What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

[racer]

(In bits and pieces due to time contraints)

Again, I ask you to focus on the issues and not get personal. Simple logic tells us that Paul wrote the letter, not you, not me. Paul.

Um, let's see . . . are you the OP (original poster)? The answer to that would be a big "NO." Therefore, you are not in a position to specify or change the topic of the OP.

Hey, here's a thought . . . . take your own advice . . . .

 

[racer]

I'm a little mixed up. What do you mean by the "Gospel"?

I think you’re a lot mixed up. I thought we were supposed to be sticking to what “Paul was talking about—his truth” That was your dictate more than once—do I need to show you? Can’t you make up your mind, or are you perhaps more confused that I thought.
But, since you asked, I’ll answer. As I said it once already, I mean the Gospel as Paul taught it.

Do you mean the story of Jesus, as in, the "Gospel of John" or the "Gospel of Luke"?

Have you never been taught what the word Gospel means? The Gospel is “The Good News” as delivered by Christ during His earthly ministry. The word has become synonymous with Truth and is known as God’s Truth, His message; it is the Truth of which Paul spoke. There is only one Gospel/truth in God’s eyes. The Bible does not contain the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, The Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John. Those four books are called, The Gospel according to Matthew, the Gospel according to Mark, The Gospel according to Luke, and The Gospel according to John.

Here is what my friend Webster says:

Main Entry: 1gos·pel
Pronunciation: 'gäs-p&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gOdspel (translation of Late Latin evangelium), from gOd good + spell tale -- more at SPELL
1 a often capitalized : the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation b capitalized : one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; also : a similar apocryphal book c : an interpretation of the Christian message [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e social gospel>
2 capitalized : a lection from one of the New Testament Gospels
3 : the message or teachings of a religious teacher
4 : something accepted or promoted as infallible truth or as a guiding principle or doctrine <took her words as gospel> <spreading the gospel of conservation -- R. M. Hodesh>
5 : gospel music

Are you confining Paul's 'truth' strictly to the story of Jesus?

Why would you think that?

If so, why doesn't Paul simply say "Gospel"?

Good grief! What are you talking about? Do you think Paul spoke English?

If you don't mean simply the story of Jesus and mean the rest of the information contained in the letters and Acts and the Old Testament---how do you arrive to that conclusion biblically?

First, I don&#8217;t mean that. Second, any knowledge I have I have obtained by reading my Bible and instruction through church. You know, if there&#8217;s some point you&#8217;re trying to make against me using my responses, isn&#8217;t it a little past time for you to do so? You keep asking these pointless questions and never going anywhere with my answers. I don&#8217;t know about anybody else who may be trying to follow this discussion, but I for one am curious.

Why doesn't Paul say anything about scripture?

Better yet, why DID Peter, you know the very first Pope? Why did Peter refer to Paul&#8217;s teachings as Scripture?

This seems to go against what Paul is directly saying in the letter to the church. Paul directly says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Well, first, I thought we agreed on this already&#8212;that Paul said the church is the pillar and foundation of truth? However, it is incumbent upon you to prove that Paul capitalized the word church. Also, I&#8217;m curious as to how my statement even relates to Paul saying that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, more less, how it contradicts it. Care to explain?

Paul doesn't mention scripture at all. If he meant scripture, why didn't he mention scripture?

Funny . . . I still don&#8217;t recall asserting that Paul used the word Scripture.

All well and good, but I simply don't see a correlation between those letters and Paul's statement about the church being the pillar and foundation of truth, or at least as far as truth being limited to the letters.

I don&#8217;t see anybody asserting that Paul limited the truth to his letters.

He doesn't even mention in this particular letter about preserving it as being the 'truth'.

