Scripture as my measure

A church built upon the prophets and apostles the cheif cornerstone being Christ

sunlover1 said:

Who's that? Where did this come from friend?
Here you go. Is that better?
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


Hey! We belong to the same church sister!

(we are also the pillar and ground of truth)

Click to expand...

Yes we do sis

Christos Anesti said:

the "..." of course being the part of the sentence you didn't quote which shows that the verse is talking about "the house of God" which is the Church.

Click to expand...

Note that the first part of 1 Timothy 3:15, which simply says that the house of God is the church, doesn't change what the second part of 1 Timothy 3:15 says, that the living God himself is the pillar and ground of the truth; this is what other verses show as well (John 14:6, Ephesians 4:21, cf. 1 Timothy 2:4, John 17:3).

We must never try to replace God himself with the church as our source of truth, because the church is fallible. It's only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16), which is his truth (John 17:17), that we can be sure not to be led astray by anyone in the church who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31, Mark 8:35-38).

We must never try to replace God himself with the church as our source of truth

Click to expand...

God is truth. Stating that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth in no way invalidates that statement or seeks to replace one with the other.

this is what other verses show as well

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing how those verse would invalidate a reading of the Church as the pillar and ground of truth?

Bible2 said:

Note that the first part of 1 Timothy 3:15, which simply says that the house of God is the church, doesn't change what the second part of 1 Timothy 3:15 says, that the living God himself is the pillar and ground of the truth; this is what other verses show as well (John 14:6, Ephesians 4:21, cf. 1 Timothy 2:4, John 17:3).

We must never try to replace God himself with the church as our source of truth, because the church is fallible. It's only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16), which is his truth (John 17:17), that we can be sure not to be led astray by anyone in the church who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31, Mark 8:35-38).

Click to expand...

I always thought the Church is the Body of Christ. I would not want to seperate God's head from His Body.

Jesus gave men authority and those first men were the Apostles. They then left other men with authority and these men have continued in an Apostolic line since the beginning. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Christos Anesti said:

God is truth. Stating that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth in no way invalidates that statement or seeks to replace one with the other.

I'm not seeing how those verse would invalidate a reading of the Church as the pillar and ground of truth?

Click to expand...

Irenaeus, Against Heresires, 3.1.1: WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

2 Timothy 3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

1Tim 1:14 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
And we know...

2Titus 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Given the church is built upon the foundation of prophets and apostles Christ being the corner stone who gave some to be pastors, teachers etc for...

Ephes 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Ive been shown:

St Irenaues was pointing out the difference between the Apostolic or Orthodox Church and the various gnostic heresies. The true Church is the Church of the Apostles, the ones through whom we have the Bible. . The Apostles were members of the Church , which is the mystical body of Christ .We have their testimony in the Bible. By the grace of the Holy Spirit it can be a true guide for those within the Church to discern orthodoxy from hetrodoxy. I have no beef with using Scripture as ones measure. It has to be understood within the Church and in the Holy Spirit however. To those outside the Church it isn't a completly open book.

The fact that St Irenaues calls the Gospels (which are a book OF the Church and are in fact Holy Tradition ) the pillar and ground of truth in no way rules out the Church being the pillar and ground of truth.

I was also under the impression that you considered "the pillar and ground of truth" to be exclusively Jesus but you quoted something that gives that term to a book of the Church - the Bible?

-----------

Fireinfold,

I agree with those verses and so does the Orthodox Church. I've never voiced disagreement with them.

This of course leads me to think of the fact that none of the books in our canon lay out a divinly inspired table of contents telling us which books are in fact canon. If we accept books as Canon based on the words of the first Apostles themselves even that would be Tradition too.* Of course that issue has been debated ad nauseam too many times already.

*It might have something to do with this verse though:

2 Thessalonians 2:15,

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

Christos Anesti said:

The fact that St Irenaues calls the Gospels (which are a book OF the Church and are in fact Holy Tradition ) the pillar and ground of truth in no way rules out the Church being the pillar and ground of truth.

