What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

[HisKid1973]

You know, we battle in here for how we percieve the truth.. But I doubt any of us would not respond when the other is hurting..shalom..Kim

 

[simonthezealot]

The pillar and foundation of truth is well, what the Bible says... The Church.

The Catholic Church.

removed

 

[racer]

Hello Everboddy! Hopefully physical therapy will kick in in a few days and I'll be back more frequently!

God bless you all!

 

[ThisRock]

Originally Posted by ThisRock
"Oikos" doesn't mean family, it means "house" or "household" or "home" or "temple", meaning "the household of God".

racer
Is it the building that makes a household a household, or the people in it? Webster says:

Main Entry: 1house·hold ​

Pronunciation: 'haus-"hOld, 'hau-"sOld​

Function: noun​

: those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family; also : a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling​

So, household, does mean family. We are the household of God, not the buildings in which we worship him.

I'm sorry, did I speak of the building? Look--it's very simple. Is Paul writing about an amorphous idea of the worldwide family of christians or is he directly writing about the Church? Why the need to play word games?
Read the letter.

Quote:
The structure of the passage states then, that the "ekklesia" is the household of God. And the verse states very clearly that the "ekklesia" or "church" is the "pillar and foundation of the truth".

Racer I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundatiion" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.

For instance, you may lay the foundation of your home before you build the house, but does the foundation you pour determine the house you'll build, or does the house you wish to build determine the foundation you will pour?

Don't you mean the worldwide family of christians is the protector, preserver and upholder of the Truth given to us in the bible? Did Paul mention the bible in that chapter? If he did, please let us know where it is so we can understand your interpretation too.

Quote:
If one actually reads 1 Timothy, one can easily see the subject is directly and undisputedly the actual church, not some amorphous, feel-good idea of a worldwide christian family.

Racer
Huh? So, Christianity is not a worldwide faith?

Read it. Read it. Read the bible!!!!!

Quote:
The letter is about correct doctrine and church organization, especially that particular chapter.

Racer Yes, Paul wrote his instructions to them so that they would know how to conduct themselves in the (c)hurch.

Don't you mean the family?

Quote:
The chapter does NOT refer to scripture. Nothing previous to that passage would give anyone the idea that Paul is speaking of anything but the Church---let alone scripture. Perhaps you are thinking of 2 Timothy 3:15.

Racer I don't think anybody was saying that the passage quoted in the OP was addressing Scripture . . . . .

I was referring to Josiah's morphing a clear reference to the Church into an ambiguous "worldwide family of christians knowing of truth in scripture".

Quote:

Let us endeavor to read books of the bible in their entirety! Don't cut out passages and make them fit what you happen to believe at the moment. When you read the bible, remember that the numbering system for passages is a later invention. Read the entire letter. Read it and wake from your slumber in the verse-slapping comfort zone.

Racer Again, I think you've misunderstood someone, there have been no misapplications of Scripture here.

There was a either a) a very deliberate misapplication of scripture or b) a not-too-close reading of scripture which was used for the support of one's own beliefs.

 

[racer]

I'm sorry, did I speak of the building?

Before I do the courteous thing and respond to your questions (something you appear to have trouble doing), let me just ask, did I say that you spoke of buildings?

Let's look back. You said: "Oikos" doesn't mean family, it means "house" or "household" or "home" or "temple", meaning "the household of God". The structure of the passage states then, that the "ekklesia" is the household of God. And the verse states very clearly that the "ekklesia" or "church" is the "pillar and foundation of the truth".

So, speaking honestly, based on your response to my post, I truly don't know of what you're speaking. However, based upon past discussions with Catholics and Orthodox the debate is usually regarding "visible institution" vs "the Spiritual Body of Christ." So, from what you said above, I inferred that you were making the same argument.

I see, the "ekklesia" is the household of God as the spiritual body of Christ--Christianity in it's entirety. What do you see it as?

Look--it's very simple.

I agree. What I Tim says about the church being the "pillar and foundation of truth" is simple. It is your argument that is indecipherable.

Is Paul writing about an amorphous idea of the worldwide family of christians or is he directly writing about the Church?

I don't believe the two to be different. The (c)hurch is comprised of the worldwide family of Christians. They are one and the same.

Why the need to play word games?

