What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

[hoser]

You put the word "Catholic" (capitol "C"????) into the text. God did not. I think there's a difference.

I may personally have added the word "Catholic" but nonetheless, the answer is "church" NOT Bible. The verse is very clear that the pillar and foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH. So which of thousands of churches has that FULL truth? Well, we can eliminate all that were founded after the reformation.

So, for those of you that think incorrectly that the "pillar and foundation of truth" is not the Chruch like the Bible states but rather the bible itself then I am sure YOU can explain which protestant interpretation is the correct one.

 

[racer]

you guys are making my head hurt.


Peace

Well, if you need some, I have Tylenol, ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin . . . that's pretty much it, though.

As you can see, I tried everything for my arm . . . . . :o

 

[racer]

Well, if you need some, I have Tylenol, ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin . . . that's pretty much it, though.

As you can see, I tried everything for my arm . . . . . :o

Wait, I left off Celebrex . . . .

 

[racer]

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?

Stephen King, huh? Talk about fixations . . . .

I would say that he would pretty much tell you all that you would need to know so that the foundation you pour would sufficiently support the house. I think that as a rule when blue prints are given to builders, the plans are gone over orally before he studies them on his own--just to make sure he understands exactly what the desired outcome is to be.

But, doesn't it all begin with someone going to an architect and telling him what kind of house they want. He then goes on to draw the plans?

He would probably start out describing the house he was going to build (Jesus' ministry/4 Gospels), then he would go on to tell how the foundation would have to be built in order to support the house--(the follow-up epistles.)

Or would the description of the house be more like instructions for the pouring of the foundation?

"I" think he would tell you the function of the foundation, what it was supposed to do for the house, then from that information, the foundation would be planned out and then poured in order to operate as necessary.

Assuming, of course, that the pouring of the foundation took place before the writing of the book.

What difference does that make? Especially during biblical times, King would have told people about the house he wanted to build or maybe just imagined in his head the house he wanted to build and went from there. Every idea or story is a thought or a verbal expression before it is written down.

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?

How does architecture work? Remember Jesus was a carpenter . . . . How could a house be built "more completely" than instructed in the plans? Perhaps that's not the exact terminology you intended?

However, addressing the hypothetical for hypothetical reasons, most likely, he would have edited the original plans. He could not have went on and built the "new" house by following the old plans. Of course, that's supposing changes/additions or more in depth information were given besides the orginal plan. But, we know that God being all knowing didn't make alterations to His plan.

There are a few problems with it, depending on how far you extend the analogy, but I definitely see your point.

No, analogy is perfect. But, I'm sure most agree with you in that my point is pretty clear.

 

[racer]

I may personally have added the word "Catholic" but nonetheless, the answer is "church" NOT Bible. The verse is very clear that the pillar and foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH. So which of thousands of churches has that FULL truth? Well, we can eliminate all that were founded after the reformation.

So, for those of you that think incorrectly that the "pillar and foundation of truth" is not the Chruch like the Bible states but rather the bible itself then I am sure YOU can explain which protestant interpretation is the correct one.

I've went over this entire thread and haven't found one person who asserted that the Bible is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Why do you keep harping about this?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I may personally have added the word "Catholic"

That's the point, my Catholic friend.

As usual, no one is disagreeing with what the verse actually says. God put those words here, and we both acknowledge Him as the Author and the text as infallible, apostolic, authoritative.

What we seem to be disagreeing about is whether there are other words in the text, words such as "Roman" "Catholic" "Denominaiton" "Infallible" "Pope" "Bishop of Rome" "Magisterium" "Institution." Protestants are of the opinion that those words do not appear in the text, Catholics insist that they do. That seems to be the disagreement.

This seems to be a very common issue in our discussions. We agree with what the text says. We disagree on these invisible words.

the answer is "church" NOT Bible.

?