I was also under the impression that you considered "the pillar and ground of truth" to be exclusively Jesus but you quoted something that gives that term to a book of the Church - the Bible?

Click to expand...

Irenaeus calls the Gospel, the plan of Salvation -- which is Christ Jesus and his doctrine -- the pillar and ground of truth, and says that the very knowledge of this was handed to us in the scriptures.

Thus it is written by the apostle Paul, that the scriptures may lead the servant of God to be furnished for every good work. The tradition he writes of is the very tradition Paul said should be kept after hearing whether by word of mouth or the epistles of the apostles.


The Roman Church has added so much onto that faith and preaching since then. Lo and behold, everything Irenaeus wrote of in that segment describing the faith, I agree with.

Why wouldn't Irenaeus have included "apostolic succession" and "accepting declared dogma of the pope in all willingness" in the paragraph about the faith taught and handed down to him?

Irenaeus calls the Gospel, the plan of Salvation -- which is Christ Jesus and his doctrine -- the pillar and ground of truth, and says that the very knowledge of this was handed to us in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

I see now. I must have misread it.

Christos Anesti said:

This of course leads me to think of the fact that none of the books in our canon lay out a divinly inspired table of contents telling us which books are in fact canon. If we accept books as Canon based on the words of the first Apostles themselves even that would be Tradition too.* Of course that issue has been debated ad nauseam too many times already.

*It might have something to do with verse though:

2 Thessalonians 2:15,

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

Click to expand...

I realize as well as you that this topic has been debated to ad nauseam (as you say) Whats the next verse of 2 Thes 2:15? It speaks to their behavior, manner of walk and life (which remains beautifully after Christ) the subverting of souls in acts was by words "only" whereas when they heard some were teaching that which was contrary to that counsil of apostlesand reaffirmed Acts 13:39 (which ye have been taught/ in the past tense) in Acts 15:1 where the counsil was held and where the same issue arises before them all concerning Moses. 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"


Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Acts 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas,who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

In the past tense in both places and whether by (either or) as they spake the same things by mouth they wrote in their letters

2Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

See what I mean?

Christos Anesti said:

the "..." of course being the part of the sentence you didn't quote which shows that the verse is talking about "the house of God" which is the Church.

Click to expand...

Which "House" do you or others view as "Falling" in Revelation 14:8

Matt 7:24 And all the one hearing of Me the words, these, and no doing them shall be likened to a man, stupid/foolish, who-any builds of him the House upon the sand.
25 And descended the rains and the streams, and blow the winds, and they toward-strike the House, that, and she/it falls, and was the fall of her great.
[Revelation 14:8]

Reve 14:8 And another Messenger, second-one follows saying "She 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".
[Jeremiah 51:8/Luke 19:44]

Christos Anesti said:

God is truth. Stating that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth in no way invalidates that statement or seeks to replace one with the other.

I'm not seeing how those verse would invalidate a reading of the Church as the pillar and ground of truth?

Click to expand...

Stating that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth implies that the source of truth is the fallible Church instead of the infallible God himself (1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:6, Ephesians 4:21, cf. 1 Timothy 2:4, John 17:3) and His infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17). It's only by continually and diligently looking to God Himself and His Word as our source of truth (Acts 17:11) that we can be sure not to be led astray by anyone in the Church who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31, Mark 8:35-38).

This could become crucially important in the future, because the man who will become the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 13:11-16, Revelation 16:13, Revelation 19:20) could currently be a (secretly apostate) Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, preparing himself to become the next Pope. If he becomes the next Pope, he could begin his tenure by making a great push for peace and unity between Christianity and Islam. He could say something like: "Why do we fight each other? Are we not all the spiritual children of Abraham and of his God, the one God? Can't we lay aside our foolish, man-made differences of theology, which have done us no good at all, but only brought us hatred and violence, and unite into one religion of Abraham, one religion of peace, based on love for the one God and love for our fellow man? What is more important than this (Mark 12:30-31)?"

