What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

[racer]

I think your anger has gotten the better of you, racer.

If you knew me at all, you would know I'm not angry at all. I don't know you well enough to be angered by your opinions.

There's no hijacking of a thread going on whatsoever.

Anytime two participants in a thread direct the discussion to one other than the topic of the OP, it is considered to be impolite, therefore "hijacked."

We are discussing a particular passage. The question

and it's answer are quite obvious and meant to open discussion. Simple sentence structure tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The post then asks for comments. I, along with others, provided them.

I'm aware of the OP. It requested thoughts regarding the identity of "Pillar and Foundation of Truth," not what constitutes Truth. So, you have not, as far as I can tell, commented on that issue.

You haven't answered that first simple question yourself in any of your posts, instead deciding to fixate on my repsonses.

Fixated on your responses? Don't mean your refusal to respond?

You have decided that the real question of the thread is the meaning of "pillar and foundation".

Isn't it? If not, do the Christian thing and tell me what the "real question" is.

Isn't it logical that equal weight can be put on any part of the sentence as far as questions go?

Not necessarily.

If the answer to the original question is:

The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
We can then assume it is logical to look at the meaning of:
1-The church
2-pillar and foundation
3-truth

Really? I disagree. To say that the church is the Pillar and foundation of truth, one does not have to identify that truth.

For an unknown reason, you have decided that the only area worth discussing is #2.

Well, since it is the topic of the OP, it's only logical to answer that question before going further.

I'll get to your previous response tomorrow. Until then, goodnight and God Bless.

Unless you intend to actually respond to me, don't waste anymore of your valuable time. You're really only talking in circles in your intent to cover your inabilibity to substantiate any argument you would submit.

 

[orthodoxy]

Lost me...

It says, "the church of the living God."
It doesn't say, "The living church of God."

If it did, we'd have yet another support for the Protestant view of the church since clearly a denomination isn't alive. People are.


My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

The living God's body is living not dead.

Apparently you think the Church is dead.

A product of the 60's perhaps that states "God is dead"

kyril

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Lost me...

It says, "the church of the living God."
It doesn't say, "The living church of God."

If it did, we'd have yet another support for the Protestant view of the church since clearly a denomination isn't alive. People are.


My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah

The living God's body is living not dead. Apparently you think the Church is dead

I simply noted what the verse you quoted says.

Your switching the word "living" from once place to another in the sentance, and then making a huge point of what that switch means, is a technique I do not accept. The verse says what it says; we shouldn't switch words around so as to make it seem God said something different, IMHO.


IF it did say, "the living church of God" then the Protestant position would be upheld. But it says, "the church of the living God."


Protestants believe the church is alive because Christians are people - living people, brought to life by the Holy Spirit. How an institutional denomination can be "alive" is a point I've never understood. I think the church is Christians. Together. In Christ. Brothers and Sisters, with Christ as Lord indeed. One. Holy. Catholic. But that's the Protestant position and I'm sure you disagree.


Thank you


My perspective.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[ThisRock]

I'm aware of the OP. It requested thoughts regarding the identity of "Pillar and Foundation of Truth," not what constitutes Truth. So, you have not, as far as I can tell, commented on that issue.

Isn't it? If not, do the Christian thing and tell me what the "real question" is.



Well, since it is the topic of the OP, it's only logical to answer that question before going further.

You are mistaken on the original question, racer. The question is the identity of the pillar and foundation of truth, not the meaning of pillar and foundation.
You haven't answered the identity question, instead going straight to the meaning of "pillar and foundation".
Now, that is a valid question, but certainly no more valid than identifying "truth".

What is the pillar and foundation of truth?


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?

Here's my analysis once again:

We are discussing a particular passage. The question and it's answer are quite obvious and meant to open discussion. Simple sentence structure tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The post then asks for comments. I, along with others, provided them.