What word games? Because you don't get the gist of our arguments, you assume we are playing word games with you?



And what's with the big words? Amorphous? Is that the word of the week or something? I had a pretty good idea of what it meant by your usage of it, but I referred back to Webster to pin the definition down. So, here we go:

1 a : having no definite form : [SIZE=-1]SHAPELESS[/SIZE] <an amorphous cloud mass> b : being without definite character or nature : [SIZE=-1]UNCLASSIFIABLE[/SIZE] <an amorphous segment of society> c : lacking organization or unity <an amorphous style of writing>​

2 : having no real or apparent crystalline form <an amorphous mineral> ​

According to that definition, I would first have to say that you've misapplied the term. Or are you asking if we think that Paul's idea about the church was "amorphous," or that Paul spoke of the church as an amorphous entity/institution?

Second, if it was your intent to imply that we believe the church to be "amorphous," I've seen nobody here argue that. The (c)hurch--family of God--is not without definite form, character, nature, organization, or unity.

Read the letter.

I have, several times.

Don't you mean the worldwide family of christians is the protector, preserver and upholder of the Truth given to us in the bible?

Either/or. But, why use a whole sentence for what can be described in one word--(c)hurch?

Now, how about you make this an honest, fruitful and progressive discussion and address my points? I stated: I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundatiion" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.

For instance, you may lay the foundation of your home before you build the house, but does the foundation you pour determine the house you'll build, or does the house you wish to build determine the foundation you will pour?

Did Paul mention the bible in that chapter? If he did, please let us know where it is so we can understand your interpretation too.

What's your point? Nobody said Paul mentions the Bible? He talks about the Truth, where do you and I find the truth today? In our Bibles. He sent written instruction in 1 Tim since he was unable to be there to speak in person--so if he didn't trust the messanger to deliver a message accurately in oral form days or weeks later, it only stands to reason that he--and other apostles--would ensure that it was all written down for our use after their deaths.

Read it. Read it. Read the bible!!!!!

Um . . . I have. Do you assume that everyone who has a different understanding than you has not read the Bible?

This was your response to my question: Huh? So, Christianity is not a worldwide faith?

That question is about as strait forward as they come. Is it really beyond your articulation abilities to address it in a direct, strait-forward manner?

Don't you mean the family?

Like I said, either/or works for me.

I was referring to Josiah's morphing a clear reference to the Church into an ambiguous "worldwide family of christians knowing of truth in scripture".

You are completely confused about what Josiah was saying. He was saying no such thing. He's never argued that the (c)hurch was amorphous or ambiguous.

FYI, the above statement by you makes no sense anyway. What does this mean: "worldwide family of christians knowing of truth in scripture"?

There was a either a) a very deliberate misapplication of scripture or b) a not-too-close reading of scripture which was used for the support of one's own beliefs.

Naaaaaa . . . . . a) you are deliberatley trying to distort what he said and the intent behind, or b) have no idea what he meant.

God bless!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Before I do the courteous thing and respond to your questions (something you appear to have trouble doing), let me just ask, did I say that you spoke of buildings?

Let's look back. You said: "Oikos" doesn't mean family, it means "house" or "household" or "home" or "temple", meaning "the household of God". The structure of the passage states then, that the "ekklesia" is the household of God. And the verse states very clearly that the "ekklesia" or "church" is the "pillar and foundation of the truth".

So, speaking honestly, based on your response to my post, I truly don't know of what you're speaking. However, based upon past discussions with Catholics and Orthodox the debate is usually regarding "visible institution" vs "the Spiritual Body of Christ." So, from what you said above, I inferred that you were making the same argument.

I see, the "ekklesia" is the household of God as the spiritual body of Christ--Christianity in it's entirety. What do you see it as?




I agree. What I Tim says about the church being the "pillar and foundation of truth" is simple. It is your argument that is indecipherable.



I don't believe the two to be different. The (c)hurch is comprised of the worldwide family of Christians. They are one and the same.



What word games? Because you don't get the gist of our arguments, you assume we are playing word games with you?




