Protestants: Please Explain The Following Verses From Scripture

Dear Protestant brethren of mine, I am writing this to you to see how you explain the following verses from scripture. Please go one by one and explain each verse to me according to your Protestant understanding. I have posted the following verses in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which is an accepted translation among both Catholics and Protestants. Thank you.

Matthew 16:18-19 18] 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.
19] 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."

1 Timothy 3:15 15] 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.

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

1 Peter 3:21 21] 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,

John 20:23 23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

John 6:53-58; 66-67 53] 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;
54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58] 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."
66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

1 Corinthians 11:27 27] 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.

James 5:14-15 14] 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;
15] 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.

Colossians 1:24 24] 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,

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

So, let’s see how you handle these 10 scripture selections. :thumbsup:

I am not a Protestant, but I do (think) I know where you are going with these Scriputres. Which is good but…

My question is this, By picking and choosing “Single” (for the most part) Scriptures out of the Bible isn’t that how Our Protestant Brothers and Sisters, fall into the Solo Scriputre thoughts.

Yet when we as Catholics do the same thing…does it really make sense that we think they shouldn’t do it?

I"m not knocking your good intentions here, really I’m not, but I just think sometimes taking a few scriputres here and there “solo” isn’t the best example to use with a group of Christians who happen to pull “Solo Scriptures” out to prove their points.

You know, you’re probably right. I probably shouldn’t have went about it this way. However, I just wanted to see what Protestants thought about these verses. And I think it’s really saying something that not one Protestant has responded to this thread. :thumbsup:

The assumption that Peter is the object being called “this rock” does not get repeated in (Mark 8:29-31).
Peter gets called Satan in both gospels though, so by your method of assumption, Peter “must” be Satan instead of the “this rock”.

The lack of repetition argues strongly against your claim that Peter is the “this rock”.
Why would Mark ignore such an important statement, unless the “this rock” was not really Peter, but rather Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ.

Jesus Christ is my Rock and there is no other substitute.

You have been here 4 years with 4,000+ posts and you havent seen how a Protestant would respond? A little disengenuos .

Holly I’ll post a response. This isn’t my protestant understanding by the way. This is studying the Greek and confirming what the true grammar conveys. Had to trim out some of the text to fit in one post.

Matthew 16:18-19 18]

The rock is the confession of faith Peter gave when Christ asked who is it that you say that I am. The Greek does not produce a revealing of Peter as THE rock but is more of a contrast of YOU are Peter and on THIS Rock meaning what Simon just said. Had Christ intended to reveal Peter as the actual person the church was built on then the language would be entirely different. Christ would have said you are petros and on you petros I will build my church.

1 Timothy 3:15 15]

Paul is laying out qualifications for deacons and overseers and states that he plans on visiting but may be delayed. If he’s delayed he wants to convey proper behavior within the local church. The Greek speaks solely of the local church where Timothy is ministering and refers to it as one that contains the pillar and ground of truth. Meaning the teachings of the Gospel.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 15]

Given many churches only had some copies of letters or 1 or 2 Gospels this speaks to either those which they had in their possession or the oral teachings they were given upon visitation. They were the teachings in which they were to hold to.

1 Peter 3:21 21]

I think this is pretty clear but essentially Peter is letting us know that baptism is an appeal to GOD to show our spiritual re-birth into Christ.

John 20:23 23]

This verse has several interpretations but one that seems to be best supported by the Greek is Christ empowered the Apostles and future leaders of the church to invoke discipline within the church. In Acts the disciples accepted into fellowship 3000 after Peter’s sermon and other Apostles speaking in the native tongues of visiting Jews for Pentecost. We have to remember Christ calls for repentance of sin. If church leadership does not see this then they have the ability to excommunicate someone from the fellowship. We never see the Apostles running around and actually pronouncing that someone was forgiven for a sin they committed. Or personally taking someone’s confession. Only GOD can actually forgive sin itself as stated outright in Luke 5:21.

John 6:53-58; 66-67 53]

This whole discourse is speaking strictly of believing in Christ. You can’t cite these verses without connecting them to verse 35-40 in which Christ states:

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst

Then Christ follows this by telling the Jews the will of the Father:

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Christ purposely gives a difficult teaching which appears to be cannibalistic in nature to accomplish only one thing. To separate out the true believers from those who came for the sole purpose of getting more free bread. But many of the Jews could not see the Messiah would never ask them to literally eat flesh as this violates GOD’s command from Leviticus.