If the answer to the original question is:
The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
We can then assume it is logical to look at the meaning of:
1-The church
2-pillar and foundation
3-truth

Unless you intend to actually respond to me, don't waste anymore of your valuable time. You're really only talking in circles in your intent to cover your inabilibity to substantiate any argument you would submit

I politely ask you to refrain from personal insults and I politely ask you to stop fixating on me personally--- try to stick to the topic at hand.

 

[racer]

You are mistaken on the original question, racer. The question is the identity of the pillar and foundation of truth, not the meaning of pillar and foundation.

Good grief! Have you read anything I've written? Let me requote myself--yet again:

I'm aware of the OP. It requested thoughts regarding the identity of "Pillar and Foundation of Truth," not what constitutes Truth. So, you have not, as far as I can tell, commented on that issue.

You haven't answered the identity question, instead going straight to the meaning of "pillar and foundation."

Well, apparently, you haven't taken the time to actually read my responses. So, let me point out a couple of things:

Here's the OP directly quoted: What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

A comment made by you: The structure of the passage states then, that the "ekklesia" is the household of God. And the verse states very clearly that the "ekklesia" or "church" is the "pillar and foundation of the truth".

To which I said: I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundatiion" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.

Here's my analysis once again:

No need to repost your analysis. We know what your analysis is. I would just like you to respond to the points that I've made instead of arguing a point I never intended. Yes, I pointed out that you and I differed on the meaning of "pillar and foundation," but I made no attempt to define that term. We both agree that the "church" is the pillar and foundation. However, we disagree on the identity of the church and the scope of "pillar and foundation." You have for some reason fixated on what "truth" is. That is a given in regards to the OP. I believe that basically you and I believe in only one Truth, that it is the same. However, I believe that the only solid, verifiable source available to me is Scripture, while you believe that it is contained in Scripture and some other unnamable, unidentifiable, elusive source. But, it's all one truth.

I have gone out of my way more than once to explain myself to you. You however continue to ignore my efforts. For what reason, I don't know. Maybe my arguments are making to much sense to you, too logical for you to refute. But, this is a public forum, make all the accusations you wish, the evidence is here for all to read.

I politely ask you to refrain from personal insults and I politely ask you to stop fixating on me personally--- try to stick to the topic at hand.

Listen, this is a public forum, when we put our thoughts out there for all to read, we subject ourselves to correction. We usually don't like it, are hurt or embarrassed by it, but it's something we endure. It gets easier over time. However, I have not personally insulted you, and me responding to your posts addressnig ME does not constitute me fixating on you. That's just absurd. If you are this sensitive regarding how others address you, you might try being a little more tactful in your approach to others.

God bless!

 

[ThisRock]

I confine certain, verifiable Truth to what is revealed in Scripture. Everything else is open to question and scrutiny.

The question is not what you confine "truth" to, the question is what Paul meant by truth.

You scriptual quote is interesting, though. In fact that translation furthers Protestant arguments regarding the church:

"and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth thee to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God -- the pillar and foundation of the truth"

He clearly defines what the house of God is. He states that it is the "assembly of the living God." An "assembly" would be a group of people not a visible or tangible building.

Once again, I didn't state that I mean a building to be the pillar and foundation of truth. That would be illogical, wouldn't it?

You are defining the "truth" to only as what is found in the bible. I see no evidence whatsoever that Paul is restricting the "truth" to current and/or future scripture.

Nor did I assert that Paul did this. However, the fact (a point I've already shown, but you continue to ignore) that Paul chose to send his message in written form when he could not be there in person to deliver it himself, proves that even he felt the only way to ensure that his message was delivered accurately, barring his presence, was to put in in writing.

It proves no such thing. Nothing in the letter says that. We don't know how many messengers he may have sent. All we know is that there is a letter and what is contained therein. Whatever your personal feelings about what "Paul felt", they have no bearing on the identity of "truth" as only scripture.

Are you restricting Truth to scripture? If so, why?

It is the only tangible, identifiable, verifiable source of the Gospel available to me. Scripture has remained relatively unchanged for well over 2000 years because it was put in writing and is therefore provable and substantiated.

