 
You take that as literal and I, along with millions of others as I’m not alone in this belief, believe Jesus is being figurative because he goes out of his way to tell the disciples the words he’s speaking (doctrines) are the way to everlasting life not cannibalism.
He goes out of his way to reaffirm that we must “gnaw upon my flesh and drink my blood.,” with a double Amen no less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top