What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As said elsewhere (a thousand times, no doubt),

We DO tend to go round and round, LOL... I've been involved in these discussions since I was 10. I suspect the merry-go-round has been in motion for at least 1000 years, and probably MUCH longer. But keep praying and working anyway. Every so often, a tiny bit a headway is made - even if just on a personal level. Soli Deo Gloria!

to believe that the Church is "everyone"

No one does.

But some believe that Christians are people, not institutions.

is to believe that doctrinal chaos is somehow the "truth."

I respectfully disagree.

To believe that the whole/universal community of Christians is a particular institution (one's own, of course) does not insure truth, it only insures self-authentication.

I do not believe that "chaos" exists, at large. I agree with the RCC at least 95% of the time. With my Calvinist friends 99% of the time. Yeah, the fridges can get a little weird, LOL. Reminds me of a Physics prof of mine who once commented, "Everything makes sense until you get to the edges, and then it goes nuts." But, IMHO, a little reading of Brigham Young will convince you that simply having bold self-claims and an authoritarian institution has little bearing on truth, particularly when one insists that he himself is the sole intepreter, he himself is the sole arbiter and that he's infallible and thus unaccountable!


Just MY perspective...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[racer]

Which word? Amorphous? Of?

Thought you were keeping up with my discussion with This Rock?

Do we need to do a little defining of terms?

Already been done.

Maybe we can just take the day off, and in the spirit of holiday brotherhood, come together as one thankful body and agree to agree that I'm right.

In your dreams . . . . . .

 

[bdarien]

Given the context of this whole letter, it's clear that Paul is speaking about more than the amorphous "brotherhood of all true believers." He's talking about the institution--not the literal building--and definitely not JUST the total number of people. This is a letter from an apostle to a bishop. He's dealing with administrative matters.

As said elsewhere (a thousand times, no doubt), to believe that the Church is "everyone" is to believe that doctrinal chaos is somehow the "truth." In theory, the "body of believers only" definiton of Church as the pillar and ground of the truth is nifty, but in practice an utter failure.

what is the problem with understanding a spiritual unity of true believers being the embodiment of the church which is the pillar and ground of the truth? The problem with making the church into a physical manifestation is that you include the lost who believe lies and yet claim salvation such as the pharisees and sadducees and the saved together, this is a combination which makes for a ground of sinking and shifting sand as evidenced by the constant revision of supposedly perfect and holy Catholic Tradition.

 

[Trento]

what is the problem with understanding a spiritual unity of true believers being the embodiment of the church which is the pillar and ground of the truth? The problem with making the church into a physical manifestation is that you include the lost who believe lies and yet claim salvation such as the pharisees and sadducees and the saved together, this is a combination which makes for a ground of sinking and shifting sand as evidenced by the constant revision of supposedly perfect and holy Catholic Tradition.

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1
Here Christ Himself did not say the Church is the source, or the cause of the scandals but individual men.

So Sinners in the Church is Bibical.
The Bible clearly teaches that the Church is comprised of both saints and sinners, good and bad. We see this indisputably in several parables of Jesus about the kingdom of heaven (that is, the Church), such as the wheat and the weeds , where Jesus says that they will grow together until the final Judgment, or harvest time (Matthew 13:24-30; cf. Matthew 3:12). He compares the Church to a fishnet which draws good and bad fish, ultimately separated (Matthew 13:47-50), and a marriage banquet, from which one guest was cast out into the outer darkness (Matthew 22:1-14). This parable ends with the famous phrase, Many are called, but few are chosen, which may be interpreted as the distinction between lukewarm, or dead, or nominal Christians and the actual elect who will be saved in the end. Both are present in the Church, according to Jesus.
Now in denominationalism's reasonable grounds for forming a new sect is the desire to separate from sinners and sin, which may be infecting the group left (Example Luther) which is not Bibical

 

[JimfromOhio]

I have my issues of "spiritual leaders" and I have alot to say about them.

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:14-16
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

My dictionary defines integrity as 'consistency and sincerity, with no deception or pretense'. Integrity's overriding quality is wholeness. A spiritual leader ought to be humble, self-effacing, self-sacrificing, modest, clean living, free from the love of money, eager to promote the honor of God and just as eager to disclaim any credit or praise on self-promotion that inspection, ethical standards will be high and personal life is above reproach. Teachers are to have good reputation. In the book of Titus, the requirements are: Show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose they may be ashamed because those have nothing bad to say about them. That teachers are to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age. In 2 Corinthians 7:2 says that we "make room for others in our hearts. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have exploited no one." This is where "accountability" comes in. In 1 Timothy 3:1-3: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. Reproach: an expression of rebuke or disapproval; the act or action of reproaching or disapproving ; a cause or occasion of blame, discredit, or disgrace; to express disappointment in or displeasure with (a person) for conduct that is blameworthy 1 Timothy 3:7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

 

[BrightCandle]

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.

