Thank you KIS144 for your response. However, these passages do not answer the question. So again, for a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?I am the way and the truth and the life. John 14:6
And you have an Anointing from the Holy One, so you all know the truth. 1 John 2:20
Why don't you just stop with the riddles and tell us the answer Fid.Thank you KIS144 for your response. However, these passages do not answer the question. So again, for a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?
The answer is the church which according to them is the CC. But to me the CC is far from the upholder and foundation of the "truth". Even my last post shows they haven't even been the upholder of Peter's simple truth. This along with many traditions the CC has added to the Word or created clearly tells me this verse has nothing to do with the CC. But I do know many protestant churches don't uphold certain truths as well.Why don't you just stop with the riddles and tell us the answer Fid.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. Ps 2:12In the end, the church is the many membered body that does uphold the truths that Christ/prophets/apostles brought forth. And we thankfully we have those truths. You already know this I'm sure. I'm just stating this for whomever.
Straight is the gate and narrow is the path and few find it...
You are assuming a lot here. John says he wrote his gospel "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." But we know that there's more to being a Christian than just believing that Jesus is the Christ - that's the first step, but not the only step, because "the demons also believe, and shudder."Of course we aren't privy to every spoken word, every miracle, etc of Christ's ministry. It would be impossible to convey everything. But that's not a license to add new traditions that make void the written word. I'm sure they wrote out everything one needs to know. I don't think the gospels are lacking in that regard. Why would John and others leave anything out we needed to know? They wouldn't- they were inspired by God. He was just letting us know there were many more things Christ did. And one thing we know for certain is that Christ was not about traditions of men.
I recognize that that objection isn't a good one; there are Jews and Muslims and atheists who are extremely smart, but that doesn't make them right. What I was pointing out was not that there are Catholic or Orthodox theologians who are more educated than us, but that in general it's possible for anyone to make an error of judgment and therefore we can't rely on personal study alone.My Dad and I used to argue over the Word and he would say to me, "Do you think you're smarter than Pastor...?
The initiation process was them becoming disciples in the first place. You can't be a disciple if you don't know anything about what you're following. When Paul found out that they had some gaps in their knowledge, he filled them in and, yes, immediately baptized them.Once he taught them about Christ, they were immediately baptized. Again, showing there is no initiation process.
You can rest assured that demons don't have life in His name, "what does light have in common with darkness?" 2 Cor 6:14-16You are assuming a lot here. John says he wrote his gospel "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." But we know that there's more to being a Christian than just believing that Jesus is the Christ - that's the first step, but not the only step, because "the demons also believe, and shudder."
Extremely smart atheists studied themselves disapproved, since they can't grasp that God exists, non believing Jews stumbled and Muslims are under the illusion that they can get to Allah outside of Christ.I recognize that that objection isn't a good one; there are Jews and Muslims and atheists who are extremely smart, but that doesn't make them right. What I was pointing out was not that there are Catholic or Orthodox theologians who are more educated than us, but that in general it's possible for anyone to make an error of judgment and therefore we can't rely on personal study alone.
The initiation process is saving faith. How else would they point others to Christ? Who became the source of eternal salvation Heb 5:9.The initiation process was them becoming disciples in the first place. You can't be a disciple if you don't know anything about what you're following. When Paul found out that they had some gaps in their knowledge, he filled them in and, yes, immediately baptized them.
The specifics of Acts 19 aside, catechesis taking a significant amount of time was the only way it was done for a millennium and a half. If you see that as a red flag then that has some serious implications for Christianity as a whole.
Yes, I realize that and I often make the same point in other threads. But I've been a Christian for most of my life- the last 20 I would like to believe maturing as I grow, etc. What makes you think the Word can't help make all the steps and that some physical church instead is needed for the final steps? Especially when we are told the Word can fully "furnish" making one a mature Christian?But we know that there's more to being a Christian than just believing that Jesus is the Christ - that's the first step, but not the only step, because "the demons also believe, and shudder."
Anyone can make an error that's correct. But you believe that a physical church would set you right before yourself? Even when we have this verse which urges us to study for ourselves? And we are part of the 'church" regardless.and therefore we can't rely on personal study alone.
It still doesn't take away from the fact that after someone has gladly received the Word and honestly repented, the Lord adds them to the 'church" not man. It's God that gives the increase in the individual, not man. That's on God's time.catechesis taking a significant amount of time was the only way it was done for a millennium and a half.