Who said that's what the text says?????
I think you are trying hard to create a disagreement where none exists. We all agree on what the text says. We all agree it says "church" and we all agree it does not say "Bible" (in fact, it's been conceded numerous times that the word "Bible" never appears).

The verse is very clear that the pillar and foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH. So which of thousands of churches has that FULL truth? Well, we can eliminate all that were founded after the reformation.

You are assuming that "church" is a denomination. There's nothing in the text that indicates that.

And you seem to be assuming much about what "pillar" and "foundation" mean.





Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[ThisRock]

I've went over this entire thread and haven't found one person who asserted that the Bible is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Why do you keep harping about this?

Because if you limit what can be considered 'truth' to what is written in the bible, you are effectively saying "the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth".

Now, you'll tell me that you are not limiting 'truth', you are limiting 'pillar and foundation', but it's the same darn thing. You're putting restrictions onto the bible which fit your opinions.

 

[ThisRock]

That's the point, my Catholic friend.

As usual, no one is disagreeing with what the verse actually says. God put those words here, and we both acknowledge Him as the Author and the text as infallible, apostolic, authoritative.

What we seem to be disagreeing about is whether there are other words in the text, words such as "Roman" "Catholic" "Denominaiton" "Infallible" "Pope" "Bishop of Rome" "Magisterium" "Institution." Protestants are of the opinion that those words do not appear in the text, Catholics insist that they do. That seems to be the disagreement.

An incredibly transparent strawman argument. Find me one quote where someone says these words exist in the passage.

This seems to be a very common issue in our discussions. We agree with what the text says. We disagree on these invisible words.

You mean words like "worldwide family of christians" or "the truth as found in the bible"??

You are assuming that "church" is a denomination. There's nothing in the text that indicates that.

We say nothing about denominations. We refer to the church period. There was a church then and there is a church now. Your constant refrain of "Roman Catholic denomination" is simply your way of not directly facing the difficult questions which arise when Paul says "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" and the wispy idea that Paul is referring to the 'family of believers' is shown to have so many holes.

 

[ThisRock]

And if, as many will claim, that the "Church" really means the loose assembly of true believers, how does the fractured band of churches constitute truth? Seems like a pretty random pillar if you can't even rely on it to give you the final teaching on anything.

Exactly. If the church is a "worldwide family of believers" with so many various interpretations of scripture, then how in the world could that be considered the "pillar and foundation" when its "truth" is really a hodgepodge of beliefs---- the variety of which is only limited by the number of churches and individuals. If you don't like the "truth" taught in one church, you can go to the "truth" in another church then another and another and another. Finally, you get to the real "truth"---you stay at home and decide for yourself what the "truth" is---and tell everyone on christian message boards how silly the idea of a very real church is.

Sound silly and illogical? Tell God. He supposedly invented the idea.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Exactly. If the church is a "worldwide family of believers" with so many various interpretations of scripture, then how in the world could that be considered the "pillar and foundation" when its "truth" is really a hodgepodge of beliefs---- the variety of which is only limited by the number of churches and individuals. If you don't like the "truth" taught in one church, you can go to the "truth" in another church then another and another and another. Finally, you get to the real "truth"---you stay at home and decide for yourself what the "truth" is---and tell everyone on christian message boards how silly the idea of a very real church is.

Sound silly and illogical? Tell God. He supposedly invented the idea.

1. I don't know how an institution can have faith, think, know truth or stand up for anything. Therefore, how an institution CAN be related to "truth" in any sense is beyond me. As far as I know, not inanimate object has a brain or a soul. So, "church" here must not mean such.

2. Because I don't assume that Paul is speaking about numerous inanimate legal/political entities - denominations (including the RCC) - I don't assume the problem you see here.

3. Private, individual interpretation (seemingly being rejected here) is the RCC position. It's the RCC that insists that it alone - that denomination alone - is the "sole teaching authority" and "the sole interpreter of Scripture" and "the sole interpreter of the Tradition" it itself chooses and the "sole arbiter" of all matters it itself chooses to arbitrate and that it is "infallible" in all the above. If this epistemology is perfect (indeed infallible!) for the RC denomination, it must be infallible for all others, too (or maybe it's NOT for the RC?).