So, what&#8217;s your point? Because he doesn&#8217;t say the words, &#8220;what I speak to you is Truth,&#8221; we don&#8217;t consider what he wrote to be truth? Paul, being an apostle and servant of the Lord, was instructing the church, isn&#8217;t it only logical to conclude that He considered what he was teaching to be the truth? I mean, he states that the church is the &#8220;pillar and foundation of truth,&#8221; does he then go on to identify the truth as something other than that about which he was speaking?

You contend that in this letter that he means truth is 'scripture' yet he doesn't even mention anything about the letter itself being preserved as 'truth'.

Where did I make this contention?

Only the church is mentioned as the pillar and foundation.

Again, we already agreed on this.

In other words---Yes, the gospels, acts, and letters are 'truth', but there is simply no indication that 'truth' is to be constricted to what became "scripture".

Which is no reason to believe that some part of the Gospel has been left out of Scripture.

Paul doesn't say so anywhere in any of his letters, let alone say it in this letter which you want to use to prove your theory.

Paul may not have used these words, but we know from example&#8217;s of practice&#8212;not only Paul&#8217;s, but the other apostles&#8217;, also&#8212;that when they were not present to teach themselves, they wrote epistles to the churches they were instructing.

To use a Catholic/Orthodox argument against you, the Bible never uses the word Trinity. So, are we to conclude it is &#8220;null and void&#8221; as doctrine?

 

[racer]

I'll leave aside what I regard as the totality of what Paul meant as 'truth' for a moment and say that what I do know is that Paul certainly did not mean that 'truth' be limited to scripture.

Then it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that claim. Sorry, you don’t qualify as an authority to make such an assertion with out documented evidence to support your claim.

How can we know what Paul meant as 'truth'? The answer is simple and in black and white.

Eggzackly!! In black & white in my Bible!

Paul laid it out to us very clearly: We go to the Church for 'truth' because the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

It is incumbent upon you to show where Paul said that we go to the church for the truth. Also, show where he capitalized the word church, please.

I don't think it is moot at all. In your first post you attempted to constrict what truth was:

The statement below says nothing about how I would define the truth of which Paul spoke. It addresses what I understand to be the scope and authority of the church being the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Not what I consider Paul’s truth or anybody’s truth to be.

"I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible"

That is where you went wrong from the git-go. Your inability to discern my statements has led you on a wasteful journey. You’re making arguments against points I never made. That statement says nothing about what I consider Paul’s “truth” to be.

I only went further on this subject because you attempted to restrict 'truth' to what we read in scripture.

Wrong again. I only restrict our ability to know God’s truth/Gospel to what is given to us in Scripture.

I simply want to establish that there is no basis whatsoever that Paul meant that 'truth' be limited to scripture.

Again, a contention I never made.

Let me give you an analogy. Let’s take Stephen King, a well known author. He begins writing a book, telling a story. Now, in his telling of this story, or when he’s finished with it, he doesn’t say that he is restricting the information or narration of this story to what is contained within that story only.

Anybody who reads King knows that he often writes sequels or interchanges characters in different books. So, when we finish one book, we don’t know there’s going to be a sequel until the sequel is published. Sometimes, he is finished with a particular story and does not write a sequel, but he’s not finished with a particular character. So, that character may show up in a different book. For example, there is a character, named Cynthia I believe, who is in the books Rose Madder and Desperation. So, while he was finished telling the story of Rose Madder, he wasn’t exactly through telling Cynthia’s story. How do you and I know when he hasn’t said all there is to say regarding one particular book or character? Well, when the sequel comes out or we find a particular character in more than one story.

So, when he writes a book, does King specify whether or not that book is finished? No. Now, as I’ve shown, it’s easy to know when he wasn’t finished, a sequel comes out. But, if he doesn’t tell us there is going to be a sequel, is that solid evidence that there will or won’t be? No, but it’s reason enough not to dwell on it until it is done. If he doesn’t say that this story is finished not to look for a sequel, is that solid evidence to believe that there will not be? Well, no. But, it’s also no reason to presume there will be, either.

