What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

[Yeznik]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!




Amen!!!
Adveristment: Check out my thread: "Humility and Theology" here in GT - it's no doubt buried deep now...


Yes, it certainly IS theoretically possible that Joseph Smith was 100% correct and lots of dogmas are missing from the Bible. But, frankly, I'd rather base my dogmas on what we know God said than what some denomination says God said, I'd rather run with God's infallible, apostolic, authoritative, first-century, DIVINELY-inspired Word - written so that it's alterable by none and knowable by all. Cuz anyone can claim anything (and lots do). But that's just me.

You sure? I got a couple golden plates I found in my back yard I wanted to sell, I will give you a good price on them.

 

[Montanaman]

You sure? I got a couple golden plates I found in my back yard I wanted to sell, I will give you a good price on them.

They're best read with a little peyote. Trust me.

 

[racer]

Who would have thunk it?!?

That when Paul wrote...


"The church is the pillar and foundation of truth."

...what he really was doing was plugging for Sola Scriptura 300 years before the bible!

I, for one, am as astonished as you by this new revelation! Where did you hear it?

The argument basically is:

"Forget what Paul meant and what he was referring to in the letter. The only truth that we can count on is the bible."

I don’t know about you, but the only place I’ve found this letter is in my Bible. Is it published in another source? Has it been published independently?

Racer, you have a basic misunderstanding and even a mistrust of christianity.

You are certainly in no position to tell me what I misunderstand, because you have failed to grasp even the smallest details of my explanations to you.

The bible is not, has never been, and never will be the only source of revelation and guidance for christians.

And I’ll ask you again, who told you this? How do you know this? Where did you find this piece of information?

Reading the bible will tell you that scripture nowhere claims to be the sole source of guidance for jews or christians and directly tells us otherwise.

Chapter and verse please.

The Holy Spirit inspired certain authors to write what God wished to reveal to humanity

So, then if it was left unwritten or left out of the Bible, then God did not intend for us to know, huh--since He only inspired the authors to write what He wished to reveal to us?

and later guided the bishops of the church to determine which writings out of the 50 gospels and 500 "letters" and "Acts" were to be considered scripture.

Well, we know and can verify that Scripture was inspired by God, we find it stated explicitly in II Tim. However, where does one find evidence and explicit substantiation for the above statement?

The Holy Spirit also led the church leaders to interpret and teach Old Testament scripture, oral apostolic teaching and (later) what became the New Testament.

I repeat the statement above. How do you prove this statement. Other than your assertion to me, direct me to an authoritative source which establishes this claim.

The church taught, developed and passed down ways of worship, prayer and church life not explicitly laid out in scripture.

However, the church did/does not establish or define doctrines necessary for our salvation.

Did Paul write:

"Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth." ????

or did he write:
"The church is the pillar and foundation of truth." ???

Have you had one person ever say to you that Scripture is the Pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[Yeznik]

this rock... you are the one engaging in eisiogesis.... it is the unfounded presupposition of the Greek and the Roman who, when they read "tradition", who then pours into that word "Roman tradition" or "Greek tradition".... however, there is no difference between tradition and scripture.... tradition is that which was handed down through the apostles and was written for our edification… tradition cannot bear the weight of that which Rome or the Greek wish to make it bear.… it was never suited to that purpose, and the proliferation of unbiblical traditions that has resulted from the attempt to pour too much into that word is evidence of this fact.

I think you would have had a more convincing argument saying, that the only way the word tradition would be applied is that Jerusalem was a Roman province (there we have the Roman tradition) and the Apostles ate and met at the Greek restaurants (there we have the Greek tradition) and the Armenians provided the live entertainment (there we have the Armenian tradition). Someone pass me the ouzo, OPAH!!!!!!!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You sure? I got a couple golden plates I found in my back yard I wanted to sell, I will give you a good price on them.

Of course, they don't actually have those plates. Just as we don't have these dogmas from the pen of any Apostle. What is sometimes referred as "Tradition" is what someone SAYS they were told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who as told by someone who was told by some Apostle. But we don't actually have anything from the Apostle. And since Apostles could (and often did) err, we wouldn't know if it was correct even if we did. So, it's not too much unlike those plates. IMHO, all such "someone told me" stuff needs to be normed and needs to be considered accountable. But that's just me.

 

[racer]

I just have to post something right quick . . . my post count is 3666 . . . .