4. I think we agree on what the text says. We seem to be disagreeing on some words you see in the text that no one else does. It just says "church." Nothing about the RCC, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic denomination, nothing about you or me or Billy Graham or Pope Benedict. It says "church."


Can we move on?






Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[lionroar0]

1. I don't know how an institution can have faith, think, know truth or stand up for anything. Therefore, how an institution CAN be related to "truth" in any sense is beyond me. As far as I know, not inanimate object has a brain or a soul. So, "church" here must not mean such.

AN institution is a community.

Here are some institutions.

1. The Lutherans.
2. The Baptist.
3. The Methodist.
4. The Anglican
5. The non-denominational
6. The fundamentalists.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Insitutiuon

1.an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character: This college is the best institution of its kind. 2.the building devoted to such work. 3.a public or private place for the care or confinement of inmates, esp. mental patients or other disabled or handicapped persons. 4.Sociology. a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture, as marriage: the institution of the family. 5.any established law, custom, etc. 6.any familiar, long-established person, thing, or practice; fixture. 7.the act of instituting or setting up; establishment: the institution of laws. 8.Ecclesiastical. a.the origination of the Eucharist, and enactment of its observance, by Christ. b.the investment of a member of the clergy with a spiritual charge.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/institution

Peace

 

[epistemaniac]

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!!!!!!!

lol.... as an aside, a person who had a HUGE impact on my intellectual and spiritual life is of direct Armenian descent.... he is a brilliant and godly man!!! .... . good people....

blessings,
Ken

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. I don't know how an institution can have faith, think, know truth or stand up for anything. Therefore, how an institution CAN be related to "truth" in any sense is beyond me. As far as I know, not inanimate object has a brain or a soul. So, "church" here must not mean such.

AN insitution is a community.

Here are some institutions.

1. The Lutherans.
2. The Baptist.
3. The Methodist.
4. The Anglican
5. The non-denominational
6. The fundamentalists.

I was hoping you'd respond to more than a sentance in my post!!! I did address a number of things to you.


Actually, what you've listed are faith communities or traditions. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is a denomination. St. Luke's Lutheran Church is a congregation. California Lutheran University is a Luthern college. They are institutions, all within the historic tradition of Lutheranism.

It is MY position that neither the LCMS or St. Luke's Lutheran Church are THE church of Christ or the "church" spoken of in the verse in question. They are both legal, political entities - inanimate entities, without a soul or heart or mind. The result of an article of incorporation somewhere, some time. Now, St. Luke's has a number of people associated with it (formally or informally) - and most of them are Christians. So (setting aside the seekers and hypocrites among them), they are a fellowship of believers, a community of saints. THOSE BELIEVERS are a part of the church - the one holy catholic and apostolic chruch, the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers, connected to and one with Christ by faith. So, my Protestant position is that the Christian church is Christians, not the legal entity or the bricks or the article of incorporation or the parking lot - not the institution. Therefore, the LCMS is not the Church of Christ and (IMHO) nor is the RCC or LDS in spite of claims in part to the contrary. I embrace my Catholic fellow believers as EQUALLY and INSEPARABLY a part of His Church because they are Christians, they are one with Christ and therefore with me. But the RCC is a denomination just as is the LCMS or Disciples of Christ or Presbyterian Church in the USA. Nothing wrong with that (I'm rather in favor of denominations since I embrace cooperation, community and accountability), but I don't think the PCUSA has a soul or mind or heart, or is it a believer. I think the Christians IN the PCUSA do and are. But we disagree on all this - rather passionately, I know. That's another discussion for another day.


Again, MY position is the verse says "church." I never said the word is "biblos." But I also don't think the word is "denomination" or "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Pontiff."

