June 21, 2005
Bible Verses that only Catholics can Explain
We continually argue that the Bible is unconditionally “Catholic” in its thought and arguments. Because of that, there is Scripture that cannot be explained outside of Catholic theology – in other words, if you aren’t Catholic, you can’t comprehend what was meant. Each of these deserve their own explanation, so I have also highlighted the articles we’ve written that refer to the verses.
Let’s start small and work our way up:
1 Corinthians 15:29. Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
At a simple level, this verse suggests that those on earth can help those who are dead by being “baptized” on their behalf. At a deeper level it is clearly Catholic – particularly the notion of helping the dead. For more read Should we pray for the dead? and Purgatory and the Bible.
Acts 19:11-12. And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.To a Catholic, these are called “relics,” but to a protestant these are unexplainable. For more read Idolatry! The Catholic Veneration of Icons and Relics and Answering Protestant Objections.
John 20:17-18. Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples . . .Non-Catholics argue that the Church is wrong on Jesus being an only child. But here, when Jesus tells Mary to get his “brethren,” Mary gets the disciples. This is the Catholic argument – for more see The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: Did Mary have Other Children?.
1 John 5:16-17. If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.All protestants that I’m aware of teach that “sin is sin” and there is no such thing as venial or mortal sin. This verse teaches otherwise. For more on this, read Are there different “levels” of sin?.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble – each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If an man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.Explicit teaching on purgatory in the Bible? Most would say no, but this verse clearly answers the call. For more read Purgatory and the Bible.
Col 1:24-25. 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, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known.Catholics understand this verse, since they understand that suffering has redemptive qualities. Since protestants disagree, this verse becomes unexplainable. For more read Why must we Suffer? and The Value of Suffering.
James 2:14. What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can his faith save him?Suffice it to say that this verse explicitly teaches Catholic theology in terms of salvation. For more read Sola Fides 2: Understanding Faith and Works.
John 6:51-56. "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" 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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”Along with this goes the oddity (to non-Catholics):
Acts 2:42. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.These are the beginning of the Eucharist. There is more that could go in this post, such as 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, but I’ll start with these. They clearly teach the need for the Eucharist. Read more in This is the Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sins of the World: Understanding the Eucharist and in Why does Jesus call Himself “Bread”?
I know there are more – feel free to add your favorites in the comments box – but this covers the basics. What are your thoughts?
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Acts 19 is a fun one. I was stunned when I found it. Tell a Protestant that people took handkerchiefs and aprons from someone and used the clothing to heal the sick and drive out demons and they'll scream superstitious idolatry. Tell them that the stuff came from Paul and that the passage comes from the Bible and they'll say you are on drugs. Then, after getting them to swear up and down there is no such passage in the Bible, open up Acts 19. Hee hee hee.
Another mean trick to play on Sola Scriptura people is to ask about polygamy. Scripture only forbids polygamy for elders, deacons, and bishops. Luther himself counselled a duke to commit bigamy rather than adultery.
Though my favorite one by far is to ask about John 3:14-15. Every evangelical knows John 3:16 by heart but almost no one knows John 3:14-15. It's about the snake bronze Moses lifted up in the desert. The initial purpose of the bronze snake was to cure people of poison, Jesus used it to compare lifting up the snake (which incidentally looks very much like a cross when you take a horizontal snake and nail it to a pole) to lifiting up the Son of Man. Moses took it down when people started worshipping it. This shows pretty plainly that making graven images are in of themselves ok but that making one for the purpose of worship is not.
Thus the second Protestant commandment "thou shalt not make a graven image" is really not a stand alone instruction but only applies in context of "thou shalt have no other gods". When Catholics lump graven images and other gods into one commandment, it allows two separate commandments 9th and 10th for coveting neighbor's wife and neighbor's property. If you think about it, treating a woman as different from property accords her with the dignity she deserves. Lumping the 9th and 10th together really degrades women.