If the False Prophet becomes the next Pope, he could be so skillful in elucidating what the moderate Muslims could call "the true, peaceful, loving nature of Islam", that he could be hailed by them worldwide as (in their words) "A Great Imam, come to rescue our beloved Islam from the terrible reputation falsely given to it by the terrorists". In this way, the next Pope could come to hold high positions of power in two religions at the same time, which could be symbolized by the "two horns" of the False Prophet (Revelation 13:11).

The False Prophet could try to employ the Biblical prophecy of the second coming of Jesus, as well as the Muslim prophecy which says that the miracle-working prophet Jesus will return bodily from heaven in the last days to bring the whole earth into the worship of the true God. For the False Prophet could claim (falsely) that he is Jesus, returned to bring the whole earth into the worship of the true God, and he could perform amazing miracles (Revelation 13:13) as purported "proof" of his claim (cf. John 3:2, Matthew 24:24).

Once the False Prophet by his amazing miracles has brought the whole earth under his spell (Revelation 13:13-16, Revelation 19:20), including most nominal Muslims and Christians (who may not care much for scriptural dogma, but could go ga-ga over his signs and wonders), he could begin to "reveal" to the world (what he could call) "The real message which was spoken by me (Jesus) at my first coming, and by the great prophet Mohammed, but which message became corrupted by power-hungry men when they copied and changed the early manuscripts of the Bible and the Koran". He could then gradually initiate the world into the Antichrist's Luciferian Gnosticism (1 John 4:3, Revelation 13:4-5), a religion which could have existed since ancient times in some "mystery" cults, and which still exists today in the highest degree of initiation of a worldwide secret society.

The False Prophet could miraculously call fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13) as purported "proof" that Lucifer (the dragon) and the Antichrist (the beast) are the true God (Revelation 13:4,8). This would be a counterfeit of when the true prophet Elijah miraculously called fire down from heaven to prove that YHWH is the true God (1 Kings 18:37-39). The Antichrist, like the Gnostics, will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36) and will deny that Christ is in the flesh (1 John 4:3). The Antichrist will also deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22).

The Antichrist and his False Prophet could say that (the non-flesh) Lucifer is the Christ, for "Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) means "the morning star", and Christ is the morning star (Revelation 22:16); also, Christ identified himself with the serpent (John 3:14), and Lucifer (Satan) is the serpent (Revelation 12:9). The truth is that Lucifer fell from his office of morning star (Isaiah 14:12) and became Satan (cf. Luke 10:18); Jesus the Christ has taken over the office of morning star (Revelation 22:16). And Jesus the Christ identified himself only with the brass serpent on the pole in Numbers 21:8-9 (John 3:14), which typified Jesus the Christ's crucifixion for our sins (John 19:16, Matthew 26:28).

But if the Antichrist and his False Prophet will say that Lucifer is the Christ and that the False Prophet is Jesus, then who will they say that the Antichrist is? They could say that the Antichrist is the human/divine "Son" of Lucifer, who must be worshipped as God along with Lucifer (Revelation 13:4). This would be similar to how Biblical Christians now worship the human/divine Jesus (John 1:1,14) as God (the Son) along with God the Father (John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8).

If the next Pope does become the Antichrist's False Prophet, Catholics will have to decide what their source of truth is: Is it the Pope and the Catholic Church or is it God and the Bible? Many Catholics who know God and the Bible well and hold to them as their source of truth will no doubt be utterly aghast at the false doctrines of the False Prophet Pope. Such Catholics could demand that the False Prophet Pope be removed for heresy and apostasy and that the Cardinals elect a new Pope. But other Catholics, including many Cardinals, bishops, and priests, could be deceived (along with the rest of the world) into believing the False Prophet Pope's false doctrines because of his ability to perform the most amazing miracles (Revelation 13:13-14, Revelation 19:20, cf. Matthew 24:24).