It’s the same with the Bible. Just because Paul didn’t restrict what he wrote to particular epistles or Scripture, does not by necessity lead to the conclusion that there is more to the Gospel. Of course, we know Paul did not restrict his truth to one letter to one church. How? Because there are numerous epistles of his in the NT.

There is simply no biblical evidence that Paul intends to restrict 'truth' to what would for future generations become scripture.

And, there’s absolutely no evidence, biblical or otherwise, showing that he possessed any knowledge of any truth not contained therein.

The biblical evidence isn't there--and certainly not in this letter which you want to use for proof of such a groundless statement.

It’s not just this letter that serves as an example of the apostles’ preferred method of teaching when they were unable to instruct in person.

I have as much authority as you do---none. However, we are both free to look at the text and attempt to understand Paul's words.

Where did Paul say this? I’m not finding it. To be the pillar and foundation of something is not the same as being the source of that same thing. Have you even bothered defining the terms “pillar and foundation?” Your argument might hold water if Paul and said the church was the “builder and foundER” of truth.

Paul very directly told us the source of authority---the pillar and foundation of truth---that being the Church.

You can legitimately argue from biblical evidence that Paul meant this, but you can not show that he very directly and explicitly told us that the church as the pillar and foundation of truth is the source of and authority over Truth. If you can, please do so.

 

[racer]

Well, I know that bible Christians would love to say "the Bible" but we all know that the "bible" says the "Church".

Well, you're wrong. No, "bible" Christian would say that. No logical sola Scripturist would make that claim.

So the pillar and foundation of TRUTH is exactly what the bibles says it is, the Church. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You should have stopped at (c)hurch. The last sentence is not a biblical quote.

 

[ThisRock]

I only restrict our ability to know God’s truth/Gospel to what is given to us in Scripture.

You have no basis for doing so except personal opinion. That's fine, but don't pretend the theory is biblical. You have decided on your own to restrict what can be known as truth to the bible. Paul's letter, which is the subject of this discussion makes no such claims. The bible makes no such claims. If you have proof other than personal opinion---NOW would be a good time to show it.

Let me give you an analogy. Let’s take Stephen King, a well known author. He begins writing a book, telling a story. Now, in his telling of this story, or when he’s finished with it, he doesn’t say that he is restricting the information or narration of this story to what is contained within that story only.

Anybody who reads King knows that he often writes sequels or interchanges characters in different books. So, when we finish one book, we don’t know there’s going to be a sequel until the sequel is published. Sometimes, he is finished with a particular story and does not write a sequel, but he’s not finished with a particular character. So, that character may show up in a different book. For example, there is a character, named Cynthia I believe, who is in the books Rose Madder and Desperation. So, while he was finished telling the story of Rose Madder, he wasn’t exactly through telling Cynthia’s story. How do you and I know when he hasn’t said all there is to say regarding one particular book or character? Well, when the sequel comes out or we find a particular character in more than one story.

So, when he writes a book, does King specify whether or not that book is finished? No. Now, as I’ve shown, it’s easy to know when he wasn’t finished, a sequel comes out. But, if he doesn’t tell us there is going to be a sequel, is that solid evidence that there will or won’t be? No, but it’s reason enough not to dwell on it until it is done. If he doesn’t say that this story is finished not to look for a sequel, is that solid evidence to believe that there will not be? Well, no. But, it’s also no reason to presume there will be, either.

It’s the same with the Bible. Just because Paul didn’t restrict what he wrote to particular epistles or Scripture, does not by necessity lead to the conclusion that there is more to the Gospel. Of course, we know Paul did not restrict his truth to one letter to one church. How? Because there are numerous epistles of his in the NT.And, there’s absolutely no evidence, biblical or otherwise, showing that he possessed any knowledge of any truth not contained therein.
It’s not just this letter that serves as an example of the apostles’ preferred method of teaching when they were unable to instruct in person.