Posted by: Broken Record at June 24, 2005 03:29 PMJay,
If the Bible is "unconditionally Catholic" then please explain these decidedly uncatholic verses:
Romans Chapters 3-11
More speicially:
3:20, 23-24, and 28
4:3, 5, 23-24
5:1-2
8:1, 29-30
10:9, 11, 13
11:5-6
I Cor. 2:6-16
Gal. 2:16; 3:2-5
Phil 1:6; 3:8-10
I Tim 2:5
and finally Eph 2:8-9
To name but a few.
In Christ,
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at June 27, 2005 01:25 PMDo catholics believe that you get to heaven by doing works??
Posted by: Katie at August 7, 2005 10:11 PMKatie, the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace alone, that we can do and have done nothing to earn God's gift.
The Catholic Church teaches we are free to embrace or reject God's free gift at any time during our earthly lives.
The Catholic Church teaches that God's grace is made manifest in both faith and works and that refusal to do good works is a rejection of God's grace.
Hope this clarifies things.
Posted by: Broken Record at August 9, 2005 10:40 AMThomas, do you really think most people have the time to research all of those verses? Why couldn't you spell out the ones you think are relevant? I bet at least half of them were recited as filler and all of them are out of context.
Posted by: Thomas at August 16, 2005 04:14 PMThomas, this is some of what you're using to make your point:
Romans 3:20 "since no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin." This sounds to me to have more to do with sinners who know the rules and respect them but still keep on sinning, whether through action or desire.
Romans 3:28 "For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law." This does not mean 'instead of the law.' It means "apart." This scripture means that you can be justified through faith as well as through works. Perfect faith is when you have both belief and works. This line is supported by other verses in the Bible that state that faith is imperfect without works.
Romans 3:23-24 "all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus." That's correct. Grace must be accepted. However, you aren't really sincere if you don't live your faith in Christ through action.
You cite Romans 4:3 and 4:5 "For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."" (Yes, he believed God. The point of this statement is to remind people of Abraham's obedience. That is the focus, not just his beliefs.) And 4:5 says "But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Credited, not "completed," not "perfected," but "credited.") Interestingly you wanted to skip this: Romans 4:4 "A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due." This actually proves the benefit of works.
Romans: 3:23-24 is more of the same.
On Romans 5:1-2, what you don't understand is that for ancient Christians, works were thought of as a part of faith. Faith was a way of life, not just a belief system. Hence Jesus' statement, "I was hungry, did you feed me?" The apostles shouldn't have to state every time "belief and works" when the term "faith" was understood in its proper contexts as incompassing everything necessary to truly "follow" Jesus. Too many verses right now, Thomas, and you're forcing me to look them all up and retype them.
Posted by: AJ at August 16, 2005 04:59 PMAJ:
Finish your research and then I will respond to the whole. Please note that each and everyone of the one of those verses are relevant. There are no "fillers". I could come up with probably a dozen or so more. Those were off the top of my head.
In Christ,
Thomas
I have some questions that hopefully can be answered. I did not find another place to post them and this topic on Catholic explanations seemed pretty good. Thank you in advance for your time answering, Kalev.
Does the Catholic Church consider the church in Acts to be part of the Catholic church or a predecessor? Also, if we are saved by Jesus alone, what is the role of the Church in salvation? Are there any people that are exceptions to the Catholic belief in salvation, that do not need to use the same 'path' to get to heaven? Why are prayers offered to saints if God hears our prayers Himself? What is the need for the Church as an interpreter if we have the Holy spirit? Why is tradition important and is there a scriptural basis for this? Why is confession required to supplement Christ's sacrifice? What role does the Old Testament play in Catholic doctrine? Are only Catholics saved? What is the Catholic belief on individual faith and how is that reflected in doctrine or practice. What are the criteria for a church to be authorized as part of the Catholic Church? How is the view of the Church as people united by spirit reflected in the Catholic faith? What is the Biblical support for the Catholic hierarchy? Why is supplemental truth needed in addition to the Bible and how do we know that it can be trusted? Do Catholics believe in divine revelation as an event that occurs today? What is the Catholic belief on tongues?
