Qustions about Protestant ideas

[OldManPete]

I’ll start by saying that I think there are many intelligent and educated people who post on these forums that know much more than I do, and I enjoy learning from your posts. With that I was wondering if you could help me with your ideas. I am wondering at exactly how other people outside of the Catholic Church translate Matthew 16:18-19,
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.”
I’ve been listening and reading to some interpretations, but what I would really like to know is that if Protestants don’t believe that Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope, and don’t believe in apostolic succession, or the Catholic Church being started by Christ and the apostles what do they believe Jesus was establishing with this and other similar verses? If the Catholic Church isn’t what Jesus started, then what did he start and why is the Catholic Church the only church in existence for those 1500 years before the reformation? If the interpretations that Protestants may believe in regarding the Eucharist, and Purgatory and other such matters are correct then where were those interpretations in the early church, and why do the early church fathers, those living in the times of the church’s formation teach such strong Catholic doctrines? I hope I do not come off as offensive I just don’t know how to better word my questions, and hopefully this is the right forum for them, I’m sort of new here. Thanks to anyone who may be able to help, God Bless.

 

[LutheranDK]

I’ll start by saying that I think there are many intelligent and educated people who post on these forums that know much more than I do, and I enjoy learning from your posts. With that I was wondering if you could help me with your ideas. I am wondering at exactly how other people outside of the Catholic Church translate Matthew 16:18-19,
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.”
I’ve been listening and reading to some interpretations, but what I would really like to know is that if Protestants don’t believe that Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope, and don’t believe in apostolic succession, or the Catholic Church being started by Christ and the apostles what do they believe Jesus was establishing with this and other similar verses? If the Catholic Church isn’t what Jesus started, then what did he start and why is the Catholic Church the only church in existence for those 1500 years before the reformation? If the interpretations that Protestants may believe in regarding the Eucharist, and Purgatory and other such matters are correct then where were those interpretations in the early church, and why do the early church fathers, those living in the times of the church’s formation teach such strong Catholic doctrines? I hope I do not come off as offensive I just don’t know how to better word my questions, and hopefully this is the right forum for them, I’m sort of new here. Thanks to anyone who may be able to help, God Bless.

First: Protestants as a group do not have a single doctrine on Holy Communion unifying us. There are protestants whose view is more or less the same as the Roman view (except for the idea about Communion as a sacrifice), and there are those that believe it is symbolic. Sadly, the latter are in the majority

Now to your primary questions:

What is Jesus talking about in Matt 16:18?
The most reasonable interpretation seems to be that Jesus is referring to the faith Peter just expressed: “Thou art the Christ…”
It is important to look at the context any verse is spoken in. You simply can’t just pick verses out of their context - because then you can make the Bible say anything.
Look at Matt 16:23. Here, Jesus calls Peter “satan”. Does this mean that Peter IS satan? And consequently, that satan is the Rock of the Church?
I think not

Secondly, saying that the Roman church was the only one in existance for 1500 years before the reformation is “a truth with modifications”. Already in 1054, there was a great schism that seperated the Eastern church from the Western - and before this became official, the division had existed de facto for centuries - and at no point has the primacy of the Bishop of Rome been acknowledged by the Eastern church (except at the Union of Florence, where the Byzantine Emperor would have said anything for help against the Turks).
Thirdly, it is fair to say that the Roman church as that is defined did not come into existance until after the fall of the Western Roman Empire - and there were no longer an Emperor in Rome to look to. But there was a bishop in Rome - who represented continuity and stability in what was essentially a Europe in a complete mess. (please note that, as said, only the Western churches accepted the primacy of Rome - because only they lacked a central figure).

True, the bishops of Rome had claimed some special position since the second century, but this had not been acknowledged.

 

[ufamtobie]

First: Protestants as a group do not have a single doctrine on Holy Communion unifying us. There are protestants whose view is more or less the same as the Roman view (except for the idea about Communion as a sacrifice), and there are those that believe it is symbolic. Sadly, the latter are in the majority

Now to your primary questions:

What is Jesus talking about in Matt 16:18?
The most reasonable interpretation seems to be that Jesus is referring to the faith Peter just expressed: “Thou art the Christ…”
It is important to look at the context any verse is spoken in. You simply can’t just pick verses out of their context - because then you can make the Bible say anything.
Look at Matt 16:23. Here, Jesus calls Peter “satan”. Does this mean that Peter IS satan? And consequently, that satan is the Rock of the Church?
I think not

Secondly, saying that the Roman church was the only one in existance for 1500 years before the reformation is “a truth with modifications”. Already in 1054, there was a great schism that seperated the Eastern church from the Western - and before this became official, the division had existed de facto for centuries - and at no point has the primacy of the Bishop of Rome been acknowledged by the Eastern church (except at the Union of Florence, where the Byzantine Emperor would have said anything for help against the Turks).
Thirdly, it is fair to say that the Roman church as that is defined did not come into existance until after the fall of the Western Roman Empire - and there were no longer an Emperor in Rome to look to. But there was a bishop in Rome - who represented continuity and stability in what was essentially a Europe in a complete mess. (please note that, as said, only the Western churches accepted the primacy of Rome - because only they lacked a central figure).