A very poor and completely unworkable analogy, I'm afraid. Is the New Testament even close to being a fiction story out of a horror-writer's brain and subject to the whims of someone's fecund imagination and publishing schedule? Or are the Letters and Acts only one part of a very real Church.

To be the pillar and foundation of something is not the same as being the source of that same thing. Have you even bothered defining the terms “pillar and foundation?” Your argument might hold water if Paul and said the church was the “builder and foundER” of truth. You can legitimately argue from biblical evidence that Paul meant this, but you can not show that he very directly and explicitly told us that the church as the pillar and foundation of truth is the source of and authority over Truth. If you can, please do so.

Here's your basic logic problem racer:

You say the Church is the "protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible".

Now, you were alright....until you added "given to us in the bible" by which you mean "restricted to what we read in the bible".

I agree that the church is the protector, preserver, and upholder of the Truth. However----There is simply no biblical reason to restrict that truth to what we can read in the bible. If you can provide any biblical evidence for this restriction please do so now.

 

[ThisRock]

A summary. We are looking at the statement

The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

And we have logically broken it down into three parts:
1-The church
2-pillar and foundation
3-truth


ESTABLISHED:
#3--Truth.
While the totality of "truth" is difficult to define, it is not logical nor biblical to restrict "truth" to what is read in the bible.

UNDER DISCUSSION:
#1-The church
The basic argument seems to be whether or not Paul is referring to an idea of a worldwide "family of believers" or to a real and visible church.

#2-pillar and foundation
Source, protector, interpreter?

 

[PaulAckermann]

We are to uphold the Truth as revealed to us in God's Holy Word,

There is a difference between is and ought. You are saying that we ought to uphold the truth. But this verse is not saying that the church ought to be the pillar and foundation of truth. This verse says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[racer]

I'm not disputing whether or not Paul considered his letters to be scripture or whether they would become scripture. I'm disputing your contention that Paul limited the 'truth' to mean 'scripture'. There's simply no evidence for it. If you have it, produce it.

Again, I never said that Paul said that. Where do you come up with these ideas? I believe you are producing arguments based upon arguments/points you want me to make, so that you may refute them. However, you’re not even addressing my arguments, so you certainly haven’t even begun to disprove any assertions that I’ve made.

I have no doubt whatsoever that truth is contained in the bible. But there is no reason to believe that truth is restricted to the bible.

That is according to your reason, which I can not override. I can’t dictate what seems logical to you. I can only tell you that I find your logic flawed and why I find it to be so. But, where you find no reason to be satisfied with the blessing bestowed upon us in God’s word contained in Scripture, I find no reason to doubt, question or be dissatisfied with it.

And the reason I know there is truth in the bible is not because, as you say, "we have our bibles". That's illogical. I know that truth is contained in the bible because, as Paul told us, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. And the Church which Paul spoke of gave us the bible.

And how would you prove to me that the church gave us the Bible? What is your proof? To what authority do you defer when you accept that assertion? And how do you know that this “authority” has the “authority” to make the assertion? What is your evidence for that?

Let's be very clear, however, that you admit that Paul does not intend 'truth' to be restricted to the bible:

I don’t think Paul had a plan either way. I don’t think he set out to say that all “truth” would be preserved in writing, thus be provided in Scripture. Nor, did he set out to say that some truth would be written down and preserved, while the rest of it would be passed down in oral form only. So, what do you admit? Are you asserting that Paul was aware that some would be written and some would be in oral form only?

If Paul didn't intend to restrict truth to the bible, why do you?

I only know what Paul considered to be truth by reading what he taught in Scripture. Do you have another source that quotes Paul teaching something extra-biblical on in addition to what he taught in Scripure? If so, please show me.

 

[racer]

You have no basis for doing so except personal opinion.

I have no reason to believe differently. And you have no solid unquestionable, infallible evidence to the contrary.
FYI, I never state my arguments, beliefs, or thoughts as fact&#8212;never.