Your personal feelings have no bearing on what Paul wrote. The question at hand is---- What did Paul mean by truth?
If you assert that he meant "scripture only", it's encumbent upon you to prove that from Paul's writing.

Col 4:16[/url] And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea.

1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

The apostles wrote to the churches when they could not be there to instruct themselves. Notice they did not tell the leaders of those churches to tell the congregations what the epistles said. They instructed them to READ what they wrote. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because they did not trust that the messages would be relayed accurately/truthfully if they were not read to the letter?

Are you trying to say that all teaching in church took place only by letters or when one of the apostles happened to be around that year? Quite an improbable and illogical premise if you ask me and one completely unsupported by scripture and history.

2 Thes 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we have passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter

We know that Paul is not confining "truth" to scripture of the jews, and there is simply no scriptural proof that Paul is confining "truth" to future scripture. Therefore, he must be speaking of "truth" in a way that is not confined to scripture.

 

[ThisRock]

You agree that The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

That leaves:
The meaning of:
1-The church
2-pillar and foundation
3-truth

Simple stuff. No reason to get upset.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Well, apparently, you haven't taken the time to actually read my responses. So, let me point out a couple of things:

Here's the OP directly quoted: What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

A comment made by you: The structure of the passage states then, that the "ekklesia" is the household of God. And the verse states very clearly that the "ekklesia" or "church" is the "pillar and foundation of the truth".

To which I said: I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundatiion" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.



No need to repost your analysis. We know what your analysis is. I would just like you to respond to the points that I've made instead of arguing a point I never intended. Yes, I pointed out that you and I differed on the meaning of "pillar and foundation," but I made no attempt to define that term. We both agree that the "church" is the pillar and foundation. However, we disagree on the identity of the church and the scope of "pillar and foundation." You have for some reason fixated on what "truth" is. That is a given in regards to the OP. I believe that basically you and I believe in only one Truth, that it is the same. However, I believe that the only solid, verifiable source available to me is Scripture, while you believe that it is contained in Scripture and some other unnamable, unidentifiable, elusive source. But, it's all one truth.

I have gone out of my way more than once to explain myself to you. You however continue to ignore my efforts. For what reason, I don't know. Maybe my arguments are making to much sense to you, too logical for you to refute. But, this is a public forum, make all the accusations you wish, the evidence is here for all to read.

I think you have been pretty clear. One needs to understand what the church is in order to understand how it is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Some would identify it as their particular earthly organization. Others recognize it as all those who are in Christ, irrespective of the earthly organization.


I've enjoyed your posts!

 

[ThisRock]

Yes, I pointed out that you and I differed on the meaning of "pillar and foundation," but I made no attempt to define that term.

Didn't you? It appears that you did so in your first post:

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

To which I ask---How do you come to that conclusion? Is there anything in Paul's letter which indicates to you that is what he means?

We both agree that the "church" is the pillar and foundation. However, we disagree on the identity of the church and the scope of "pillar and foundation." You have for some reason fixated on what "truth" is. That is a given in regards to the OP.

Is it a given? Why is the meaning of "church" a question and the meaning of "pillar and foundation" a question, but not the meaning of "truth"?

I believe that basically you and I believe in only one Truth, that it is the same.

I don't believe that you and I see "Truth" as the same at all, and there's ZERO evidence that Paul sees it your way either.

However, I believe that the only solid, verifiable source available to me is Scripture, while you believe that it is contained in Scripture and some other unnamable, unidentifiable, elusive source. But, it's all one truth.

Elusive?!? Unnamed?!? Paul is quite clear as to the source available:
"The church is the pillar and foundation of truth"

Could it be any clearer?!?

 

[racer]

I think you have been pretty clear. One needs to understand what the church is in order to understand how it is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Some would identify it as their particular earthly organization. Others recognize it as all those who are in Christ, irrespective of the earthly organization.

I've enjoyed your posts!

Thank you!