True, the bishops of Rome had claimed some special position since the second century, but this had not been acknowledged.

Hi there LutheranDK,
regarding Matt 16:23 No, Peter is not satan, however, Jesus, new that Satan was speaking through Peter at that moment.

Now regarding Matt16:18-19 Now clearly Jesus was addressing Peter, as being the ROCK.

Lutherndk, tell me, do you think our Lord Jesus Christ, is an organized Savior or a disorganzied Savior?

As for me, Jesus Christ, is an Organized Savior, for there is One Savior, and One Church!

From what I read, from your posts is that you believe that Jesus Is a disorganized Savior.

Why, do I believe that you believe that Jesus Christ is a disorganized Savior, is that fact that you find it Hard to believe in Matt 16:18-19 I for my part declare you, you are 'Rock,‘and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’'

Lutherandk, Jesus New that he was about to go to his Father In Heaven. Therefore Jesus left His Church in the care of Peter The Rock. Jesus, Left ORDER in his Church, not disorder.

Jesus Christ, KNEW if he did not leave his church to an appointed man “Peter” and to his Successors The Church would be In disorder, there would be no One to guided his Church with his Authority to have the Keys and to bind or loose.

Look at your Protestant faith, look at its disorder look at how many protestant churches there are, Lutherans, Baptist, southern Baptist, Calvinist, angelicans, ect… THERE IS TENS OF THOUSANDS in the USA alone and the scarry thing about it, anyone can open a Protestant Church Because they have not MATT 16: 18-19. Therefore and is why there is disorder facts are facts the truth is evident.

Martin Luther, is turning over in his grave today for the grave error he NOW SEES regarding the Protestant CHUURRCCHHEESS.
I stress the word CHURCHES, for many, and the many do not agree with one another and that is DISORDER!

Jesus, Also new that in time Peter would die as well.

Lutherandk, Now that Peter died and now is in heaven who has the** KEYS** what Church can “Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Again now that Peter is in Heaven? WHO?

What Church Claims that it has this Authority?

The Catholic Church does and rightfully so. And so by claiming this TRUTH of having this Authority from Jesus Christ it is attacked, it is presecuted.

No Other Protestant Church says that they have the authority of Jesus Christ regading Matt 16: 18-19 and rightfully so cause they do not have this authority from Jesus Christ that was past down from Peter to his successors to the Present Pope.

Lutherandk, Tell me why are you really here at this Catholic forum? No it is not to bash Catholics, Certainly you not going to change us those who are truly Catholic. I tell you why you are here, it is to become Catholic, Jesus Christ, has brought you here.

Ufamtobie

 

[OldManPete]

Thanks for your comments. I have just a couple more questions. Regarding your comment,

“It is important to look at the context any verse is spoken in. You simply can’t just pick verses out of their context - because then you can make the Bible say anything.”

I certainly agree, and that is why I do not try to interpret things on my own, but rather leave it to the authority of the Church. I put my faith in it to assemble the books of the Bible, so I also put my faith in it to interpret it for me. However regarding this verse it would seem to me that it is not just the Catholic Church interpreting it’s meaning and then applying it to Apostolic succession, but that Apostolic Succession happened as a result of it. I hope this makes sense, it is sort of what I was trying to say earlier by asking why did the Church develop this way if you say the interpretations are wrong. Or why wasn’t the Church established in the way you see it, surely Jesus would have helped to correct it faster than a 1000 years if it was off in the wrong direction.
Any way I’m sorry if my writing is a little confusing, hopefully you get my point. Thanks for your comments.

 

[trustinyou]

First: Protestants as a group do not have a single doctrine on Holy Communion unifying us. There are protestants whose view is more or less the same as the Roman view (except for the idea about Communion as a sacrifice), and there are those that believe it is symbolic. Sadly, the latter are in the majority

Now to your primary questions:

What is Jesus talking about in Matt 16:18?
The most reasonable interpretation seems to be that Jesus is referring to the faith Peter just expressed: “Thou art the Christ…”
It is important to look at the context any verse is spoken in. You simply can’t just pick verses out of their context - because then you can make the Bible say anything.
Look at Matt 16:23. Here, Jesus calls Peter “satan”. Does this mean that Peter IS satan? And consequently, that satan is the Rock of the Church?
I think not

Secondly, saying that the Roman church was the only one in existance for 1500 years before the reformation is “a truth with modifications”. Already in 1054, there was a great schism that seperated the Eastern church from the Western - and before this became official, the division had existed de facto for centuries - and at no point has the primacy of the Bishop of Rome been acknowledged by the Eastern church (except at the Union of Florence, where the Byzantine Emperor would have said anything for help against the Turks).
Thirdly, it is fair to say that the Roman church as that is defined did not come into existance until after the fall of the Western Roman Empire - and there were no longer an Emperor in Rome to look to. But there was a bishop in Rome - who represented continuity and stability in what was essentially a Europe in a complete mess. (please note that, as said, only the Western churches accepted the primacy of Rome - because only they lacked a central figure).

