Working on a Sunday

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Whitehorse, why does scripture call the Church the pillar and foudation of Truth?

... which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

The answer to the second half of the verse is in the first.

 

[geocajun]

Okay. If it is the inspired word of God, then the authority comes from God, not the church. What if the church told you it wasn't? Then would it cease to be the word of God, even though scripture tells us it is?

First that could never happen as it would be a contradiction of truth, It would not cease to be the word of God, in the objective sense, but how would I be able to ascertain if it was true or not simply based on scripture saying it is?
Hypothetically, lets say I was to write a big book and put "this is the word of God" inside it, and hand it to you. How could you trust it? the situation is the same without the assurance of the Church - The pillar and foundation of Truth.

But it is God's word. Just like any letter or document that is dictated, it does not reflect the writer himself, but the Holy Spirit who inspired it.

The Church reflects the work of God as well - read your scripture.
And about scripture - it reflects both the person writing it and God. Are you indicating to me that God spoke greek? Exactly what do you think it means to be "divinely inspired" ?

Well, we're back to square one. Is the Bible God's word? Since you've already says it is, then whose word is more important? That of the Creator, or that of the created?

Well the Creator used the created to tell us how to worship and serve Him, thus it can be one in the same so far as revelation goes - the question is not about which is more important but rather how you can discern which is which.
You have failed to answer this reasonably - care to take another crack at it?

 

[geocajun]

The answer to the second half of the verse is in the first.

great, glad you acknowledge that - because now you get to explain how two churchs can be the "pillar and foundation of Truth" while disagreeing on doctrine.


But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

First that could never happen as it would be a contradiction of truth, It would not cease to be the word of God, in the objective sense, but how would I be able to ascertain if it was true or not simply based on scripture saying it is?
Hypothetically, lets say I was to write a big book and put "this is the word of God" inside it, and hand it to you. How could you trust it? the situation is the same without the assurance of the Church - The pillar and foundation of Truth.

Well, then we have a problem here. If it is the word of God without the church's sayso, then who is the authority? God, or the church?

The Church reflects the work of God as well - read your scripture.
And about scripture - it reflects both the person writing it and God. Are you indicating to me that God spoke greek? Exactly what do you think it means to be "divinely inspired" ?

How do you know the church does? Bu its own authority, or the word? (And I do have some things I'd be glad to discuss with you about that when you feel ready.) If the word of God is the word of God, how does the endorsement of man make it more valid?

As for the reflection of scripture: Isn't God capable of putting forth His own truth? So what language did God speak? (When this question strikes you as absolutely absurd, which it should, what does that tell you? Think about it.) Is the Bible written in a certain language for God's sake, or man's? Do you feel that a universe-creating God has the reasoning power to put His word in a language the readers could understand?

Well the Creator used the created to tell us how to worship and serve Him, thus it can be one in the same so far as revelation goes

But are the questions of what could be and what are the same thing?

- the question is not about which is more important but rather how you can discern which is which.

Oh, it absolutely is the question. Because this determines authority. You cannot decide who to listen to if you don't know who your Boss is: God, or the church. And this can create terrible doctrinal problems and all the difficulties that manifest themselves out of those problems.

You have failed to answer this reasonably - care to take another crack at it?

Feel free to chew on it a while if you like. The issue of authority is absolutely essential. The standard by which you measure what you've been taught about God is very, very important.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

great, glad you acknowledge that - because now you get to explain how two churchs can be the "pillar and foundation of Truth" while disagreeing on doctrine.


But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

You missed it. The answer to the second half of the verse is in the first. The answer to what sense in which the church is a pillar, is that it is of...Whom? So this places authority squarely in Whose court?

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Hold on-I just caught something.

Well the Creator used the created to tell us how to worship and serve Him, thus it can be one in the same so far as revelation goes

What can be one and the same? That for man to speak and for God to speak is the same thing? That one is no more important than the other? If that's what you meant, I think the problem with this is glaring. That's a pretty high view of man!

What exactly did you mean when you said you're part of the visible church, but the way?

 

[geocajun]

Well, then we have a problem here. If it is the word of God without the church's sayso, then who is the authority? God, or the church?