And all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.II Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the world of truth."
We can go straight to the Father. But not according to some. They would rather keep that control to themselves and have you go to them instead, even seeking forgiveness for sins which is certainly not biblical. Far from it. Again, we can go straight to the throne through Christ.
Because He established the church (Matt. 16) and instructed the Apostles in how it was supposed to function (Matt. 18). And the Church is called the Body of Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth. If it weren't divinely established, it would only be good for fellowship, which is nice, but not necessary. But since it was, we know that Jesus works through the Church he established.What makes you think the Word can't help make all the steps and that some physical church instead is needed for the final steps? Especially when we are told the Word can fully "furnish" making one a mature Christian?
In general, yes. For one thing, I am not a native speaker of the languages the Bible was written in, so even to the extent that I know a little Greek, I don't understand the New Testament like the early Church Fathers did. Spiritually, I am not nearly as righteous or conformed to the will of God as the great doctors of the Church were. I have no reason to believe that I alone, by studying a set of documents identified by the Church as divinely inspired and translated by men at least 1500 years removed from the original authors, can come to an understanding different from what they taught and be right. 2 Tim. 2:15 doesn't contradict this - in the first place, "study" is just one possible translation of a word that can also mean "be diligent" or "make effort," so it's not clear that the verse even refers to textual study, but secondly, even if it does, it says nothing about preferring self study to church.But you believe that a physical church would set you right before yourself? Even when we have this verse which urges us to study for ourselves?
Sure, but I don't think that level of understanding is nearly as common as you think it is. We have multiple examples from the Bible of people failing to have that kind of understanding: the Ethiopian eunuch openly told Philip that he couldn't understand Isaiah unless someone explained the meaning to him, and Peter wrote that there are many confusing things in Paul's letters that people twist to their destruction. And history shows us no shortage of heretical sects that came up with strange ideas about God; this situation didn't end during the apostolic age.Anyone with understanding can read chapter by chapter and verse by verse, knowing the context and how to apply it when studying, etc.
Our Lord said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, that He would be with the Church "to the end of the age," and that the Spirit would lead the Apostles, the first bishops, "into all truth." I don't know of any traditions that "are contradicting the Word," although I'm sure that comes down to a difference in interpretation.What makes you so sure the church you are putting faith in is delivering you the truth? Tradition? History? If they teach you something are you backing it up in the word or trusting the traditions that have been handed down or even though some are contradicting the Word?
And what about where Christians are instructed not to forsake gathering together in Hebrews 10:25? Surely that's an important part of how one is to behave.And I can see with my own eyes from the Word, how one is to behave. I take communion and so on. It's good to have fellowship, etc. But we are in charge of how we should study and how we receive the Word.
I agree that most churches are only giving out milk. I felt that way too when I was Methodist - we'd get a lot of vague sermons or sermon series that were only tangentially related to the Scripture they referenced. I did have one pastor for a few years who was very good at explaining the original Greek, but he was an exception. I have not noticed that nearly as much since I started visiting Catholic and Orthodox churches, where the homily/sermon is supposed to be an exposition of the day's gospel reading.I've learned more (meat, not milk that most churches feed) on my own than I could ever learn sitting on a pew in a lifetime. The maturation happened because of what I did on my part through the Father/Son -not from a physical church.
I know this probably doesn't make a difference, but I'm not Catholic. I'm still in the discernment process between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy after leaving Methodism and finding nothing but disappointment in other Protestant denominations. You do have a valid criticism of the idea of blessing same-sex couples - that has been a serious blow to Rome's credibility, but at least most of the bishops have either outright rejected that document or ignored it.I know this thread is about promoting the CC as the authority and one real church but I don't believe it. Christ states by their fruits we will know them. They might have had good intentions in the early days but there are just too many false doctrines, some of their books have blatant errors even after putting together the canon of the rest and the list goes on. They certainly have branched off in their own direction and are still making decisions to this day (blessing same sex couples-not individuals) that are contrary to God.
Riddles? What riddles are you speaking of? A riddle is a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game. With all respect, I do not consider the Word of God a game.Why don't you just stop with the riddles and tell us the answer Fid.