 

[racer]

The question is not what you confine "truth" to, the question is what Paul meant by truth.

No . . . that's your question. Since when do your questions take precedence? However, I will address this question, with hopes that perhaps you will be gracious enough to address a few of mine.

What did Paul mean by Truth? He was referring to the Gospel, the Gospel which was bestowed upon Him by direct revelation of the Holy Spirit. I'm pretty sure I said that once already? Today, 2000 years later, the only way "I" know what Paul believed and taught is by reading my Bible.

What do you assert that Paul meant by "truth?" And to what do you owe your enlightenment to this fact? IOWs, how do you know what Paul meant by "truth?" In fact, how do you know what Paul meant about anything?

I know what he believed and taught because of the numerous letters/epistles he wrote to other churches instructing them. How do I know what his letters said? Because I have a Bible which contains those letters.

Now, another question for you. How does this relate to the question "what is the pillar and foundation of truth?" I mean, even if you and I do not understand the truth to be the same thing, does that change the identity of the Pillar and Foundation of the truth of which Paul spoke? I mean, it doesn't matter if you and I have different understandings. The OP speaks of the "pillar and foundation" of the Truth which Paul spoke. It does not question the truth as you or I may perceive it. So, in regards to the OP, your question regarding the identity of truth is moot.

However, if it is your wish to establish that I am ignorant regarding the identity of the "truth," you must first establish an authority to do so. You would begin by establishing the exact "scope and authority" that accompanies the privilege of being "the Pillar and Foundation of Truth." If you can claim that authority for your faith, if you can substantiate this assertion, then you may tell us what "Truth" is.




Anyhow, back to Paul, did he restrict that truth to the Bible? I'm sure that since the Bible was yet to be compiled he did not, but it was Scriptural. We know this from what Peter taught.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.​

So, Paul may or may not have been aware that his teachings were to be considered Scripture, Peter did, which makes it nearly impossible to presume that Paul did not.

You and Iknow that the truth is contained in the Bible, because we have our bibles. That is why I said, the truth given to US in the Bible. "Us" includes you, me, Ricky, Lucy, Fred, Ethel, Ed, Trixie, Ralph and Alice. Not Paul--the Apostle.

Once again, I didn't state that I mean a building to be the pillar and foundation of truth. That would be illogical, wouldn't it?

Okay, my terminology is a bit off in this statement. So, do you or do you not argue that the "Church" (as you define it) is a visible/tangible entity as do RCs and EOy? I've explained once that I'm approaching this based upon the arguments between those two faiths and the Protestant faiths, visible/tangible vs. Spiritual body.

You implied that to believe the (c)hurch to be a "spiritual body of believers," implies that we believe the (c)hurch to be a "worldwide amorphous group of Christians." BTW, you never answered my question as to whether or not you believe that Christianity is a worldwide faith. Do you?

It proves no such thing. Nothing in the letter says that. All we know is that there is a letter and what is contained therein. Whatever your personal feelings about what "Paul felt", they have no bearing on the identity of "truth" as only scripture.

I did not say that the letter said that. The letter does not have to say that in order for us to come to this logical conclusion.

1Ti 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

So, why if we are to believe that the Apostles entrusted any teaching necessary regarding salvation to be passed on for centuries in oral form only, why didn't Paul just tell the messanger something like, "Hey, I'm running behind. I want to go ______, but I don't know when I'll get to. But, they need to know a couple of things. So, I want you to go on ahead and tell them I said . . . . ?"

We don't know how many messengers he may have sent.

Well, we know he wrote more than one letter, because of the Bible. No, we don't know how many messengers he sent, but that's no reason to assume that he sent any with verbal instruction. Lack of proof that the did not send more is not evidence that he did send more.

Your personal feelings have no bearing on what Paul wrote.

Um . . . the OP asked for comments. Am I to be strung up for accomodating him?

The question at hand is---- What did Paul mean by truth?