You must be joking, the RCC freely admits that when RCC tradition conflicts with Scriptural truth, tradition trumps truth! Case in point, Sunday worship verse Sabbath worship. The Scriptural truth of the Bible clearly points to the 7th day Sabbath as the only day set aside as holy, and yet the RCC has substituted Sunday a day that has never been made holy by God!

 

[lionroar0]

You must be joking, the RCC freely admits that when RCC tradition conflicts with Scriptural truth, tradition trumps truth! Case in point, Sunday worship verse Sabbath worship. The Scriptural truth of the Bible clearly points to the 7th day Sabbath as the only day set aside as holy, and yet the RCC has substituted Sunday a day that has never been made holy by God!

Sunday was made Holy when Jesus arose on Sun-day and purified it.

Peace

 

[BrightCandle]

Sunday was made Holy when Jesus arose on Sun-day and purified it.

Peace

You are making that assumption based on the circumstance, but not based on the words and example of Jesus. Conversely, Jesus died right before Sabbath, and rested even in death in the grave, and rose to from the death to confirm and complete that work and part of the plan of salvation on Sunday, and work day. And note, that there was no word from Jesus after his resurrection that the Sabbath was done away with or that Sunday was made holy. Therefore the only logical thing to do, is keep the Commandment as written by the finger of God, or until Jesus clearly changes it!

 

[lionroar0]

You are making that assumption based on the circumstance, but not based on the words and example of Jesus. Conversely, Jesus died right before Sabbath, and rested even in death in the grave, and rose to from the death to confirm and complete that work and part of the plan of salvation on Sunday, and work day. And note, that there was no word from Jesus after his resurrection that the Sabbath was done away with or that Sunday was made holy. Therefore the only logical thing to do, is keep the Commandment as written by the finger of God, or until Jesus clearly changes it!

We celebrate everyday.

Peace

 

[Servchurch]

Since Saturday was for Israel only as a sign of covenant of rest and do no work that they alone were under and none else were, it would not be reasonable to judaize Chrsitianity with a Christian sabbath and impose the same restrictions on Christians or stone us for working on Saturday or Sunday.

 

[Montanaman]

You must be joking, the RCC freely admits that when RCC tradition conflicts with Scriptural truth, tradition trumps truth! Case in point, Sunday worship verse Sabbath worship. The Scriptural truth of the Bible clearly points to the 7th day Sabbath as the only day set aside as holy, and yet the RCC has substituted Sunday a day that has never been made holy by God!

Lol. This is what I'm always talking about. Protestants who pop off about Catholic doctrine when they have no idea what they're talking about. Why should I listen to an anonymous Internet guy about the alleged evils of Catholicism when #1, he doesn't even understand what we believe, and #2, he's part of a sect whose only doctrine, apparently, is getting the day of worship right?

So, the Catholic Church "freely admits" that when "RCC tradition" "contradicts" scripture, tradition wins, huh? Sorry. I call a flag on that play. Prove it or admit you were mistaken. Failure to do so will constitute bearing false witness.

For the record, here's what the Church has to say about scripture and Tradition:

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So, the Catholic Church "freely admits" that when "RCC tradition" "contradicts" scripture, tradition wins, huh? Sorry. I call a flag on that play. Prove it or admit you were mistaken. Failure to do so will constitute bearing false witness.

1. Does that rubric apply to Catholics, too? If a Catholic says, for example, "Mary was always a virgin" do they need to "prove it" or admit that they are wrong? If they cannot "prove it" it constitutes bearing false witness?



2. What I was taught in the RCC is that God's Holy Word and "Tradition" that the RCC has chosen as the RCC interprets are EQUAL and INSEPARABLE both in authoritative and normative functions. What I was taught (and correct my priest and my textbook if it's wrong), Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the Tradition as the RCC so defines and interprets; Tradition provides the "lense" through which the Bible must be read and interpret, that the Bible CANNOT be interpreted to conflict with the teachings (Tradition) of the RCC. To me, this DOES mean that "Tradition trumps Scripture."

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's the problem.
This is why the original poster to whom you responded has a valid point.