Hi Jas3. nice to meet you.Because He established the church (Matt. 16) and instructed the Apostles in how it was supposed to function (Matt. 18)
We believers are ALL the church (ecclesia) filled with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:7) who teaches all truth ( Jn. 14:17,26; 16:13,14). John reminded believers that they were taught by the abiding in them, Holy Spirit, and did not need that any man teach them. (I Jn. 2:27). And the Church is called the Body of Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth.
The church is not a particular building. The kingdom of God is within us. (Lk. 17:21b) We don't go through the Church for Salvation, it is through Christ.. If it weren't divinely established, it would only be good for fellowship, which is nice, but not necessary. But since it was, we know that Jesus works through the Church he established.
Jas3:
In general, yes. For one thing, I am not a native speaker of the languages the Bible was written in, so even to the extent that I know a little Greek, I don't understand the New Testament like the early Church Fathers did
Jas3:
They did a lot of twisting, forgery, antedating...so i wouldn't put all my eggs in a basket concerning them.Spiritually, I am not nearly as righteous or conformed to the will of God as the great doctors of the Church were. I have no reason to believe that I alone, by studying a set of documents identified by the Church as divinely inspired and translated by men at least 1500 years removed from the original authors, can come to an understanding different from what they taught and be right.
The scriptures say the Holy Spirit teaches all things concerning Jesus and what he said. We study to show ourselves approved. (II Tim.2:15)2 Tim. 2:15 doesn't contradict this - in the first place, "study" is just one possible translation of a word that can also mean "be diligent" or "make effort," so it's not clear that the verse even refers to textual study, but secondly, even if it does, it says nothing about preferring self study to church.
Sure , the Ethiopian was not familiar with the Scriptures, he needed a quick synopsis. And Paul was ministering to Gentiles who did not know God's word either. But the Bereans tested all of what Paul preached by the Scriptures they obviously had.Sure, but I don't think that level of understanding is nearly as common as you think it is. We have multiple examples from the Bible of people failing to have that kind of understanding: the Ethiopian eunuch openly told Philip that he couldn't understand Isaiah unless someone explained the meaning to him, and Peter wrote that there are many confusing things in Paul's letters that people twist to their destruction. And history shows us no shortage of heretical sects that came up with strange ideas about God; this situation didn't end during the apostolic age.
Gates of hell? The gate of death (Ps.9:13) Sheol. Christ was assuring that even death could not prevail over Him. Those prisoners (saved dead) He would set free. (Ps. 102:20; Is. 42:7; 49:9; 61:1).Our Lord said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, that He would be with the Church "to the end of the age,"
All Christ's followers are lead and taught by the Holy Spirit. (I Jn. 2:20,27)and that the Spirit would lead the Apostles, the first bishops, "into all truth."
The Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation, Eucharist, co-mediatrix, purgatory,....there is a long laundry list not Scriptural.I don't know of any traditions that "are contradicting the Word," although I'm sure that comes down to a difference in interpretation.
We go to church all the time. I go several times a week.what about where Christians are instructed not to forsake gathering together in Hebrews 10:25? Surely that's an important part of how one is to behave.
I have been to many churches, and find the RCC seriously lacking in teaching Scriptural truths. Sorry.I agree that most churches are only giving out milk. I felt that way too when I was Methodist - we'd get a lot of vague sermons or sermon series that were only tangentially related to the Scripture they referenced. I did have one pastor for a few years who was very good at explaining the original Greek, but he was an exception. I have not noticed that nearly as much since I started visiting Catholic and Orthodox churches, where the homily/sermon is supposed to be an exposition of the day's gospel reading.
The church can be an excellent place to learn more truth about Scriptures as well.Either way, we shouldn't expect all of our spiritual growth to happen sitting on a pew. We go to church on Sundays to worship God, not to get a comprehensive education. It's a house of worship, not a school.
Really? Sounds like your leaning towards it.I know this probably doesn't make a difference, but I'm not Catholic.
Sounds like you have already made your mind up. The RCC is/was not the early church as she claims though. Their proof (the RCC) is that Peter was first bishop in Rome in 44/45 A.D., but the Scriptures do not agree with that assumption.. When Paul arrived in Rome (Acts 28) that after three days he called together the chief of the Jews,(17)but it was not Peter. The Jews had no understanding of the Scriptures about the kingdom of God, nor about the Christian church. (22,23). Peter has obviously never been the bishop over them.I'm still in the discernment process between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy after leaving Methodism and finding nothing but disappointment in other Protestant denominations.
ye shall know them by their fruits. Blessings!You do have a valid criticism of the idea of blessing same-sex couples - that has been a serious blow to Rome's credibility, but at least most of the bishops have either outright rejected that document or ignored it.