Whose question? Nobody's but yours. That is not what the OP asked. He asked what the "Pillar and foundation" of truth is. What I believe Paul to be speaking about or what you believe him to be speaking about doesn't matter. The OP refer's to Pauls truth. When I said, ". . . truth given to you and me in the Bible," I was not implying or claiming a to possess a different Truth than Paul's. I only know Paul's truth from what I read in Scripture. If you have another source quoting Paul teaching something extrabiblical, I'm all eyes. Refer me to it.

In fact, the OP didn't even ask what Paul considered to be the "pillar and foundation of truth." He asked us what we believed it to be. So how do you justify jumping in here and reidentifying the topic/question?

If you assert that he meant "scripture only", it's encumbent upon you to prove that from Paul's writing.

No, it's not. First of all, I never implied that Paul meant Scripture only. You've read far to much into my statement. This circular discussion is ludicrous. You're not addressing the OP or my comments.

If you wish to assert that there is a different truth or more truth than what is in our Bibles, it is encumbent on you to prove that and substantiate your arguments with a identifiable/documentable source. Also, it is encumbent upon you to prove that there is more to the Truth than what Paul referred to in Scripture.

Are you trying to say that all teaching in church took place only by letters or when one of the apostles happened to be around that year?

Well, what do you suggest? How else were the teachings passed on? How would you prove this? How did we come to have a Bible if written epistles and teachings weren't necessary? Why did they write anything down?

Quite an improbable and illogical premise if you ask me and one completely unsupported by scripture and history.

Really? I think I've already given you evidence from Scripture. I'm curious, how do you propose to prove from History that teachings were passed on in oral form only? Anything you find in history is found by reading it, which is a pretty sure bet that it's written down somewhere.

2 Thes 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we have passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter

This says what to you? To me it instructs us to adhere to the Gospel/Truth, that we are bound by it whether we read it or hear it preached. He is differentiating between modes of delivery/receiving, not separate sources of information.

We know that Paul is not confining "truth" to scripture of the jews,

Never implied that he did.

and there is simply no scriptural proof that Paul is confining "truth" to future scripture.

You amaze me. Did I ever say that Paul confined the Truth to any place or ideology? No, I did not. My assertion is the only way I know what Paul taught or believed is by reading what is in my Bible.

However, I've already shown where Peter identified Paul's teachings as Scripture.

Therefore, he must be speaking of "truth" in a way that is not confined to scripture.

Again, I never implied that Paul confined truth to anything. Maybe confined is the wrong word. It should be stated that Scripture is comprised of the Gospel/Truth.

 

[racer]

Didn't you? It appears that you did so in your first post:

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

Actually, I caught that after I posted, but didn't have time to come back and address. I was merely trying to make a point, not detour the discussion.

To which I ask---How do you come to that conclusion? Is there anything in Paul's letter which indicates to you that is what he means?

Um, here's the whole statement by me and your response which does not resemble your question above:

Racer I agree. But I think what we disagree on is what "Pillar and foundation" means. You may say that it means the church has authority to interpret it. I understand it to say that the Church is the protecter, preserver, and upholder of the Truth given to us in the Bible.​

For instance, you may lay the foundation of your home before you build the house, but does the foundation you pour determine the house you'll build, or does the house you wish to build determine the foundation you will pour? ​

You actually didn't address that statement by me at all. You went on to say:

Don't you mean the worldwide family of christians is the protector, preserver and upholder of the Truth given to us in the bible? Did Paul mention the bible in that chapter? If he did, please let us know where it is so we can understand your interpretation too.​

Nothing in that statement addresses my point at all. From that statement you ask me where Paul mentions the Bible? I'm sorry but you snatched that out of mid-air. If you had asked what you asked above: How do you come to that conclusion? Is there anything in Paul's letter which indicates to you that is what he means?

I could easily have answered.

I come to that conclusion from what Paul said by possessing the ability (and when necessary a good ole Webster's dictionary) to define the terms pillar and foundation. I would not have responded regarding my mention of the Bible. I only mention the Bible in the sense that it is the source which reveals to me what Paul taught. It is not the topic or point of my statement. You've completely ignored my point by going off on this silly tangent.