True, the bishops of Rome had claimed some special position since the second century, but this had not been acknowledged.

Why did Jesus change his name to Peter??
context,context,context!..I believe we all take history out of context too! It all depends on whos writng the history books…

 

[Ilroy]

First: Protestants as a group do not have a single doctrine on Holy Communion unifying us.

And this fact should bother you greatly.

What is Jesus talking about in Matt 16:18?
The most reasonable interpretation seems to be that Jesus is referring to the faith Peter just expressed: “Thou art the Christ…”

To come to this conclusion from Christ saying YOU are rock…is a major stretch.

Look at Matt 16:23. Here, Jesus calls Peter “satan”. Does this mean that Peter IS satan? And consequently, that satan is the Rock of the Church?
I think not

This is where you need to know meanings of words. satan means adversary, it does not mean Lucifer the fallen angel known as the devil. Lucifer has been called satan for many years because he is an adversary to the Truth, but when Jesus calls Peter satan he is simply saying that Peter’s actions were adversarial to God’s plan.

Secondly, saying that the Roman church was the only one in existance for 1500 years before the reformation is “a truth with modifications”. Already in 1054, there was a great schism that seperated the Eastern church from the Western - and before this became official, the division had existed de facto for centuries - and at no point has the primacy of the Bishop of Rome been acknowledged by the Eastern church (except at the Union of Florence, where the Byzantine Emperor would have said anything for help against the Turks).
Thirdly, it is fair to say that the Roman church as that is defined did not come into existance until after the fall of the Western Roman Empire - and there were no longer an Emperor in Rome to look to. But there was a bishop in Rome - who represented continuity and stability in what was essentially a Europe in a complete mess. (please note that, as said, only the Western churches accepted the primacy of Rome - because only they lacked a central figure).

This whole part is riddled with historical mistakes. Yes, the scism of the Eastern Churches from the Catholic Church happened before the protestant start, but the early fathers in west and east looked to the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the head Bishop of The Church. Read the fathers from the first century forward and see this for yourself.
newadvent.org/fathers

 

[Adam14]

Ilroy:
I have a question for Catholics here…and before I ask my question, please know that I’m not bashig/hating…or anything like that…just have an honest question about one of the few things I don’t agree with regarding Catholicism…

In llroy’s response, it’s noted that when Jesus calls Peter satan, He’s really saying that He means adversary…
So in this case, I’m not reading interpreting it correctly when I read it literally

Then there’s Jesus telling Peter he’s the rock…obviously I know he’s not literally a rock…but there’s some interpretation that has to happen here. I often see this used as proof that Jesus gives authority to the Pope, but I still struggle to see where it says that. I see why/how Catholics take that from this verse, but I can certainly see why/how Protestants see it the other way. It’s all about how someone interprets it.

In the age-old argument about The Real Presence…if I read it literally, then I’m interpreting it correctly…(This IS my body…) but if I don’t take it literally, then I’m wrong?

My question…how do we determine who’s intepretation is correct? When do we take it literally? Most likely, someone will point me to a writing from the Church. To me, providing documentation from the Catholic church doesn’t prove anything to someone who isn’t Catholic.

Again, I’m not bashing, and I have nothing but respect for the Catholic church. I often see very good points made by Catholics on here that make me ask myself “Why am I not Catholic?”, and then there are questions like I mentioned above that make me question a few of the teachings.

I read this site to better my understanding about Catholicism, and my own faith(Lutheran). I hope I’ve asked these questions correctly, b/c I find it really hard to explain what I’m confused about.

 

[Ilroy]

I have a question for Catholics here…and before I ask my question, please know that I’m not bashig/hating…or anything like that…just have an honest question about one of the few things I don’t agree with regarding Catholicism…

In llroy’s response, it’s noted that when Jesus calls Peter satan, He’s really saying that He means adversary…
So in this case, I’m not reading interpreting it correctly when I read it literally

No, to read it literally is to read it as adversary. The actual definition of satan is adversary. So, when Christ says this to Peter, He is saying that Peter’s rebuke of Christ is adverse to the plan of God. He is not calling Peter the devil or satan in the way we have come to understand it now.

