Scripture as my measure

[sunlover1]

It wasn't the bible that refuted the errant Bishops, it was the people. In that sense, it was the CHURCH that refuted them.

There is no less danger- more, in fact- of being "led astray" by the teachings of those who are outside of the Church, or by our own vain imagination.

How bout the teachings of Jesus?

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

 

[razeontherock]

Irenaeus, Against Heresires, 3.1.1:

Why does that look like a combination of worcestershire and horseradish?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

How bout the teachings of Jesus?

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

What does that have to do with what I said? To me this is a non-sequitor

 

[razeontherock]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1:

The Church ... has received from the apostles ... this faith: who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations(6) of God

Crossing (multiple?) threads here, but Crypto Lutheran's 'challenge' thread cites "dispensationalism." Seems like that's not such a problem after all? And again, all Pr Churches I've ever attended certainly qualify within what he'd apparently be content with calling "the invisible Church."

 

[razeontherock]

Those subverting others were doing so by words only but not any confirmation from them whereas here it shows the twofold letter and spoken word "speaking the same things"

here too we have "3 bearing witness in one," because signs and wonders also accompany the Word.

 

[razeontherock]

Which "House" do you or others view as "Falling" in Revelation 14:8 And another Messenger, second-one follows saying "falls, She falls, Babylon the Great, the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations".

She's also the mother of all abominations and harlots of the earth, so I think this has to refer to our fallen nature, indwelling sin, (and at least religious pretensiousness) which also puts the OT "King of Babylon" in a very clear light

 

[razeontherock]

It wasn't the bible that refuted the errant Bishops, it was the people. In that sense, it was the CHURCH that refuted them.

There is no less danger- more, in fact- of being "led astray" by the teachings of those who are outside of the Church, or by our own vain imagination.

Good point!

 

[Fireinfolding]

here too we have "3 bearing witness in one," because signs and wonders also accompany the Word.

Yeah I love this one too...

1Thes 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

 

[Bible2]

Rdr Iakovos said:

It wasn't the bible that refuted the errant Bishops, it was the people.

On what did the people ultimately base their refutation of the errant Bishops, if not the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16)?

Also, is the Church a democracy instead of a theocracy? That is, if a majority of the people in the Church were to someday vote to reject parts of God's Word that they didn't like, would that be valid (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38, John 8:31)?

Rdr Iakovos said:

In that sense, it was the CHURCH that refuted them.

But weren't the errant Bishops part of the Church along with the people? Did the errant Bishops then refute themselves, or did one part of the Church (the people) refute another (errant) part of the Church?

Also, is one part of the Church (the people) infallible while another part (their Bishops) is fallible? If so, then what sense does it make to have the infallible part of the Church be led by its fallible part? And if not, and both the people and the Bishops are fallible, then isn't the entire Church fallible? And if it is, then what sense does it make to claim that the fallible Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, instead of the infallible God himself and his infallible Word being the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:6, 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, Acts 17:11, John 8:31)?

Rdr Iakovos said:

There is no less danger- more, in fact- of being "led astray" by the teachings of those who are outside of the Church, or by our own vain imagination.

Indeed, there is no less danger of that. But how is it more dangerous for us to be led astray by those outside of the Church or by ourselves (as individuals) than by others in the Church? Also, how are we to be kept from being led astray by others in the Church or by those outside of the Church or by ourselves (2 Timothy 4:3-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38) except by our continuing to be diligent to always look to God Himself and His infallible Word as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:6, 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, Acts 17:11, John 8:31)?

 

[sunlover1]

What does that have to do with what I said? To me this is a non-sequitor

It wasn't the bible that refuted the errant Bishops, it was the people. In that sense, it was the CHURCH that refuted them.

There is no less danger- more, in fact- of being "led astray" by the teachings of those who are outside of the Church, or by our own vain imagination.

I thought you were referring to self popedom, sorry.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

On what did the people ultimately base their refutation of the errant Bishops, if not the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16)?

Here you are setting up a false dichotomy- Church
or scripture. Scripture is the measure (kanona) and the Church wields it, judges that which is built-again, by scripture.

Also, is the Church a democracy instead of a theocracy? That is, if a majority of the people in the Church were to someday vote to reject parts of God's Word that they didn't like, would that be valid (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38, John 8:31)?

The answer to your question is as follows: 2000 years into it, we have neither taken nor passed such a vote. There are heterodox groups that have.