Is it a given? Why is the meaning of "church" a question and the meaning of "pillar and foundation" a question, but not the meaning of "truth"?

What is a given is that in this verse Paul is speaking. Paul said that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Therefore, we can safely infer that Paul means the church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth as he knows it.

I don't believe that you and I see "Truth" as the same at all, and there's ZERO evidence that Paul sees it your way either.

I believe that you know your logic has been thoroughly thrashed here, and in order to circumvent that fact, you've created this totally circular and ludicrous argument in an attempt to . . . well, actually I just don't know what it is you're trying to establish?

Elusive?!? Unnamed?!? Paul is quite clear as to the source available:
"The church is the pillar and foundation of truth"

To be the "pillar and foundation of truth," clearly shows that it is not the source of Truth.

 

[ThisRock]

(In bits and pieces due to time contraints)

Originally Posted by ThisRock
The question is not what you confine "truth" to, the question is what Paul meant by truth.

No . . . that's your question. Since when do your questions take precedence?

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.

 

[ThisRock]

What did Paul mean by Truth? He was referring to the Gospel, the Gospel which was bestowed upon Him by direct revelation of the Holy Spirit.

I'm a little mixed up. What do you mean by the "Gospel"?
Do you mean the story of Jesus, as in, the "Gospel of John" or the "Gospel of Luke"? Are you confining Paul's 'truth' strictly to the story of Jesus? If so, why doesn't Paul simply say "Gospel"?
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? Why doesn't Paul say anything about scripture?

racer Today, 2000 years later, the only way "I" know what Paul believed and taught is by reading my Bible.

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

I know what he believed and taught because of the numerous letters/epistles he wrote to other churches instructing them. How do I know what his letters said? Because I have a Bible which contains those letters.

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. He doesn't even mention in this particular letter about preserving it as being the 'truth'. 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'. Only the church is mentioned as the pillar and foundation.

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".
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.

 

[ThisRock]

What do you assert that Paul meant by "truth?" And to what do you owe your enlightenment to this fact? IOWs, how do you know what Paul meant by "truth?" In fact, how do you know what Paul meant about anything?

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

Now, another question for you. How does this relate to the question "what is the pillar and foundation of truth?" I mean, even if you and I do not understand the truth to be the same thing, does that change the identity of the Pillar and Foundation of the truth of which Paul spoke? I mean, it doesn't matter if you and I have different understandings. The OP speaks of the "pillar and foundation" of the Truth which Paul spoke. It does not question the truth as you or I may perceive it. So, in regards to the OP, your question regarding the identity of truth is moot.

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

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

I only went further on this subject because you attempted to restrict 'truth' to what we read in scripture. I simply want to establish that there is no basis whatsoever that Paul meant that 'truth' be limited to scripture. There is simply no biblical evidence that Paul intends to restrict 'truth' to what would for future generations become scripture. The biblical evidence isn't there--and certainly not in this letter which you want to use for proof of such a groundless statement.

However, if it is your wish to establish that I am ignorant regarding the identity of the "truth," you must first establish an authority to do so. You would begin by establishing the exact "scope and authority" that accompanies the privilege of being "the Pillar and Foundation of Truth." If you can claim that authority for your faith, if you can substantiate this assertion, then you may tell us what "Truth" is.

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

 

[ThisRock]

Anyhow, back to Paul, did he restrict that truth to the Bible? I'm sure that since the Bible was yet to be compiled he did not, but it was Scriptural. We know this from what Peter taught.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.​

So, Paul may or may not have been aware that his teachings were to be considered Scripture, Peter did, which makes it nearly impossible to presume that Paul did not.

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.

You and Iknow that the truth is contained in the Bible, because we have our bibles. That is why I said, the truth given to US in the Bible. "Us" includes you, me, Ricky, Lucy, Fred, Ethel, Ed, Trixie, Ralph and Alice. Not Paul--the Apostle.