And so a great schism could arise within the Catholic Church, with some Catholics following the False Prophet Pope, and other Catholics rejecting him and eventually even electing their own, new Pope, which they could declare to be the "True Pope". But this new, "True Pope" could then be murdered by the soldiers of the False Prophet Pope (cf. the Third Secret of Fatima). The False Prophet Pope could manage to retain the Papacy and full control of the Vatican, and through his (deceived) Cardinals, bishops, and priests, retain full control of all Catholic cathedrals, parishes, churches, etc., throughout the world. And when the Antichrist (the beast) obtains power over all nations, he and the False Prophet will make war against Biblical Christians, whether Catholic or not, throughout the world, and will overcome them and kill them in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:15).

JacktheCatholic said:

I always thought the Church is the Body of Christ. I would not want to seperate God's head from His Body.

Click to expand...

Note that it hasn't been said that the Body of Christ isn't connected to its Divine Head. Instead, what's being said is that stating that the Body is the pillar and ground of truth implies that the source of truth is the fallible Body instead of its infallible Divine Head (1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:6, Ephesians 4:21, cf. 1 Timothy 2:4, John 17:3) and His infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17). It's only by the Body continually and diligently looking to its Divine Head and His Word as the Body's source of truth (Acts 17:11) that the Body can be sure not to be led astray by anyone in the Body who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict the Word of the Divine Head (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31, Mark 8:35-38).

JacktheCatholic said:

Jesus gave men authority and those first men were the Apostles. They then left other men with authority and these men have continued in an Apostolic line since the beginning. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Click to expand...

The first Apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus, and so they knew firsthand what Jesus taught (2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:1, Galatians 1:11-12). But their successors didn't know firsthand what Jesus taught. So any teachings of their successors must always be checked against what Jesus taught, as recorded in God's Word.

Also, note that not even the authority of the first Apostles was absolute, because even the first Apostles were fallible (Galatians 2:11-14, John 18:17). Their teachings were checked against the truth of God's Word (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22). So how much more should we check the teachings of their successors against the truth of God's Word. All those in authority in the Church, like all men, are fallible; they can wrongly employ their free will to veer away from the truth of God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31, Mark 8:35-38).

Stating that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth implies that the source of truth is the fallible Church instead of the infallible God himself

Click to expand...

I've never seen any of the Orthodox Fathers of the Church claim that the Church is the infallible source of truth and not God. If I called the Bible "truth" or "true" would I be wrongly usurping Christs role as the Truth? If I called the Bible "the word of God" would I be usurping Christs nature as The Word and wrongly applying it to a book ? No, the Church is Christs mystical body. The Bible is the word of God. They are true because He is True.

But their successors didn't know firsthand what Jesus taught. So any teachings of their successors must always be checked against what Jesus taught, as recorded in God's Word.

Click to expand...

What about Saint Paul ? He didn't know Christ first hand prior to his death and resurection. Are his writings second hand and thus need to be checked against the writings of Sts John, Matthew,etc..? Do we have to check the New Testament against the OT before we can trust it too? Often when NT writers speak of "the scripture" they mean the Old Testament as the NT was still in the process of being written. Some NT letters speak of "the scripture" before others were even written. We can't even have a canon of scripture without Tradition. If Tradition is fallible then our canon of scripture would be fallible as well. Even if you say "well, eventually after every letter we now have in our canon was written, one of the Apostles (St Mark, etc) told the Christians which books to include", that would be Tradition too.

could currently be a (secretly apostate) Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, preparing himself to become the next Pope. If he becomes the next Pope,

Click to expand...

The Pope of the RC Church isn't even a member of our Church. Our understanding of the Church being the pillar and ground of truth would in no way convince us to follow him. In fact it wouldn't even convince us to follow erring bishops or priests in our own Church. There have been times when orthodoxy and the teaching of the Church were primarily defended by the "lay people" and the monks and many of bishops went astray.

Christos Anesti said:

I've never seen any of the Orthodox Fathers of the Church claim that the Church is the infallible source of truth and not God.

Click to expand...