But weren't the errant Bishops part of the Church along with the people? Did the errant Bishops then refute themselves, or did one part of the Church (the people) refute another (errant) part of the Church?

Did not Paul oppose Peter to his face? Did Peter cease then to be an Apostle?

Also, is one part of the Church (the people) infallible while another part (their Bishops) is fallible? If so, then what sense does it make to have the infallible part of the Church be led by its fallible part? And if not, and both the people and the Bishops are fallible, then isn't the entire Church fallible? And if it is, then what sense does it make to claim that the fallible Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, instead of the infallible God himself and his infallible Word being the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:6, 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, Acts 17:11, John 8:31)?

Your interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15 is absurd, and as contrived as the JW interpretation of John 1 "and the Word was a God (emphasis and misguided theology theirs). The notion that pillar and ground of truth refers back to God, not to the Church, is a ridiculous and horrible construction in Greek, and is only chosen by those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Church.

The people in the Church- including presiding bishops- are fallible. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Body, the Church, however. If you want to call that infallible, whatever, that's a scholastic, Western concept.

Indeed, there is no less danger of that. But how is it more dangerous for us to be led astray by those outside of the Church or by ourselves (as individuals) than by others in the Church? Also, how are we to be kept from being led astray by others in the Church or by those outside of the Church or by ourselves (2 Timothy 4:3-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38) except by our continuing to be diligent to always look to God Himself and His infallible Word as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:6, 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, Acts 17:11, John 8:31)?

What does scripture say? Wisdom in an abundance of Godly counsel? Tell it to the Church? Obey the elders given charge of your soul? Seems to me wisdom is that, just as one maintains individual rights and self-determination within the covenant of marriage, so does one within the covenant of communion. Nonetheless, there is mutual submission.
Not complicated, just difficult.

 

[Christos Anesti]

But stating that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth still implies that our source of truth should be the fallible Church instead of only the infallible God himself

That might be the implication you personally derive from the statement. Thankfully the Church as never taught that.

 

[jckstraw72]

the infallible God speaks through His Church - His Body!

 

[sunlover1]

Here you say:

It wasn't the bible that refuted the errant Bishops, it was the people. In that sense, it was the CHURCH that refuted them.
.

And to him you say:

Here you are setting up a false dichotomy- Church
or scripture. Scripture is the measure (kanona) and the Church wields it, judges that which is built-again, by scripture.

What does scripture say?

Wisdom in an abundance of Godly counsel?

Although you 'can' have more insight than your teachers
(Meditate on God's words)
97 Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long. 98 Your commands make me wiser than my enemies,
for they are ever with me.
99 I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.

Tell it to the Church?

Obey the elders given charge of your soul?

Just so long as they don't suggest something unBiblical of course.

 

[sunlover1]

the infallible God speaks through His Church - His Body!

Amen!!!!

But...

Is this a new revelation you're excited about?
Or is this in answer to a post?
Just trying to put two and two together.

 

[MamaZ]

the infallible God speaks through His Church - His Body!

As long as they are speaking His words. And not words that He has not spoken nor taught through the Apostles and prophets..

 

[jckstraw72]

As long as they are speaking His words. And not words that He has not spoken nor taught through the Apostles and prophets..

i absolutely agree!

 

[jckstraw72]

Amen!!!!

But...

Is this a new revelation you're excited about?
Or is this in answer to a post?
Just trying to put two and two together.

someone was saying we have replaced the inafllible God with the fallible Church and i was just trying to point out that that is a false dichotomy

 

[sunlover1]

someone was saying we have replaced the inafllible God with the fallible Church and i was just trying to point out that that is a false dichotomy

Thanks Jack.
Since it's my OP .. i wasn't sure if you were answering to the OP or ..
just interjecting an awesome exclamation or something else entirely lol.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by jckstraw72 the infallible God speaks through His Church - His Body!

Amen!!!!

But...

Is this a new revelation you're excited about?
Or is this in answer to a post?
Just trying to put two and two together.

Originally Posted by jckstraw72 someone was saying we have replaced the inafllible God with the fallible Church and i was just trying to point out that that is a false dichotomy

weren't there a few fallible churches that Jesus told John to write to in Revelation

Reve 1:11 saying "which thou are seeing write! into a scroll and send! to the seven Out-Calleds/ekklhsiaiV <1577>.
Into Efeson, and into Smurnan, and into Pergamon and into Quateira and into Sardei and into Filadelfeian and into Laodikeian"