1 Corinthians 11:27 27] 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.

The church in Corinth was very divided over who they were following. Many were following the person that baptized them yet were still partaking in the Lord’s supper. Paul is simply telling them that if they are not eating the supper as followers of Christ then they are just as guilty of the blood of Christ as those that crucified HIM.

James 5:14-15 14] 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;
15] 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.

This is a healing rite which our church performs all the time. My son had a brain tumor last year that was life threatening. The elders of our church prayed over him before undergoing surgery and a Gamma Knife treatment. He’s completely healed by the grace of GOD. Had he not been healed I’m completely confident that he would be with Christ right now because of his faith.

Colossians 1:24 24] 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,

Paul rejoices in his sufferings that have come from preaching the Gospel. Why? Because he has made the word of GOD known to those that weren’t aware of the good news of Christ.

James 2:24 24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
So, let’s see how you handle these 10 scripture selections. :thumbsup:

Well James tells us that faith without works is a dead faith. And Ephesians tells us that once we are saved we perform the works GOD has planned for us. We perform good works because we are saved. But the works don’t save us although they can’t be separated from faith.

PEACE

No, the “assumption” that Peter is being called the Rock is most certainly repeated, throughout history. This is plainly evident in the Early Church fathers. One testimony to this is the fact that Jesus changed His name to “Rock”, and that the other Apostles, including Paul, called him this. If they did not understand that Jesus renamed him to “Rock”, why do you suppose they would do this? Also, if He wasn’t talking about Peter, then why did he change his name from Simon to Peter?

However, I do affirm that Jesus is the Rock, the Cornerstone, and that Peter is grafted into Christ as part of thefoundation. Peter being grafted into the foundation of the Church does not subtract from Christ being the Rock. Peter participates in Jesus’ “rockness”. :smiley:

I also affirm that the statement made by Peter, is a solid Rock upon which we can also base our faith. None of these should be separated from each other.

Posh. It is time to read some history.

Others being grafted into Christ does not make them “substitutes” of Him. We are all to minister in His name. None of us can “substitute”, though we are the only “Christ” others may ever see.

This dividing and separating is the fruit of the Reformation. Division and separation is not from the Father of life, but another father…

Didn’t 1 Peter 2 say that believers were living stone? :shrug:

What makes you think that this view is not Protesant?

How do you explain the reason why Jesus would change Simons’ name to Peter? The other reason your take does not make sense is that what you are say did not happen is, in fact, what happened! This gospel was written first in Aramaic,not Gk. In the Aramaic, Jesus renamed Peter Kephas, then said “On this Kephas I will build my church”. I don’t know that it is “entirely different”. The statement is also a Rock, and so is Christ.

What makes you think this was isolated to any locality?

Do you agree that the teachings of the Gospel were alive and well in all the local churches?

Do you think what was consisdered “proper behavior” changed, depending upon the locality?

We are in agreement on this point. Where Protestants don’t ususally agree is that those Sacred Traditions given by the Apostles were preserved in the Church as much as the letters, because the Church followed the Apostolic command to do so. Do you believe that they stopped “holding on” to those teachings at some point?

No, it is not clear. If it were, people would not be having disagreement! One cannot have a clear conscience toward God unless one is washed and sanctified by theHS. This is what happens in baptism.

If this is the case, then the next question would be what is the meaning of Jesu giving this power to men?

Why do you suppose all who were there, and the following generations, understood HIm to be speaking aboutthe Eucharist?

Something that is a spiritual reality is no less “literal”. Angels have no corporeal being, yet are “literal” (really true - not figurative). Again the question must be asked, why did He not call the disciples back, and correct their misunderstanding, as He did in so many other occasions? And even more so, How come the Apostles and all those with them understood Him literally?

I agree there were a lot of problems in Corinth. However, the same question needs to be asked here. How come all the early fathers understood this as a reference to Eucharist and the Real Presence?

Glory to God! :thumbsup:

I agree, but it is also a reference to the communion of saints. Paul taught that we are members one of another, and that something that affected one, affected the others. His suffering, consecrated to God, could benefit others.

I think this is the main rub. Some of us believe that the good works that God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them are not separated from saving faith. However, others of us believe that faith is “alone”.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.