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 (1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:6, Ephesians 4:21, cf. 1 Timothy 2:4, John 17:3) and His infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17). It's only by looking to God Himself and His Word as our source of truth (Acts 17:11) that we can be sure not to be led astray by anyone in the Church who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31, Mark 8:35-38).

Christos Anesti said:

If I called the Bible "truth" or "true" would I be wrongly usurping Christs role as the Truth?

Click to expand...

No, because Christ's role as the truth (John 14:6, 1 Timothy 3:15) includes his infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17).

Christos Anesti said:

If I called the Bible "the word of God" would I be usurping Christs nature as The Word and wrongly applying it to a book ?

Click to expand...

No, because Christ's role as the Word (John 1:1,16) includes his infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17).

Christos Anesti said:

No, the Church is Christs mystical body. The Bible is the word of God. They are true because He is True.

Click to expand...

But unlike God's Word, the Church isn't always true, but consists of fallible men (Galatians 2:11-14, John 18:17), who can wrongly employ their free will to veer away from the truth of God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38). So we must always check their teachings against God's infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, John 8:31).

Christos Anesti said:

What about Saint Paul ? He didn't know Christ first hand prior to his death and resurection. Are his writings second hand and thus need to be checked against the writings of Sts John, Matthew,etc..?

Click to expand...

No, because Paul still knew firsthand what Christ taught (1 Corinthians 9:1, Galatians 1:11-12, Acts 26:16-18).

Christos Anesti said:

Do we have to check the New Testament against the OT before we can trust it too?

Click to expand...

No, because the New Testament is God's Word.

Christos Anesti said:

Often when NT writers speak of "the scripture" they mean the Old Testament as the NT was still in the process of being written. Some NT letters speak of "the scripture" before others were even written. We can't even have a canon of scripture without Tradition. If Tradition is fallible then our canon of scripture would be fallible as well. Even if you say "well, eventually after every letter we now have in our canon was written, one of the Apostles (St Mark, etc) told the Christians which books to include", that would be Tradition too.

Click to expand...

Regarding tradition, there are incorrect traditions from fallible men (Colossians 2:8, 1 Peter 1:18) which contradict God's Word (Mark 7:13), and there are correct traditions based on God's Word (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, John 8:31). There are also man-made traditions which, even though they don't contradict anything in God's Word, they go beyond God's Word (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6), and so they aren't binding on Christians, who can choose for themselves whether they'll follow them or not (e.g. Romans 14:5-6).

Regarding the New Testament, Biblical Christians know that the entire New Testament is God's Word (2 Peter 3:16, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 2 Timothy 3:15-4:4, John 8:31) not because they're following a tradition from men, but because they've been granted God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Hebrews 11:1) and some measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). And so they're able to spiritually recognize if something is said by God (John 10:4,27, 1 Corinthians 14:37) or only by some "stranger" (John 10:5).

Also, Jesus said that all of the Old Testament is true (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48), and nothing in the New Testament contradicts anything in the Old Testament (Acts 26:22, Luke 24:44-48). If anything in the New Testament had contradicted anything in the Old Testament, it never would have become part of the New Testament, but would have been rejected from the start as an incorrect tradition from fallible men (Colossians 2:8, 1 Peter 1:18) which contradicted God's infallible Word (Mark 7:13, 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, John 8:31).

Christos Anesti said:

The Pope of the RC Church isn't even a member of our Church. Our understanding of the Church being the pillar and ground of truth would in no way convince us to follow him. In fact it wouldn't even convince us to follow erring bishops or priests in our own Church. There have been times when orthodoxy and the teaching of the Church were primarily defended by the "lay people" and the monks and many of bishops went astray.

Click to expand...

The fact that even bishops in the Church can go astray means that we need to be always looking to God Himself and His infallible Word as 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), so that we won't ever be led astray by anyone in the Church who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38).

Bible2 said:

The fact that even bishops in the Church can go astray means that we need to be always looking to God Himself and His infallible Word as 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), so that we won't ever be led astray by anyone in the Church who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38).

Click to expand...

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.