That's fine, but don't pretend the theory is biblical.

Not biblical? Let me refresh your memory: II Tim 3:16; All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17; That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Let&#8217;s get one more thing clear. Regardless who penned certain books of Scripture, God is the author, not Paul, Peter, John, etc . . . . they were God&#8217;s instruments for documenting and teaching. God being the author new what would or wouldn&#8217;t become Scripture. Scripture clearly states that All Scripture is God breathed. II Tim states that Scripture can make a man of God perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now I know that you will focus on the fact that at this time II Tim was written, Scripture was not compiled into one book&#8212;The Bible. It clearly refers to all scripture not to that only that was recorded in writing up to a particular point in time. &#8220;All&#8221; covers Scripture past, present and future. How do we know? Well, doesn't God exist outside of our realm of time? When He spoke through the apostles and referred to all Scripture, I trust that He meant all Scripture.
Can I substantiate my assertions from what Paul wrote in I Tim 3:15, maybe not. But, let me refer you back to one of your very first comments here:

Let us endeavor to read books of the bible in their entirety! Don't cut out passages and make them fit what you happen to believe at the moment.

Don&#8217;t the same rules apply to you? It was never my claim or intent to establish that Paul ever limited &#8220;truth&#8221; to what was contained in Scripture. It is not incumbent upon me to prove something that I never claimed or asserted.

You have decided on your own to restrict what can be known as truth to the bible.

What I restrict is what I am knowledgeable of; what I can substantiate and establish.

Paul's letter, which is the subject of this discussion makes no such claims.

And, for the umpteenth time, I never said it did.

The bible makes no such claims.

What I can quote is II Tim 3:16 & 17, and common sense and trust that God nor his servants would lie to me tells me I need search for no more. If Scripture can make me perfect and thoroughly furnish me for all good works, what else do I need?

A very poor and completely unworkable analogy, I'm afraid.

Perhaps for someone with poor discernment skills. I was sure you could master it, though. Maybe, I was wrong.

Is the New Testament even close to being a fiction story out of a horror-writer's brain and subject to the whims of someone's fecund imagination and publishing schedule?

Are you really going to argue that that matters? If I write a biolography about myself, you may presume that I don&#8217;t write everything down, but you don&#8217;t know for sure and you have no way of knowing exactly what I&#8217;ve left out. It&#8217;s the same principle.
Jhn 21:25; And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Notice what this verse says? It says that Jesus did many things not recorded (in the Book of John I point out). It does not say that Jesus taught things that were not recorded.

Or are the Letters and Acts only one part of a very real Church.

The letters and acts recorded in Scripture are not part of the or a church. They were written as instructions to the church. Let&#8217;s go back to I Tim 3:14 & 3:15; These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 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.

Here's your basic logic problem racer:

You say the Church is the "protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible".

Now, you were alright....until you added "given to us in the bible" by which you mean "restricted to what we read in the bible".

It works just fine the way I&#8217;ve presented it. It may not make sense to you, but I don&#8217;t know how else to help you. I&#8217;ve explained it numerous times and numerous ways. You have to read to comprehend what I&#8217;m saying, not read to refute what you want me to say.

I agree that the church is the protector, preserver, and upholder of the Truth. However----There is simply no biblical reason to restrict that truth to what we can read in the bible. If you can provide any biblical evidence for this restriction please do so now.

I already have,ITim 3:15; 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.

All you have to do is obtain a proper understanding of the words &#8220;pillar and foundation.&#8221; If you can ever get to that point, the rest will fall in line for you.

 

[Montanaman]

Yeah, I still see in a plain reading of this verse that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. I'm not sure why it takes all these other words to understand it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yeah, I still see in a plain reading of this verse that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. I'm not sure why it takes all these other words to understand it.

I think everyone agrees that it's the church (lower case, little "c" BTW)...