Then there’s Jesus telling Peter he’s the rock…obviously I know he’s not literally a rock…but there’s some interpretation that has to happen here. I often see this used as proof that Jesus gives authority to the Pope, but I still struggle to see where it says that. I see why/how Catholics take that from this verse, but I can certainly see why/how Protestants see it the other way. It’s all about how someone interprets it.

As to the authority given to Peter and his successors, there is more to it than just Him changing Simon’s name to Kepha/Petros/Peter/Rock. There is also Christ giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. In the OT, there is a type of this showing what this means. Can’t remember chapter and verse, but one of the kings of Isreal appointed a vicar or magistrate. When the king was away from the kingdom the magistrate had the keys to the kingdom, and with them, the authority of the king. This is what Christ gave Peter and his successors, the Popes.
Also, Christ tells Peter first, and later all the Apostles, that whatever he/they bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what he/they loose on earth is loosed in Heaven. This shows the authority He gave to Peter and the Apostles with him.

In the age-old argument about The Real Presence…if I read it literally, then I’m interpreting it correctly…(This IS my body…) but if I don’t take it literally, then I’m wrong?

Correct, in the Catholic understanding.

My question…how do we determine who’s intepretation is correct? When do we take it literally? Most likely, someone will point me to a writing from the Church. To me, providing documentation from the Catholic church doesn’t prove anything to someone who isn’t Catholic.

What I do to determine who’s interpretation is correct, is I trust the authority given to us by Christ Himself.
As to those who don’t trust any document given to them by the Catholic Church, they should really study where we got the bible from. It is a document with the NT written by the Catholics of the first century and along with the OT, compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century.
Thousands of threads on that subject here already.

Again, I’m not bashing, and I have nothing but respect for the Catholic church. I often see very good points made by Catholics on here that make me ask myself “Why am I not Catholic?”, and then there are questions like I mentioned above that make me question a few of the teachings.

And I think we can see you are truly just looking for answers and not bashing. At least what I’ve seen from you has been stated in a respectful manner. I hope that I and all others here can return the favor. I know heated discussions pop up frequently here.

I read this site to better my understanding about Catholicism, and my own faith(Lutheran). I hope I’ve asked these questions correctly, b/c I find it really hard to explain what I’m confused about.

Just out of curiosity and so we know better where you are coming from, which synod of Lutherans do you belong to?

 

[Adam14]

Just out of curiosity and so we know better where you are coming from, which synod of Lutherans do you belong to?

Ilroy,

I’ve been a Lutheran for about 2 years now. When I first became Lutheran, I was at a Missourri Synod Lutheran Church. Since then, my wife and I have moved to Atlanta and now we attend an ELCA (not members yet). We haven’t found a MS church here yet that we like.

Honestly, I’m not an expert on the different synods, but the main difference I’ve noticed between these two is that the MS is a bit more conservative it seems. I actually prefer the conservative aspect…as far as MS and ELCA go.

Before becoming Lutheran, I was Baptist, although I use the term lightly because I wasn’t too involved in church then and wasn’t baptised until I became Lutheran(so I guess I’ve only been a Lutheran, technically )

Like I said before, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what I believe, I want to please God and right now I have a lot of questions and confusion. I"ve prayed that God will show me the way, and I’m confident he will when He sees fit. (if He isn’t showing me already and I’m just too dense to pick up on it )

 

[JRKH]

There are a couple of threads already running on this one (and probably hundreds on the boards) But I would recommend anyone looking at this to look at THIS THREAD HERE. Espcesially the later pages (9-10-11) where there is some VERY GOOD analysis of the languages involved and the words used in various translations.

It may take a bit to get through, but it is well worth it.:hypno:

James

 

[Ilroy]

Ilroy,

I’ve been a Lutheran for about 2 years now. When I first became Lutheran, I was at a Missourri Synod Lutheran Church. Since then, my wife and I have moved to Atlanta and now we attend an ELCA (not members yet). We haven’t found a MS church here yet that we like.

Honestly, I’m not an expert on the different synods, but the main difference I’ve noticed between these two is that the MS is a bit more conservative it seems. I actually prefer the conservative aspect…as far as MS and ELCA go.

Before becoming Lutheran, I was Baptist, although I use the term lightly because I wasn’t too involved in church then and wasn’t baptised until I became Lutheran(so I guess I’ve only been a Lutheran, technically )

Like I said before, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what I believe, I want to please God and right now I have a lot of questions and confusion. I"ve prayed that God will show me the way, and I’m confident he will when He sees fit. (if He isn’t showing me already and I’m just too dense to pick up on it )

K…thanks…I asked because my wife is WELS so I have some exposure to Lutheranism. Not an expert by any means, but I know there are differences in beliefs etc. between the different synods.
I think from what I’ve learned, you might be better off in MS than ELCA, but I guess that’s a matter of opinion depending on the beliefs of the individual making the choice.

I pray that you will find wherever God is directing you to be.