That is a novel interpretation, which is contradicted by Titus 3:10-11, where Paul says to "reject" or "shun" an unrepentant sinner after multiple warnings. Further, Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins (John 20:22-23). This power was used by Paul to excommunicate people (1 Cor. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:20). And Paul told the Corinthians in that same chapter not to associate with those who claim to be Christians but are notorious sinners (1 Cor. 5:9-13).However, its not about passing judgement on any, as in power to forgive or not to forgive, as Jesus makes it clear that we must forgive every time. (vs. 35). Jesus also tells us that if the brother is not willing to repent, then we are to treat him as a publican or sinner. (As in ministering all over again to them. Jesus never turned anyone down but kept ministering).
Christ is not the antecedent of "it" in Matt. 16:18.Christ was assuring that even death could not prevail over Him.
Not sure what would give you that impression.Sounds like you have already made your mind up.
The Bible indeed testifies of the truth but sadly some are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 3:7-8Riddles? What riddles are you speaking of? A riddle is a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game. With all respect, I do not consider the Word of God a game.
Keep in mind KIS144, the title of this thread is to ask Protestants such as yourself questions, and that is exactly what I did....... two questions to be exact.
"For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"
Maybe I should have asked that you to put more emphasis on the second question than the first. It is a yes or no question, if you were to answer 'yes' I would have asked you to please explain why, a 'no' answer would be asked the same.
Have a Blessed Day!
Well that would be the fault of any church not built upon God's truth as Jesus told the Apostles it would be while at the Gates of Hell.but sadly some are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth
Novel indeed. There is a big difference between heretic and a brother that trespasses against you. I dont believe dogma or going against revealed truth is the issue in( Matt. 18;15-17).That is a novel interpretation, which is contradicted by Titus 3:10-11, where Paul says to "reject" or "shun" an unrepentant sinner after multiple warnings.
Matthew 9:6 "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins"..Further, Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins (John 20:22-23).
Doesn't speak of excommunication.This power was used by Paul to excommunicate people (1 Cor. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:20).
Not to company with fornicators. Those without God...put away. Hmm.And Paul told the Corinthians in that same chapter not to associate with those who claim to be Christians but are notorious sinners (1 Cor. 5:9-13).
Christ is the Rock, always has been. Ps. 78:35; Deut. 32:15; II Sam. 23:3; Ps. 42:9;Hab. 1:12; II Sam. 22:32; Ps. 78:35 etc....Christ is not the antecedent of "it" in Matt. 16:18.
The verses I referenced aren't talking about heretics, they're referring to immoral people in general. They are not so easily separated from our Lord's instructions in Matt. 18.There is a big difference between heretic and a brother that trespasses against you. I dont believe dogma or going against revealed truth is the issue in( Matt. 18;15-17).
Then how do you explain the verses I cited in John?Jesus would be guilty of blasphemy Himself if He placed the forgiveness of sins in mans hands.
How does it not?Doesn't speak of excommunication.
The rock in Matt. 16:18 is not the antecedent of "it" either.Christ is the Rock, always has been.
Titus 3:10-heretic.The verses I referenced aren't talking about heretics, they're referring to immoral people in general. They are not so easily separated from our Lord's instructions in Matt. 18.
Blasphemy.Then how do you explain the verses I cited in John?
excommunication isnt mentioned.How does it not?
That is your interpretation.The rock in Matt. 16:18 is not the antecedent of "it" either.
You're right, I should have been more clear, I was thinking of the other verses I referenced in that paragraph. The verse in Titus is referring to heretics, but 1 Cor. 5, for example, is about immoral people - Paul mentions "an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler."Titus 3:10-heretic.
Are you saying that what is written about Jesus in John's gospel is blasphemy?Blasphemy.
Paul talks about delivering people over to Satan and excluding them from the association of the church. That's excommunication.excommunication isnt mentioned.
It is also the interpretation of most confessional Protestant denominations today, as well as the majority of Christian sources throughout history.That is your interpretation.
You know the word that God sent to the people of Israel declaring peace through Jesus who is Lord of all [both Jews and Gentiles]. Acts 10:36Well that would be the fault of any church not built upon God's truth as Jesus told the Apostles it would be while at the Gates of Hell.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?