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. 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.

 

[ThisRock]

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

Anyhow, back to Paul, did he restrict that truth to the Bible? I'm sure that since the Bible was yet to be compiled he did not, but it was Scriptural. We know this from what Peter taught.

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

 

[BrotherDave]

Thought I would submit my thoughts on this topic. The bible is truth (Gal 2:14, Eph 1:13, Col 1:5) because the bible is the Word of God. Jesus himself is the Word of God (John 1:1, 14) and He is the unshakeable pillar and ground of truth.

If the church is the pillar and ground of truth, how can it be that one church holds the doctrine that Jesus died for everyone while another church teaches that Christ died only for the elect? How can one church teach baptism by immersion and another teaches baptism by sprinkling? Differences between church beliefs are concerned with a host of doctrines. So how can the church be the foundation of truth? Only God can be that foundation. The Bible says it very plainly in I Corinthians 3:11:

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Under no circumstance can the church be the pillar and ground of truth. People were to go to church to hear the truth (the Bible). Before the printing press was invented God worked through the church to get his word out to people. When God finished the bible working through men (II Peter 1:21) He ended His Gospel with Revelation. Here God indicates that this is a very blessed and holy book, and those who obey what is in the book, will be blessed and holy before God. Revelation 22:18 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. "This book" is the book that God had been preparing for the 1500 years prior to this statement. Then, in Revelation 22:18-19, God continues to talk about this book. God indicates that the book He had been preparing for the last 1500 years is complete. There will be no further revelation from God. Nothing is to be added to this book, and everything He has given us is the Word of God so none of it is to be left out. The canon has been closed; the Word of God has been given. We have the whole Word, and we are not to look for anything more. The truth is only in the Bible. It is the word of God and He brings salvation through it (I Thessalonians 2:13) alone.

Now, it is true that during the church age the true believers were living stones in the temple (the churches). They will even be called a pillar in the eternal temple (Revelation 3:12), but they can never be the foundation of truth. The pillar and ground of truth cannot modify the word “church” in I Timothy 3:15. These words must modify the word “God.” The church of “God the pillar and ground of truth.” Christ is the Word, He is the truth. His name is True.

The foundation of the apostles and prophets is the Word of God, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. Jesus is the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us. Thus, Christ is the foundation. We could paraphrase (Eph 2:20) to read, “And are built upon the Word of God which is the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief-corner stone.”

It is true that we read in Revelation 21:14 about the holy city, new Jerusalem having “twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb,” but the foundations represent Christ. Throughout eternity future in the new heaven and new earth, the fullness of the believers represented by the twelve apostles is His body. They are forever intimately identified with Him.

God has constantly set up testing programs. Adam and Eve were tested in the Garden of Eden. Abram was tested when he was told to sacrifice his son Isaac. Israel was tested when Moses remained on Mount Sinai for forty days. Jesus was tested for forty days immediately after He was baptized. Testing is an important aspect of God’s dealings with mankind. I think that by this verse (I Timothy 3:15), the churches are being tested. Which conclusion will they adopt? If God is the pillar and ground of the truth, then the churches must remain very humble, looking only to the Bible as the authority. If the church is to be understood as the pillar and ground of truth, then the church has been given vast spiritual authority.

As for me, I believe we must always hold to the principle of Romans 3:4 “let God be true, but every man a liar.” All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim 3:16). Only Christ who is God can be the pillar and foundation of truth.

In Christ’s service,
Dave

 

[Montanaman]

Lol. Brother Dave says:

Under no circumstance can the church be the pillar and ground of truth.

St. Paul, in the Bible, says:

15But 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.

Once again, I'll take the word of God over someone who hails from a tradition of men fifteen centuries removed from Christ.

 

[hoser]

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?

Well, I know that bible Christians would love to say "the Bible" but we all know that the "bible" says the "Church". So the pillar and foundation of TRUTH is exactly what the bibles says it is, the Church. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.