Posted by: Kalev at August 22, 2005 04:10 PMI'm a devout Catholic and I love reading your site. I also enjoy reading the protestant rebuttels. It gave me some good insight into where they're coming from. I've looked all around this website and have not been able to find any good Protestant answeres to 1 question. How do protestants explain Matthew 16:15-18;
"He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
I think this passage is LOADED with Catholic theology. (Origins of the Pope, primacy of Peter, Holy Spirit guiding Peter into the truth about God,Priests forgiving sins, etc. etc.) However, specifically I want to focus on "and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." How can any non-catholic explaing this away. Do they honestly think Jesus was lying or Jesus was wrong?? I know in my heart that whatever the non-catholic answer is it will not change MY view that the Catholic church is the true church founded by Christ himself. But I'm just wondering how this can be explained away, especially with the doctrine of "Bible Alone"? Any thoughts??
Posted by: Chris at October 13, 2005 01:34 PMChris,
A typical protestant argument against the Church's interpretation is that when Jesus says "and upon *this* rock" the word "this" refers to Peter's statement of faith rather than Peter himself. So faith becomes the rock rather than Peter.
Also in the greek the words are 'petrus' and 'petra' which protestants take to mean 'small rock' and 'big rock'. So Peter is just a little rock, not the leader of the Church.
The Bible is inspired - but not everone who reads it is.
Posted by: fidens at October 14, 2005 08:08 AMFidens,
Thanks for your response. I've heard those before and they don't really make sense to me. I guess the part I was really wondering about was "and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." Even though the Catholic has experienced alot of scandal and bad people in the past, it has still endured through the years. I guess I just don't understand how any non-catholic Christian can think that Christ would want his Church splitting into hundreds of different denominations. Oh well, I guess it's not real important that I understand their viewpoint, I was just curious.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at October 15, 2005 02:33 PMOne might consider that petrus is the proper way of calling or naming someone Peter (i.e. singular prooper noun, masculine), whereas petra (singular or plural neuter) is the way of referring to the inanimate object(s) - a big rock - and simultaneously implying that the position just given to Peter is far greater than the man himself. But the torpedo that sinks all protestant attacks on our Lord's plan for Peter is his (John 21;15-19)call for Peter to be shepherd of the flock.
Posted by: Don at February 25, 2006 05:48 PMFidens, I have also heard those arguments and while they sound very good, Chris is correct in that you are wrong, but unfortunately his argument is not fully correct either. The original text was written in hebrew, I believe. And the hebrew word for rock is kephus (my spelling may be incorrect) and is neither male nor female and includes both large and small rocks as their is only one hebrew word for rock. Chris's argument holds true for the protestant argument that the Holy Spirit helped in the translation to Greek, but that is a very poor argument anyway.
Posted by: K R at June 15, 2007 11:36 AMSorry, I referred to Chris when I meant to refer to Don.
Posted by: K R at June 15, 2007 11:38 AMK R
I think you are trying to say that "Christ spoke in Aramaic, but the world spoke Greek."
Former Evangelical scholar Jimmy Akin puts it well here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at June 20, 2007 04:04 PMi have been called by our Lord and the Blessed Mother to come to the catholic church, and i am fighting such a spiritual warfare with my family, that sometimes it feels like eternity. i need your prayers. Thank you and God Bless
ex-southern baptist
Jonathon
Welcome home. I'll pray for you. Some other resources that u may find useful include the Coming home network http://www.chnetwork.org/ they can put u in touch with fellow baptists even pastors that have gone thru that fire. A book written by former evangelical Baptist has helped me much in my understanding of the early church is The Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett.
Keep in touch.
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at September 17, 2007 11:55 AM