And what's with the big words? Amorphous? Is that the word of the week or something? I had a pretty good idea of what it meant by your usage of it, but I referred back to Webster to pin the definition down. So, here we go:

1 a : having no definite form : [SIZE=-1]SHAPELESS[/SIZE] <an amorphous cloud mass> b : being without definite character or nature : [SIZE=-1]UNCLASSIFIABLE[/SIZE] <an amorphous segment of society> c : lacking organization or unity <an amorphous style of writing>​

2 : having no real or apparent crystalline form <an amorphous mineral> ​

According to that definition, I would first have to say that you've misapplied the term. Or are you asking if we think that Paul's idea about the church was "amorphous," or that Paul spoke of the church as an amorphous entity/institution?

Second, if it was your intent to imply that we believe the church to be "amorphous," I've seen nobody here argue that. The (c)hurch--family of God--is not without definite form, character, nature, organization, or unity.



I have, several times.

Either/or. But, why use a whole sentence for what can be described in one word--(c)hurch?

Now, how about you make this an honest, fruitful and progressive discussion and address my points? I stated: I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundatiion" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.

For instance, you may lay the foundation of your home before you build the house, but does the foundation you pour determine the house you'll build, or does the house you wish to build determine the foundation you will pour?



What's your point? Nobody said Paul mentions the Bible? He talks about the Truth, where do you and I find the truth today? In our Bibles. He sent written instruction in 1 Tim since he was unable to be there to speak in person--so if he didn't trust the messanger to deliver a message accurately in oral form days or weeks later, it only stands to reason that he--and other apostles--would ensure that it was all written down for our use after their deaths.



Um . . . I have. Do you assume that everyone who has a different understanding than you has not read the Bible?

This was your response to my question: Huh? So, Christianity is not a worldwide faith?

That question is about as strait forward as they come. Is it really beyond your articulation abilities to address it in a direct, strait-forward manner?



Like I said, either/or works for me.



You are completely confused about what Josiah was saying. He was saying no such thing. He's never argued that the (c)hurch was amorphous or ambiguous.

FYI, the above statement by you makes no sense anyway. What does this mean: "worldwide family of christians knowing of truth in scripture"?



Naaaaaa . . . . . a) you are deliberatley trying to distort what he said and the intent behind, or b) have no idea what he meant.

God bless!

Good to have you back...
I nearly always learn from your posts.
Thank you.

 

[racer]

Good to have you back...
I nearly always learn from your posts.
Thank you.

No, thank you! It humbles me to learn so much from you . . . .

 

[racer]

Well, there's no need to post your age in the forums when your behavior tells it all.



Not as long as I have Webster handy.


You implied that Josiah argues the the church is amorphous.

No. Did I imply that you did? No, I didn't imply anything. I asked you to clarify yourself. Apparently, you are so ambiguous, yourself, you can't clarify what you mean. So, please don't expect me to know more about your intent than you know yourself.

But, let's review what you did say: Is Paul writing about an amorphous idea of the worldwide family of christians or is he directly writing about the Church?

"Amorphous" as you have used it here refers to "idea." So, would such said idea belong to Paul of the church?


Did I say that you said Paul used the word?



In your mind, you may have attempted to describe Josiah's response, but you failed terribly.


Not necessary.


Sorry, but you're not even addressing the points made by Josiah or myself. Nothing you've said to us is applicable to our arguments. You've misread and misrepresented our intent and points, and sadly for you, you've wasted your precious time and quick wit.

He refers to the Truth? Since, the church upholds the Truth, it can't be the same as the Truth? So, what is the truth? How do we identify it? And where do we find it?


Your first mistake? In assuming anything. Second, making blatantly false, unfounded accusations against someone in a public forum when the majority of those who participate in the forum know better.


You just might be right on that one . . .

 

[ThisRock]

.

 

[racer]

.

 

[ThisRock]

(Sorry--I posted that before I knew you responded.)

Let's skip all the rambling and non sequiturs and stick to the matter at hand.

here's what you said:

Quote:
I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundatiion" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.

Here's what I then asked:

Please show us how Paul can be referring to the "Truth given to us in the bible" in that passage. What in the passage tells us that?

Here's what you then answered:

He refers to the Truth? Since, the church upholds the Truth, it can't be the same as the Truth? So, what is the truth? How do we identify it? And where do we find it?

I honestly do not follow you. The question seems simple:

Please show us how Paul can be referring to the "Truth given to us in the bible" in that passage. What in the passage tells us that?