My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Montanaman]

This is why the original poster to whom you responded has a valid point.



My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

No, he doesn't. He wrote:

"You must be joking, the RCC freely admits that when RCC tradition conflicts with Scriptural truth, tradition trumps truth!"

That is a gross distortion of the Catholic belief. In fact, that's objectively false. The Church "feely admits" no such thing. It's Protestant spin intended to create a false perception of Catholicism. Tradition never "trumps truth." By definition, it can't. Flowing from the "same divine wellspring," it's impossible to contradict.

You simply can't/won't see that there's more to it than an arbitrary "self-claim." The evidence is there for all to see. I see it. What you're thinking of is the Mormon method of conjuring up authority out of thin air. It's nothing like that.

But whatever...

By the way, were you ever confirmed as a Catholic, or did you just attend Mass and other activities? I ask because I seriously doubt you were ever Catholic. There's a world of difference between hanging out with Catholics and actually being one. I suspect that you're overstating your credentials quite a bit.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, he doesn't. He wrote:

"You must be joking, the RCC freely admits that when RCC tradition conflicts with Scriptural truth, tradition trumps truth!"

What I said is he has a valid point.
I agree he used very non politically correct language to express it.

How I put it is that the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture must be interpreted so as to agree with Tradition (as the CC so defines and understands). So, functionally, Tradition does "trump" Scripture - since Scripture MUST be viewed as agreeing with it.

By definition, it can't. Flowing from the "same divine wellspring," it's impossible to contradict.

Yup, you've very well confirmed the Protestant's point, both officially and in terms of your own perspective.


I once had a very detailed description of this view (commonly called "Sola Ecclesia"). It's in a thread (probably deeply buried now here in GT) entitled: "Which Teacher is Correct? The Issue of Norming: Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia." I have a post there where I show how the "Three-Legged-Stool" that Catholics and Mormons talk about is, functionally, circular and makes it impossible for self to be wrong, it functions to eliminate accountability. You might want to check that out.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Montanaman]

What I said is he has a valid point.
I agree he used very non politically correct language to express it.

How I put it is that the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture must be interpreted so as to agree with Tradition (as the CC so defines and understands). So, functionally, Tradition does "trump" Scripture - since Scripture MUST be viewed as agreeing with it.






Yup, you've very well confirmed the Protestant's point, both officially and in terms of your own perspective.


I once had a very detailed description of this view (commonly called "Sola Ecclesia"). It's in a thread (probably deeply buried now here in GT) entitled: "Which Teacher is Correct? The Issue of Norming: Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia." I have a post there where I show how the "Three-Legged-Stool" that Catholics and Mormons talk about is, functionally, circular and makes it impossible for self to be wrong, it functions to eliminate accountability. You might want to check that out.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

Josiah, I followed that confused thread until I was bored to tears. What I saw there was you creating a strawman (sola ecclesia) and thrusting your misinterpretation on the Church and then attempting to skewer it. Ironically, the "circular" reasoning you accuse Catholics of is exactly what Protestants do. I can assure you--Catholics arrive at their belief linearly. Whatever you want to call sola scriptura these days, ("an epistemological attempt at norming") is still a logical fallacy.

If you do happen to recognize that no apostle and no line of scripture asserts sola scriptura, and that if they or it did so, it would constitute a logical fallacy, then your "attempt at norming" is basically an admitted defeat--we can't KNOW the truth.

I think at the center of every single post of yours is this fundamental disbelief. You write about "your opinion" and "self claims." What you never do is say "This IS." You call it humility -- I call it something else. But it's fine if you don't want to assert anything. Just don't thrust your subjective disbelief on people who believe in objective truth.

No answer on the Catholicism question? Can I go ahead and assume that you never were, in truth, Catholic?

 

[QuantaCura]

I think at the center of every single post of yours is this fundamental disbelief. You write about "your opinion" and "self claims." What you never do is say "This IS." You call it humility -- I call it something else. But it's fine if you don't want to assert anything. Just don't thrust your subjective disbelief on people who believe in objective truth.

That's because this is the great Protestant dilemma, and I think Josiah is a rare breed because he actually acknowledges it. Either you believe that you are fallible in the interpretation which you give the Scripture, or you hold that you are infallible: if you say you are fallible, then your faith is uncertain and vacillating, and, consequently, is not faith at all; but if you say you are infallible, then your absurd presumption drives you to assert, that the whole Church may err in her interpretation of Scripture, but that you individually can interpret it with infallible certainty.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's because this is the great Protestant dilemma, and I think Josiah is a rare breed because he actually acknowledges it. Either you believe that you are fallible in the interpretation which you give the Scripture, or you hold that you are infallible: if you say you are fallible, then your faith is uncertain and vacillating, and, consequently, is not faith at all; but if you say you are infallible, then your absurd presumption drives you to assert, that the whole Church may err in her interpretation of Scripture, but that you individually can interpret it with infallible certainty.