 

[lionroar0]

Actually, what you've listed are faith communities or traditions. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is a denomination. St. Luke's Lutheran Church is a congregation. California Lutheran University is a Luthern college. They are institutions, all within the historic tradition of Lutheranism.

They are part of the Lutheran community. They are all part of the Lutheran institution. The Lutheran institution is made of people. An institution is made up of people. With out the people there would be no institution. With out Lutherans there would be no Lutheran community and no Lutheran institution.

The most important part of a community(institution) is the individual. With out individuals there would be no institutions(community).

And because people have history so does a group(community, institution) of people have a common history. The Lutheran institution(community) has a common history and tradition.
Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, what you've listed are faith communities or traditions. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is a denomination. St. Luke's Lutheran Church is a congregation. California Lutheran University is a Luthern college. They are institutions, all within the historic tradition of Lutheranism

They are part of the Lutheran community. They are all part of the Lutheran institution. The Lutheran institution is made of people. An institution is made up of people. With out the people there would be no institution. With out Lutherans there would be no Lutheran community and no Lutheran institution.

The most important part of a community(institution) is the individual. With out individuals there would be no institutions(community).

And because people have history so does a group(community, institution) of people have a common history. The Lutheran institution(community) has a common history and tradition.
Peace

Institution. n. From the Latin institutio

1. An establishment.

2. An organization having a social, educational or religious purpose such as a school, church, hospital, etc.

3. The building or buildings housing such an organization.



In my humble opinion:

Christians are not establishments, organizations or buildings. Christians are people, people who have been blessed with the gift of faith in Christ.


BUT...

If you are now agreeing with me that the church is the community of Christians - not an organization or legal physical entity - then progress has been made and this verse then does not refer to the LCMS or the LDS or the RCC, it doesn't refer to St. Luke's Lutheran Church, or California Lutheran University or St. Peter's Catholic Church in Rome or any other institution - it refers to people, Christians.


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[lionroar0]

Christians are not establishments, organizations or buildings. Christians are people, people who have been blessed with the gift of faith in Christ.

Christians establish Christianity and the establishment of Christianity. It does not matter if you use the word institution or establishment. They both imply the samething. They both imply a community.

There can be no Christian establishment with out the individual Christian.

Peace

 

[WarriorAngel]

Clearly the household as already mentioned above in Greek, is not about the ppl, nor the building...but the household is the [pillar] truth.

God dwells, and where He dwells there is a perfect truth.

Buildings, groups...etc. None of which hold that truth. But where God dwells.

Therefore, what Christ established and Ignatius penned Catholic is where that truth resides. [It is obvious it was not his idea to name the Church Catholic, but by what he was already taught. which was by the hands of the Apostles]

And to know who today has that truth, let us trace the roots of our established doctrines.


It is the doctrines Christ set down on HIS men who carried the Gospels and teachings and 'feeding' the sheep.

The sheep [laity] are not without error. The sheep need fed.
SO we should scratch the laity off the list.

The building is not alive to teach, scratch that off.

The Apostles have died leaving what they taught as truth to someone...BINGO.

What is left?

The Magisterium, [successors of the Apostles] who were told to receive the Spirit, and Peter told to feed the sheep.

Outside of the living teachings, nothing would have continued into today.

How else would we all be sitting here discussing the written words if living men did not carry them to our time?

And if living men carried them to our time, then they all came from the line of the Apostles.

Where Truth dwells, is the household of the Lord.

Therefore the first Church was the HOUSEHOLD of the Lord, and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against that foundation.

This is what has been held for centuries...and centuries.

ONE [singular] Holy [sacred] Catholic [Universal in one mindedness], Apostolic [line of successors] Church. [Magisterium, Tradition, Scripture...and the sheep who are being FED]

 

[racer]

Because if you limit what can be considered 'truth' to what is written in the bible, you are effectively saying "the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth".