 

[racer]

(Sorry--I posted that before I knew you responded.)

Let's skip all the rambling and non sequiturs and stick to the matter at hand.

First you're going to have to be honest about what is really said.

I said: I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundatiion" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.

For instance, you may lay the foundation of your home before you build the house, but does the foundation you pour determine the house you'll build, or does the house you wish to build determine the foundation you will pour?

You responded: Don't you mean the worldwide family of christians is the protector, preserver and upholder of the Truth given to us in the bible? Did Paul mention the bible in that chapter? If he did, please let us know where it is so we can understand your interpretation too.

I responded: He refers to the Truth? Since, the church upholds the Truth, it can't be the same as the Truth? So, what is the truth? How do we identify it? And where do we find it?

You said: I honestly do not follow you. The question seems simple: Please show us how Paul can be referring to the "Truth given to us in the bible" in that passage. What in the passage tells us that?

You do not follow me? Of all this dialogue you've zeroed in on one irrelevant question that you asked me, yet have no inclination to even attempt to address the questions that I've asked you? Do you realize that you have not answered one single question that I've asked?

Look, I'm going to break it down for you, so that you can not accuse me of being purposefully vague. Look at my first statement above: and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.

Who do you think "us" is? Do you think that when I say "us," I'm including Paul? No. Paul received the Gospel/Truth by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Now, when Paul wrote his letters, of course the Bible as you and I know it did not exist. However, Scripture did, not all of it--yet, but Scripture did exist. So, of course Paul did not refer to the Bible, because Scripture had yet to be compiled into one book. What Paul referred to as Truth or Gospel is now compiled for presevation and teaching purposes into one text, known by you and me as the Bible. So, now--in our time--Bible and Truth are synonamous.

Now, let me just say this, your point and argument is a poor attempt at distraction from the discussion at hand. We're not discussing the Bible's authority or it's role, we were discussing the identity of the "pillar and foundation of Truth." According to Paul in 1 Tim the (c)hurch is the pillar and foundation of Truth. He clearly states this. My point is that you and I have different beliefs regarding the scope of "pillar and foundation." You have not even addressed my original point regarding this.

So, I'm just puzzled as to what you are arguing for or against. Do you infer that I or Josiah were arguing that the Bible is the "pillar and foundation of Truth?" Neither of us were arguing that. He pointed out that what you and he (and most non-RCs or EOs) disagree on is how the church is identified or defined. I was pointing out that you and I differ regarding the scope and meaning of "pillar and foundation." Does this help you understand more of what we are asserting?

 

[orthodoxy]

What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

1 Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.


Comments?

"The Church of the living God"

It says it right there in the passage.

Note the Church is living thus not invisible nor dead in heaven. Jesus's prayer "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" implies the living Church functions the same both in heaven and on earth in the same manner. The Church on earth is tangible and unfailing on the earth with the heavenly hosts undivided and inseperatable from it.

If the Church on Earth is fashioned after the Heavenly Church then the quest is to find the "Church of the living God".

Asinner gave us a good hint.....

Good luck

kyril

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"The Church of the living God"

It says it right there in the passage.

Note the Church is living thus not invisible nor dead in heaven.

Lost me...

It says, "the church of the living God."
It doesn't say, "The living church of God."

If it did, we'd have yet another support for the Protestant view of the church since clearly a denomination isn't alive. People are.


My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,The Listener

The Pillar of the truth is the Church, this does not make the church "true".

Thy word is truth.

God spoke his word.
The writters wrote the word
The church is to uphold it and proclaim it

It works in the same fashion as the king dictating a proclaimation to a scribe an the "criers" proclaiming it in the streets. Great historical picture that serves your question well.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[ThisRock]

Racer---Please forgive me, but I think you are making quite a jump without even realizing it.

Here's the passage:

"and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth thee to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God -- the pillar and foundation of the truth"

First you agree that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but you then confine the truth to what is in the bible:

I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundatiion" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.

You are defining the "truth" to only as what is found in the bible. I see no evidence whatsoever that Paul is restricting the "truth" to current and/or future scripture.

What Paul referred to as Truth or Gospel is now compiled for presevation and teaching purposes into one text, known by you and me as the Bible. So, now--in our time--Bible and Truth are synonamous.