 

[Montanaman]

I just have to post something right quick . . . my post count is 3666 . . . .

That was close.

 

[racer]

The practice has not been lost, but details of it have.

Okay.

Infant baptism is implicitly stated, yet many Christians today practice believer's baptism. That is another example of an important detail that can be lost using only scripture.

Not actually lost. The differences in practice come from differences in interpretation. you state it's implied. I would argue that even if it's implied, it is not a requirement for salvation. I do not think God would allow an innocent child to go to hell because he was not baptized.

 

[Montanaman]

[/size][/i]

Okay.



Not actually lost. The differences in practice come from differences in interpretation. State it's implied. I would argue that even if it's implied, it is not a requirement for salvation. I do not think God would allow an innocent child to go to hell because he was not baptized.

Neither do we, but the fact of the matter is we just don't know what happens to an unbaptized baby. We simply leave him/her to the mercy of God.

 

[racer]

That was close.

Tell me about it . . . .

 

[racer]

Neither do we, but the fact of the matter is we just don't know what happens to an unbaptized baby. We simply leave him/her to the mercy of God.

What better mercy than that of God?

 

[racer]

You know I've asked this question a few times in other threads and nobody has ever responded. Would somebody please give me some thoughts or comments:

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?

​

 

[Asinner]

Not actually lost. The differences in practice come from differences in interpretation. you state it's implied. I would argue that even if it's implied, it is not a requirement for salvation. I do not think God would allow an innocent child to go to hell because he was not baptized.

How do you know certain details are not required?

Love,
Christina

 

[Asinner]

You know I've asked this question a few times in other threads and nobody has ever responded. Would somebody please give me some thoughts or comments:

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?

​

The foundation must (not may) be laid first and then both scenarios are correct. Right?

 

[racer]

How do you know certain details are not required?

Love,
Christina

How do I know that certain details are not required? Or how do I know that infant baptism is not required?

I would not state that I know regarding all things Scriptural. I would argue that I know the openly explicit teachings in Scripture. But, regarding some of the less obvious teachings, that vary according to interpretations, I would state only that according to what I've been taught, and according the logic of the teaching in line with what I know of God, I believe a certain thing or way. So, regarding infant baptism, God being the loving God He is, I can not see Him condemning and innocent infant to Hell when the infant is completely powerless as to what is or isn't done.

So, would I state that I know infant baptism is not necessary for salvation? No. But, I would state that that is what I believe.

 

[racer]

The foundation must (not may) be laid first and then both scenarios are correct. Right?

You're dodging the question. That's not what I asked. I did not ask which would be done first, the building of the house or the laying of the foundation. I asked which determined which.

Is a builder just going to go out and pour a foundation and then decide how many stories, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc . . . . it will have? Foundations are determined by the structure they are to support. Foundations do not determine the structure that will be built upon it.

BTW, thanks for responding . . . .

 

[Asinner]

How do I know that certain details are not required? Or how do I know that infant baptism is not required?

The first one. Although the answer you gave to the second one is good.

 

[Asinner]

You're dodging the question. That's not what I asked. I did not ask which would be done first, the building of the house or the laying of the foundation. I asked which determined which.

Is a builder just going to go out and pour a foundation and then decide how many stories, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc . . . . it will have? Foundations are determined by the structure they are to support. Foundations do not determine the structure that will be built upon it.

BTW, thanks for responding . . . .

I agree with you. The paragraph could have been stated better, though.

Love,
Christina

 

[ThisRock]

You know I've asked this question a few times in other threads and nobody has ever responded. Would somebody please give me some thoughts or comments:

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?​

I see what you mean. So if Stephen King we're building a house but writing about it in a book, then are we to expect that there would be a complete description of the house in that particular book? Or would the description of the house be more like instructions for the pouring of the foundation? Assuming, of course, that the pouring of the foundation took place before the writing of the book. Where I don't follow you is if Stephen King were writing only one book about the house, but the house in fact was built more completely--I don't want to say "added onto" because that opens up a whole new can of worms---but if in fact the house had more bedrooms or, say, a three car garage instead of the original two car garage does that in fact force Stephen King to write another book? Or can we just go to Stephen King for the answer or "authority"?
There are a few problems with it, depending on how far you extend the analogy, but I definitely see your point.

 

[lionroar0]

you guys are making my head hurt.


Peace