No we're not. The Bible is a book, therefore it can not be a pillar and foundation in the sense that it is supposed to protect, preserve, uphold, or teach it's own contents. Nor did it found, write, define or interpret itself. It's a book--that contains the Truth of which Paul speaks.

You make these false and incorrect arguments because you don't take the time to really understand what we are saying.

Now, you'll tell me that you are not limiting 'truth', you are limiting 'pillar and foundation', but it's the same darn thing. You're putting restrictions onto the bible which fit your opinions.

Again, you exihibit that you do not actually read to understand what I write. I limit my knowledge of what the truth is to what is provided to me in the Bible. It is the only source to which I can turn that is known to be infallible, God breathed, and virtually unchanged for 2000 years. It's not some elusive oral tradition that even those who espouse it can not clearly identify for me.

Tell me something, knowing how important God's Truth is what would his reasoning have been for providing us with an incomplete written text and leave the rest to be passed on by word of mouth only?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Buildings, groups...etc. None of which hold that truth. But where God dwells.

I'd add: denominations, institutions... None of which hold truth. That includes the RC denomination, the United Methodist denomination, the LDS denomination. Scratch those off the list.

Therefore, what Christ established and Ignatius penned Catholic is where that truth resides.

Catholic = whole, complete, universal, all-embracing.

Only MUCH later, MANY years after Ignatius, did that term come to be incorporated into the proper name of a particular denomination


I don't think that truth resides in any legal, political, physical entity. In fact, since no institution has a mind or soul, I don't know how it could know or believe the truth - much less defend it.

It is the doctrines Christ set down on HIS men who carried the Gospels and teachings and 'feeding' the sheep.

The sheep [laity] are not without error..

Neither are the clergy.
Neither is any bishop.
Scratch those off the list.

The building is not alive to teach, scratch that off.

Nor is a denomination or institution - scratch those off the list.

The Apostles have died leaving what they taught as truth to someone...BINGO.

It's called the Holy Scriptures.

In my Catholic church, here's what we were taught about those Scriptures: "The Bible is the Word of God, and no greater assurance of credence could be given." "The books which together make up the Bible are, both as a whole and each separately, inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author. God used the penmen to write as He wished, and guided them to do so without error." I agree.

The Bible is the Authoritative, Aposotlic, Infallible, Divinely-Inspired Word of God - written so that it's knowable by all and alterable by none.

This goes all the way back to Mt Sinai as God wrote His Commandments. Moses, the Judges, the Prophets - they wrote their message, by divine inspiration, so that God's Revelation and Truth would continue even after their death.

Jesus refered to that Holy Word over 50 times during His ministry. Authoritatively and normatively. He never once referred to the Roman Catholic denomination or the Bishop of Rome or the Vicar of Christ or the Infallible Pope or the person who is Bishop in Rome 2000 years later. Nope. And Peter (!), Paul, John, James - they did the same. Referring to Scripture - over and over and over and over, but never once referring to the Infallible Pope, the RCC, the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, or those "keys" - not once. Seems kinda significant to ME.

What is left?

Let's see: Not a man, not a denomination, not an institution, not a clergyman, not a building....

Could it be God and God's Holy Word?

How else would we all be sitting here discussing the written words if living men did not carry them to our time?

I agree. God used people. Not a denomination.

Where Truth dwells, is the household of the Lord.

Well, I'd put it the other way around, but okay...

Therefore the first Church was the HOUSEHOLD of the Lord, and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against that foundation.

That's the Protestant position.


BTW, "gates" are defensive, not offensive. It means that Satan is no match for God's people. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the RC denomination being infallible or inerrant or unaccountable; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the RCC appointing itself as the "sole teaching authority" or the "sole interpreter of Scripture" or the "sole interperter" of all the other stuff the self same RCC choose to use, or the "sole arbiter" for all things the RCC wants to arbitrate, or that the RC denomination is "infallible" in all the above. It has nothing to do with it.




Thank you for the discussion!


Pax!


- Josiah



.