Protestants - How do you explain these 10 Bible passages?

[Holly3278]

Hello Protestants! I am just curious but how do you explain the following 10 Bible verses? I am quoting from the Revised Standard Version, a Bible used by both Catholics and Protestants. If you want, you can look them up in your favorite Bible version.

Mat 16:18 RSV And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 RSV I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

1Ti 3:15 RSV if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

2Th 2:15 RSV So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1Pe 3:21 RSV Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Joh 20:22 RSV And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Joh 20:23 RSV If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Joh 6:53 RSV So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
Joh 6:54 RSV he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 RSV For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 RSV He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 RSV As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 RSV This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

1Co 11:27 RSV Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Jas 5:14 RSV Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
Jas 5:15 RSV and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Col 1:24 RSV Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Jas 2:24 RSV You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

I look forward to your answers!

 

[JonNC]

Hello Protestants! I am just curious but how do you explain the following 10 Bible verses? I am quoting from the Revised Standard Version, a Bible used by both Catholics and Protestants. If you want, you can look them up in your favorite Bible version.

I look forward to your answers!

I’ll give some of these a whack:

Mat 16:18 RSV And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 RSV I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

On Peter and his statement of faith, the church catholic is formed.
We confess our sins to those properly called and ordained, who in Christ’s stead, announce absolution.

2Th 2:15 RSV So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Nothing wrong with tradition, so long as it doesn’t oppose scripture

1Pe 3:21 RSV Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Perfectly clear. He that believes and is baptized will be saved.

[Joh 6:53 RSV So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
Joh 6:54 RSV he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 RSV For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 RSV He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 RSV As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 RSV This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
/QUOTE]

Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present in the Eucharist.

1Co 11:27 RSV Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Confess and be absolved of your sins, and believe that in the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ.

Jas 2:24 RSV You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

We are saved by grace through faith. But that justification requires us to grow in His grace (sanctification), given to us as a gift. Confess our sins, partake of the Eucharist, do the good works he calls for us to do, etc.

Jon

 

[jesusluv]

Need to rename this thread since the “10” passages are actually 17.

 

[Eden]

Nothing wrong with tradition, so long as it doesn’t oppose scripture

Which Catholic tradition opposes Scripture?

 

[Holly3278]

Need to rename this thread since the “10” passages are actually 17.

By passages I meant each selection of scripture.

 

[Holly3278]

Which Catholic tradition opposes Scripture?

I’d like to know this as well.

 

[JonNC]

Which Catholic tradition opposes Scripture?

Papal infallibility, but I know that you will site scripture that suggests it in your interpretation. And that is fine. I was just responding to the OP’s question. I would think that Catholics agree with me that tradition is fine so long as it does not oppose scripture. Yes?

Jon

 

[Harpazo]

Papal infallibility, but I know that you will site scripture that suggests it in your interpretation. And that is fine. I was just responding to the OP’s question. I would think that Catholics agree with me that tradition is fine so long as it does not oppose scripture. Yes?

Jon

I thought the idea of Papal Infallibility was implied in Christ founding a Church begin with. What are your thoughts?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[JonNC]

I thought the idea of Papal Infallibility was implied in Christ founding a Church begin with. What are your thoughts?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

Hi Andrew,
I think the implication is a stretch, and yes I know that infallibility only goes to teaching on doctrine and morals. But I know you believe scripture supports it. How’d I do on the other responses, Andrew?
BTW, I did visit you site and left a message.

Jon

 

[kyrie80]

Nothing wrong with tradition, so long as it doesn’t oppose scripture

There wouldn’t be scripture without the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

There wouldn’t be scripture without the Catholic Church.

For the sake of discussion, ok (Luther even said as much). Still, don’t you agree that tradition cannot oppose scripture.

 

[kyrie80]

For the sake of discussion, ok (Luther even said as much). Still, don’t you agree that tradition cannot oppose scripture.

You’re right, it cannot oppose scripture. Catholic Church teaching does not contradict or oppose scripture in any area. It interprets, clarifies, and applies scripture to earthly life. Remember, at the beginning, there was much disagreement and angst about which books to include in the Bible. There were many worthy writings that never made it to the Bible. Does that mean they should not even be considered?

The U.S. government’s official governing document is the U.S. Constitution, but leaders and scholars take what is written in the Federalist Papers all the time when talking about what America is all about.

 

[Harpazo]

Hi Andrew,
I think the implication is a stretch, and yes I know that infallibility only goes to teaching on doctrine and morals. But I know you believe scripture supports it. How’d I do on the other responses, Andrew?
BTW, I did visit you site and left a message.

Jon

Thanks for the kind message!

I think you hit all the nails on the head with your other replies. I don’t blame you, Papal Infallibility is a hard thing to grasp, something I don’t have that well myself. As a soon to be Eastern Catholic, the role of the Pope is becoming more and more clear to me. Talking with my priest (Maronite) he explained to me that the Pope wears three hats, so to speak. It makes sense to me, so I’ll share it with you:

1. He is Bishop of (the Diocese of) Rome and equal to all other Bishops.
2. He can speak for all Catholics in regards to faith and morals (Abortion, what is truth, etc.).
3. Somewhere b/t that he is Patriarch of the West and can appoint Bishops for the Latin Church.

Now this view isn’t widely held amongst the Latins, but I think it couldn’t hurt for them to adopt the view. After the Schism, the Pope took on a much more centralized and prominant role in the Western Church. Because of this, more focus was put on him than the other bishops. However, I’d like to see a return to him having less authority than he has at the moment. There are other Patriarchs in the Catholic Church, and I believe firmly that they need a bigger and more prominant role in the Catholic Church.

In dialogues with the EO, the Pope said he was willing to discuss with them mutually to rediscover the role of the Pope of Rome in the first millenium.