The questions are:

1. Does "church" = The Roman Catholic Denomination?

2. What is meant by "pillar and foundation of truth?" Does it mean the the RC denomination is the sole teaching authority, the sole interpreter of Scripture and the Tradition it itself chooses, the sole arbiter in all matter it itself chooses to arbitrate, and infallible in all the above?


My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[racer]

A summary. We are looking at the statement

The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

And we have logically broken it down into three parts:
1-The church
2-pillar and foundation
3-truth


ESTABLISHED:
#3--Truth.
While the totality of "truth" is difficult to define, it is not logical nor biblical to restrict "truth" to what is read in the bible.

UNDER DISCUSSION:
#1-The church
The basic argument seems to be whether or not Paul is referring to an idea of a worldwide "family of believers" or to a real and visible church.

#2-pillar and foundation
Source, protector, interpreter?

TR, let me know when you wish to truly become part of this discussion. I'm gone for now.

 

[Montanaman]

I think everyone agrees that it's the church (lower case, little "c" BTW)...

The questions are:

1. Does "church" = The Roman Catholic Denomination?

2. What is meant by "pillar and foundation of truth?" Does it mean the the RC denomination is the sole teaching authority, the sole interpreter of Scripture and the Tradition it itself chooses, the sole arbiter in all matter it itself chooses to arbitrate, and infallible in all the above?


My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah

Josiah, it could be no other Church.

And I think your critical misunderstanding of the Catholic Church comes from your assertion that it simply "claims" out of thin air to be the right one. That's hardly the case.

 

[ThisRock]

Yeah, I still see in a plain reading of this verse that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. I'm not sure why it takes all these other words to understand it.

Exactly so. Welcome to Clinton-style bible interpretation. If the verse doesn't match what you want it to say, then you get into the game of "it depends what you mean by 'is' ".

In this case, a plain reading of a simple verse becomes muddled simply because the main objective is to deny the possibility of Catholic Church authority.

This:
The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Becomes this:

The church ("by which Paul is referring to a worldwide family of believers") is the pillar and foundation ("preserver of a future thing called the bible") of truth ("what future generations will read in the bible, which will not be a "bible" until 300 years after Paul's letter").

Problems arise, of course, when we try to fit it all together.

Is Paul really suddenly changing course in the midst of a letter to tell Timothy of a "worldwide family of believers who will preserve a future grouping of writings called the bible" ?!?!?

It seems ridiculous on the face of it. Isn't it true that the main objective in this discussion is simply to avoid laying any authority in the hands of the Catholic Church?

 

[PaulAckermann]

I think everyone agrees that it's the church (lower case, little "c" BTW)...

I for one disagree. In the original Greek, they did have upper case or lower case letters. So you cannot make the argument that Paul is merely referring to church with small case c, since everything is small case. It even uses the word "lord" for Jesus Christ, it is in lower case. This does not mean the Jesus was just a lord. No. He is the Lord of all.

1. Does "church" = The Roman Catholic Denomination?

As a Catholic, I do not view the Catholic Church as a denomination, since there is only one church. You cannot have denominations if there is only one.

A better question is whether the Church can be section off into denominations. 1 Corinthian 3 says that when you have different denominations you have carnal Christians.

The Catholic church is the only entity that did not split off from another entity. All the Protestant denomination are a result of splitting off from something else. A Protestant denomination starts when there is bickering and a clash of egos. This is why Paul says this schismatic mentality spring from carnal attitudes of pride, egotism, and resentment.

2. What is meant by "pillar and foundation of truth?" Does it mean the the RC denomination is the sole teaching authority, the sole interpreter of Scripture and the Tradition it itself chooses, the sole arbiter in all matter it itself chooses to arbitrate, and infallible in all the above?

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It never split off from anyone. It is the only denomination that did not start from a person. The Lutheran Church started by Luther. The Reformed Church started by Calvin, or at least a follower of Calvin. But no matter how hard Protestants have tried, they are not able to pin down the start of the Catholic Church to any partcular person at a partcular time, unless you go all the way back to Jesus Christ.