1. You might want to check out the thread, "Humility and Theology" in this forum (no doubt buried deep - such threads tend to get ignored).


2. I do not equate faith in Christ with how various persons understand and articulate that faith.


3. I do not presume that I'm infallible. I confess that I am sinful and limited. It's ONE reason why I don't regard myself as God's lord or that my words are equal or above His.


4. "Infallible" is a word the Bible ascribes to God, but it is a favorite word of Catholics. I once went through the book used in my Catholic class and just underlined the MANY, MANY times the word appeared in the chapter about authority and theology. It was never used in reference to God, once used in reference to God's Word, and used soooooooooooo many times I lost count in reference to the RCC, the Pope. Protestants are apt to reverse that. It's not that we don't believe in infallibility or absolute truth, we're just apt to ascribe that to God rather than self.


5. My uneasiness with the insistance the RCC has with private and individual interpretation (the most extreme, radical form known to me) does not mean that I think interpretation is impossible. Just as the RCC rejects private individual interpretation for EVERYONE ELSE, I simply include it too. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." What I reject is that sola ecclesia is circular, self-authenticating, dangerous and to be completely rejected - except when done by the RCC, then it's "infallible." I don't accept that.


4. My faith is not uncertain. My doctrines are open to examination; the ways I understand and articulate that faith are not self-proclaimed to be unaccountable. I have learned much - including in the RCC - that have modified some of the ways I understand and articulate the faith in my heart and life. I think God can mode and guide me, God can lead me, God can even teach me. No, it's not relativism or minimalism or mysticism - it's humility. And yes, I do think such is necessary for the purpose of this website, the reason we are all here.



Sorry for the diversion.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Sojourner<><]

What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

1 Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.


Comments?

I believe that it is the invisible church that consists of true believers. Such dwell in Christ and Christ dwells in them.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If you do happen to recognize that no apostle and no line of scripture asserts sola scriptura, and that if they or it did so, it would constitute a logical fallacy

1. Jesus refers to God's Holy Scriptures over 50 times - authoritatively and normatively. How many times did He refer (authoritatively and normatively........ or at all) to the Bishop of Rome, his successor in the year 2006, the Roman Catholic denomination, the Magisterium of the RC denomination, the Infallible Pope, the "vicar of Christ?" Ah. Might that have any relevance to our discussion?


2. Peter (!!!!!), Paul, John... They refer to God's Holy Word over and over and over. How often do they refer to the Infallible Pope? The Roman Catholic denomination? The Bishop of Rome or his sucessor 2000 years later? The "vicar of Christ?" The Roman Pontiff? The Magisterium of the RC denomination? Those "keys?" Ah.


I don't think these realities are "logical fallacies" I think they are just the reality.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Montanaman]

1. Jesus refers to God's Holy Scriptures over 50 times -

Hey, great! If the issue were whether to ignore scripture or not, of if I was arguing that scripture has NO authority, then that would be a pertinent response.

authoritatively and normatively.

Jesus quoted scripture authoritatively. Lol. Sure--he's the ultimate authority. But normatively? I'm sure you know what you mean by that, but I don't know what you mean. If you're trying to say that even God himself was a proof-texter, and looked to it as the ultimate authority, I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken.

How many times did He refer (authoritatively and normatively........ or at all) to the Bishop of Rome, his successor in the year 2006, the Roman Catholic denomination, the Magisterium of the RC denomination, the Infallible Pope, the "vicar of Christ?" Ah.

You're very good at the strawman, JC. I hope you quit that soon, though. If you trap yourself in your own rhetoric, I'm afraid you'll be on the train to crazytown.

What Jesus did do is establish a Church, empower certain of its members with certain authority, and give it a mission. We see that these divinely appointed authorities believed in a hierarchy and the continuation of that authority through their own ranks.

2. Peter (!!!!!), Paul, John... They refer to God's Holy Word over and over and over.

Well, mostly the OT, but sure, some of Paul's letters. But so what? Good! Scripture IS authoritative. Nobody is saying it isn't.





For all your flirtation with the Catholic Church, I'm afraid some of the basics still elude you.