Are you restricting Truth to scripture? If so, why? Do you see ANYTHING IN THE PASSAGE OR THE CHAPTER OR THE BOOK that tells us that Paul is restricting "truth" to earlier scripture and what for future generations would become the bible?

 

[racer]

Good Day,The Listener

The Pillar of the truth is the Church, this does not make the church "true".

Thy word is truth.

God spoke his word.
The writters wrote the word
The church is to uphold it and proclaim it

It works in the same fashion as the king dictating a proclaimation to a scribe an the "criers" proclaiming it in the streets. Great historical picture that serves your question well.

Peace to u,

Bill

Great point!

 

[racer]

Racer---Please forgive me, but I think you are making quite a jump without even realizing it.

Here's the passage:

"and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth thee to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God -- the pillar and foundation of the truth"

First you agree that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but you then confine the truth to what is in the bible:

I hate to tell you, but you are the one blurring the discussion. What the truth is or may be is not what is addressed in the OP. The question is "what is the 'pillar and foundation,' not what is the truth. Even if my argument was focused on my belief of what the Truth is, it really shouldn't be pursued as an argument in this thread.

I confine certain, verifiable Truth to what is revealed in Scripture. Everything else is open to question and scrutiny.

What do you recognize as Truth?

You scriptual quote is interesting, though. In fact that translation furthers Protestant arguments regarding the church:

"and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth thee to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God -- the pillar and foundation of the truth"

He clearly defines what the house of God is. He states that it is the "assembly of the living God." An "assembly" would be a group of people not a visible or tangible building.

You are defining the "truth" to only as what is found in the bible. I see no evidence whatsoever that Paul is restricting the "truth" to current and/or future scripture.

Nor did I assert that Paul did this. However, the fact (a point I've already shown, but you continue to ignore) that Paul chose to send his message in written form when he could not be there in person to deliver it himself, proves that even he felt the only way to ensure that his message was delivered accurately, barring his presence, was to put in in writing.

Are you restricting Truth to scripture? If so, why?

It is the only tangible, identifiable, verifiable source of the Gospel available to me. Scripture has remained relatively unchanged for well over 2000 years because it was put in writing and is therefore provable and substantiated.

Do you see ANYTHING IN THE PASSAGE OR THE CHAPTER OR THE BOOK that tells us that Paul is restricting "truth" to earlier scripture and what for future generations would become the bible?

I never asserted that he did. You are the one making giant leaps.

You are quite the artful dodger Rock, do you have any intentions of addressing any of my questions? Do you not realize that your refusal to do so is just as telling as any inadequate response you would make?

Here are a couple of interesting quotes:

Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea.

1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

The apostles wrote to the churches when they could not be there to instruct themselves. Notice they did not tell the leaders of those churches to tell the congregations what the epistles said. They instructed them to READ what they wrote. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because they did not trust that the messages would be relayed accurately/truthfully if they were not read to the letter?

 

[racer]

Rock,

To avoid further hijacking of this thread, if you wish to continue discussing what "Truth" is, please start another thread? However, if you wish to address the OP and some of my points, I would be glad to continue our discussion.

 

[ThisRock]

Rock,

To avoid further hijacking of this thread, if you wish to continue discussing what "Truth" is, please start another thread? However, if you wish to address the OP and some of my points, I would be glad to continue our discussion.

I think your anger has gotten the better of you, racer.
There's no hijacking of a thread going on whatsoever.

Here's the original post:

What is the pillar and foundation of truth?


What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

1 Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.


Comments?

We are discussing a particular passage. The question and it's answer are quite obvious and meant to open discussion. Simple sentence structure tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The post then asks for comments. I, along with others, provided them.

You haven't answered that first simple question yourself in any of your posts, instead deciding to fixate on my repsonses. You have decided that the real question of the thread is the meaning of "pillar and foundation".
Isn't it logical that equal weight can be put on any part of the sentence as far as questions go?


If the answer to the original question is:
The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
We can then assume it is logical to look at the meaning of:
1-The church
2-pillar and foundation
3-truth

For an unknown reason, you have decided that the only area worth discussing is #2.


I'll get to your previous response tomorrow. Until then, goodnight and God Bless.