If you disagree, then I challenge you to come up with the exact date and the exact person it started. Some Protestants have argued it started with Constantine in the 300's. But I can show that these Catholic beliefs existed way before Constantine.

There it an unbroken succession of Catholic beliefs. No matter how early you search, there is evidence that the Early Church thought Catholic. This can go all the way back to Jesus Christ and the apostles.

The world "Catholic Church" merely means "Universal Church". That is all. And this Universal Church thought in Catholic terms all the way back to the first century. The earliest documents show that the earliest of this universal church believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, apostolic succession, scripture plus tradition, praying to saints, and the primacy of the pope. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it is a duck.

 

[Lynn73]

Josiah, it could be no other Church.

Because you and they say so? I don't see it. You can't biblically restrict Christ's church to one group when the Bible indicates that to be saved is to be in Christ's church.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I for one disagree. In the original Greek, they did have upper case or lower case letters. So you cannot make the argument that Paul is merely referring to church with small case c, since everything is small case. It even uses the word "lord" for Jesus Christ, it is in lower case. This does not mean the Jesus was just a lord. No. He is the Lord of all.

I only pointed out that, contrary to the way many Catholics quote the verse, it's not capitolized in the original Greek. There's no implication of a proper noun.

As a Catholic, I do not view the Catholic Church as a denomination, since there is only one church. You cannot have denominations if there is only one.

I also do not accept that the one holy catholic and apostolic church is a denomination, I believe that it's one, it's holy and it's catholic (universal, whole, complete, all-embracing).

But you certainly can have denominations. There are thousands of them, some say some 8,000 of them just under the Pope alone. There are over 2,000,000,000 Christians, well over 1,000,000 congregations, well over 1,000 denominations - LOTS of people, LOTS of institutions. But ONE holy CATHOLIC church, embracing all Christians.

A better question is whether the Church can be section off into denominations. 1 Corinthian 3 says that when you have different denominations you have carnal Christians.

1 Corinthians 3 doesn't even mention denominations. It does speak of the church, IMHO, but not of any denomination(s).

I believe that Christians ARE permitted to associate with other Christians in faith communites - this is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible, in fact the Bible seems to encourage it. We have several examples of this - including the 12 Apostles and several congregations. Sometimes they do so for the purposes of mutual support, edification, cooperation and accountability - there's nothing unbiblical about that, nothing wrong with community. And in time (beyond that recorded in the Bible), congregations sometimes came into faith communities with other congregations into what we call denominations - usually for the purpose of mutual support, edification, cooperation and accountability. I see nothing unbiblical about that. Truth is, we can't fit all 2 billion Christians into one building for one worship service, so all this is probably just practical stuff. But again, I see nothing wrong with community, cooperation, edification, support or accountability. I think it's fine. And I see no conflict with 1 Corinthians 3.

Where you might have an issue is when one particular congregation or institution claims to be Christ or claims to alone have Authority - then this might come into play a bit, but no Protestant denomination claims to BE the one holy catholic church or infallible or the sole authority so I don't think it does.

The Catholic church is the only entity that did not split off from another entity.

Well, the Greek Orthodox priest I spoke to says you split off from them, but I think it's impossible to know what was the first denomination.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It never split off from anyone. It is the only denomination that did not start from a person.

IF every single one of the over 1,000,000 congregations with "Catholic" in their name are completely and absolutely non-denomination - the do not share a single name, a single statement of faith, they do not cooperate in any way whatsoever, there is no central governement or authority, every clergyperson is autonomous - then I'll agree with you. But that's not at all what I was taught in the RCC. Or what I observed. The RCC is one of the most centralized, authoritarian denominations in the world. If THAT'S not a denomination, none are!