Because of the fact that he is blessed with the See of St. Peter, we believe he is granted the ability by God to not err on matters of the faith and morals. It comes with the package.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[rtconstant]

I’ll give some of these a whack:

On Peter and his statement of faith, the church catholic is formed.
We confess our sins to those properly called and ordained, who in Christ’s stead, announce absolution.

Nothing wrong with tradition, so long as it doesn’t oppose scripture

Perfectly clear. He that believes and is baptized will be saved.

[Joh 6:53 RSV So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
Joh 6:54 RSV he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 RSV For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 RSV He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 RSV As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 RSV This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
/QUOTE]

 

[Pier]

May I add a question?

Regarding Matthew 19:12 Some men are incapable of sexual activity from birth; some have been deliberately made so; and some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s reign. Let him accept this teaching who can.

or, if you prefer the language from King James’ day:

19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

This is a statement Jesus made regarding the celibacy of the priesthood. Why are there some Christians who have overlooked these words from Christ, from the Bible that they claim to solely adhere to?

 

[Nita]

For the sake of discussion, ok (Luther even said as much). Still, don’t you agree that tradition cannot oppose scripture.

???
I think you will find current traditions that do not agree with (oppose) Scripture - both in Catholicism and Protestantism.

1. Many of the OT commands given by God (regarding food, discipline - stoning for eg., etc) have been changed.

(2) Some NT examples:
1 Cor 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 14:34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 14:35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Tim 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife…

(In Catholicism I think deacons still are allowed only one wife - but I don’t think that rule is upheld in most Protestant faiths.)
If you read thru the epistles, you’ll find other commands that are no longer followed.

The point is, WHO has the authority to change commands recorded in Scripture. Acts 15:6-10 records how it was done by the apostles (decision regarding circumcision). This Acts passage shows how Matthew 16 and 18 were acctually lived out.

As Catholics, we accept the changes made to commands given in Scripture BECAUSE we accept the authority given to Peter by Our Lord. But, I’m wondering, as a Protestant, who do you look to as the one who has/had the authority to change those Scriptural commands? What is the basis for their authority; where did it come from?

Thanks,
Nita

 

[JonNC]

This is a statement Jesus made regarding the celibacy of the priesthood. Why are there some Christians who have overlooked these words from Christ, from the Bible that they claim to solely adhere to?

I don’t read this, in either translation, as being a requirement for a celibrate priesthood. And in fact, there are married priests in the CC.
On a presonal note, may father was a Lutheran pastor (I thank God he wasn’t celibate ) But I also know first hand how hard it was for him to be both “father” for his parish, and husband and father. The responsibilities of a parish pastor are are probably more demanding than most lay-people realize. So while I don’t think priestly celibacy should be a required discipline, I do understand it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

???
I think you will find current traditions that do not agree with (oppose) Scripture - both in Catholicism and Protestantism.

1. Many of the OT commands given by God (regarding food, discipline - stoning for eg., etc) have been changed.

(2) Some NT examples:
1 Cor 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 14:34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 14:35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Tim 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife…

(In Catholicism I think deacons still are allowed only one wife - but I don’t think that rule is upheld in most Protestant faiths.)
If you read thru the epistles, you’ll find other commands that are no longer followed.

The point is, WHO has the authority to change commands recorded in Scripture. Acts 15:6-10 records how it was done by the apostles (decision regarding circumcision). This Acts passage shows how Matthew 16 and 18 were acctually lived out.

As Catholics, we accept the changes made to commands given in Scripture BECAUSE we accept the authority given to Peter by Our Lord. But, I’m wondering, as a Protestant, who do you look to as the one who has/had the authority to change those Scriptural commands? What is the basis for their authority; where did it come from?

Thanks,
Nita

I would think that many of the determinations about OT law and their place were made prior to the 1500’s, so at least for me as a Lutheran, we probably share the same historic authority in these matters.
We, too, look to St Peter and St Paul and the other apostles and ECF’s for our determination in the matters of tradition, as well as our confessions.

I think, Nita, that you are the first Catholic I’ve seen here state that tradition doesn’t have to agree with scripture. Not saying you’re wrong, just that it is the first time I’ve seen it, and I admit I don’t have enouugh knowledge of Catholic teaching in this area to argue the point either way.

Jon

 

[Pier]

I don’t read this, in either translation, as being a requirement for a celibrate priesthood. And in fact, there are married priests in the CC.
On a presonal note, may father was a Lutheran pastor (I thank God he wasn’t celibate ) But I also know first hand how hard it was for him to be both “father” for his parish, and husband and father. The responsibilities of a parish pastor are are probably more demanding than most lay-people realize. So while I don’t think priestly celibacy should be a required discipline, I do understand it.

Jon

Yes there are married priests who converted after they were married - as Peter was. We had a married priest for a while - he and his wife were both dear, with four (grown) kids.

Jesus Himself spoke of and acknowledged men being celibate for God, as was His example as well. Men who become priests know what is required and do so willingly. Deacons in the CC can be married, although they can not do all that a priest does.

 

[JonNC]

You’re right, it cannot oppose scripture. Catholic Church teaching does not contradict or oppose scripture in any area. It interprets, clarifies, and applies scripture to earthly life. Remember, at the beginning, there was much disagreement and angst about which books to include in the Bible. There were many worthy writings that never made it to the Bible. Does that mean they should not even be considered?

The U.S. government’s official governing document is the U.S. Constitution, but leaders and scholars take what is written in the Federalist Papers all the time when talking about what America is all about.

Yea, I’ll agree with that. I think it would be a good idea for Protestant bibles to incude the Deuterocanonical Books as an appendix just for that purpose.

Jon