If you disagree, then I challenge you to come up with the exact date and the exact person it started. Some Protestants have argued it started with Constantine in the 300's. But I can show that these Catholic beliefs existed way before Constantine.

Exactly!!!


So much for all the Peter claims, all the claims for being the original church, and all the rest. By your own admission, there's no historic support.

Of course Christian beliefs existed before Constantine! Jesus lived long before him!!! And yes, some of those were beliefs that the RCC now teaches and many Protestants don't, and some of them are teachings neither of us now teaches (Arianism, Gnosticism, Modalism, etc.). I think you'd have a hard time showing that ALL Christians accepted the Pope as the Infallible Authority - not just first among equals, and I think you'd have a hard time showing that all of them confessed that it is essential for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff, but those are other subjects for another day. Just because I could show you were Jesus in the First Century taught that we should repent of our sins - just as Lutherans do - does not prove that any Lutheran denomination existed when Jesus did.

The world "Catholic Church" merely means "Universal Church". That is all. And this Universal Church thought in Catholic terms all the way back to the first century. The earliest documents show that the earliest of this universal church believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, apostolic succession, scripture plus tradition, praying to saints, and the primacy of the pope. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it is a duck.

When the EO, OO and RCC agree on all things, this arguement MIGHT have a little bit of credibility. One (if not all) of you aren't remembering exactly what you were taught by those Apostles, IF what you are saying is true. Because they don't dogmatically accept the Infallibility of the Pope, they don't teach as dogma Aristotle's philosophy of "accidents" in the Eucharist, and so on and so on and so on. So, clearly, SOMEONE'S teachings don't go way back - in fact, likely not back before 1054. And should I bring up the filoque?

Again, just because Lutherans teach that we should go and make disciples of all people just like Jesus did doesn't prove that any Lutheran denomination existed in 31AD. IMHO, you are making a HUGE assumption that just doesn't hold up.

 

[racer]

A very poor and completely unworkable analogy, I'm afraid. Is the New Testament even close to being a fiction story out of a horror-writer's brain and subject to the whims of someone's fecund imagination and publishing schedule?

I hate to dwell, but I had a thought about this statement the other day, and forgot to come back and post it.

Here's my question, if you take biographical or historical books and you know that it is impossible to write each and everything about a persons life or historical event, it can't be done.

So, if what parts do you think would be left out of biographical/historical books? Wouldn't the insignificant/unimportant parts be the ones left out? That's the only logical conclusion there is.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think everyone agrees that it's the church (lower case, little "c" BTW)...

The questions are:

1. Does "church" = The Roman Catholic Denomination?

2. What is meant by "pillar and foundation of truth?" Does it mean the the RC denomination is the sole teaching authority, the sole interpreter of Scripture and the Tradition it itself chooses, the sole arbiter in all matter it itself chooses to arbitrate, and infallible in all the above?

Josiah, it could be no other Church.

I respectfully disagree.

I think it's a HUGE and unreasonable leap to assume that Paul is talking about a particular institution rather than Christians, and that that particular institution just happens to be the Roman Catholic denomination...


When I read the word "church" in the Bible, it seems to me it's used in one of two related ways: To refer to the company of believers (the mystical union of believers, the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints) or it's referring to a particular fellowship of them - in what we call "congregations" (often church is in the plural here - obviously not referring to the ONE holy catholic church). But I never see it referring to an institution or denomination.


But I'm sure we disagree.



My perspective...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Asinner]

I hate to dwell, but I had a thought about this statement the other day, and forgot to come back and post it.

Here's my question, if you take biographical or historical books and you know that it is impossible to write each and everything about a persons life or historical event, it can't be done.

So, if what parts do you think would be left out of biographical/historical books? Wouldn't the insignificant/unimportant parts be the ones left out? That's the only logical conclusion there is.

Hi Racer ,

In your opinion, what was the purpose and intent of the writers of the NT? Was it the same intent that one has when writing a biography/history book?

God Bless