We know it is the word of God, because the Church said it infallibly and that is the only reason we know it. That is why the Church cannot contradict itself and say it is not, because it has already been stated objectivley.

next, you ignored my hypothetical situation completely. please address this: Hypothetically, lets say I was to write a big book and put "this is the word of God" inside it, and hand it to you. How could you trust it? the situation is the same without the assurance of the Church - The pillar and foundation of Truth.

How do you know the church does? Bu its own authority, or the word?

its a symbiant circle really. The Church proves scripture, and scripture proves the Church.

(And I do have some things I'd be glad to discuss with you about that when you feel ready.)

there is no time like the present.

If the word of God is the word of God, how does the endorsement of man make it more valid?

Well, it was written by man in the first place. I think you will agree that this automaticlly instills some skepticism in us, and we need an authoritative, trust worthy man to tell us that it is trustworthy - see my hypothetical question above.

As for the reflection of scripture: Isn't God capable of putting forth His own truth?

obviously yes, God uses animals, nature, men, and our language to do it.

So what language did God speak? (When this question strikes you as absolutely absurd, which it should, what does that tell you? Think about it.) Is the Bible written in a certain language for God's sake, or man's? Do you feel that a universe-creating God has the reasoning power to put His word in a language the readers could understand?

the point of my question was to cause you to think about it. The way the words got onto paper was by men who spoke the common language for their people.

But are the questions of what could be and what are the same thing?

When we state what "could be" its always speculation. When we state what "is" its intended to be objective.

Oh, it absolutely is the question. Because this determines authority.

I am so happy you brought this up! Who is it that is your authority?
Typically the answer to this is "God!" but then, why if we all have God as our authority, do we have so many different denominations (including yours) within protestantism?

You cannot decide who to listen to if you don't know who your Boss is: God, or the church. And this can create terrible doctrinal problems and all the difficulties that manifest themselves out of those problems.

Amen! Every heresy was born of dissention from the Church.

Feel free to chew on it a while if you like. The issue of authority is absolutely essential. The standard by which you measure what you've been taught about God is very, very important.

agreed, I am so anxious for you to tell me who your authority is.
(mine is the Church btw)

 

[geocajun]

You missed it. The answer to the second half of the verse is in the first. The answer to what sense in which the church is a pillar, is that it is of...Whom? So this places authority squarely in Whose court?

please explain this further. I am very confused by your statement.

 

[geocajun]

Hold on-I just caught something.

What can be one and the same? That for man to speak and for God to speak is the same thing? That one is no more important than the other? If that's what you meant, I think the problem with this is glaring. That's a pretty high view of man!

When God speaks to us through men, such as the Apostles, or Moses, or any other true prophet, is it any less the word of God, simply because it was delivered through men? This is the essence of scripture, which was written by men, inspired by God.

What exactly did you mean when you said you're part of the visible church, but the way?

I had hoped you would ask. the following link sums it up quite nicely, but I will supply some quotes below: http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.



Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)



Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.



Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.



The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.



Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

please explain this further. I am very confused by your statement.

In what sense is this church the pillar? Who ordained it as such? Surely this is not to supplant God's authority. It is her usefullness by God that gives her this distinction-it is not equal or above God.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I can't believe I answered this whole post, and then my puter froze. Here we go again...

We know it is the word of God, because the Church said it infallibly and that is the only reason we know it. That is why the Church cannot contradict itself and say it is not, because it has already been stated objectivley.

So who is in charge? God, or man? Do you think God needs man to validate Him?

The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be kept safe. Proverbs 29:25

next, you ignored my hypothetical situation completely. please address this: Hypothetically, lets say I was to write a big book and put "this is the word of God" inside it, and hand it to you. How could you trust it? the situation is the same without the assurance of the Church - The pillar and foundation of Truth.

I can understand why you would think that, but I didn't ignore it-first it needs to be sorted out where your authority is so we can determine whether it is God or man who is your authority. This question is only a stumper for those who put their trust in man. If you put your trust in God, don't you think He would show the fallacy of this faulty claim as He has throughout history?

The Church proves scripture, and scripture proves the Church.

You can't have two authorities. It really should be a simple matter to determine whether God is in charge or man is. The only reason people lean on man is because they do not trust God to do His own work in them. It's more comfortable to rely on what we can se.. But it is written:

(For we walk by faith, not by sight.): II Corinthians5:7

there is no time like the present.

Okay, let's get your authority worked out first. It can't be both God and man.

Well, it was written by man in the first place. I think you will agree that this automaticlly instills some skepticism in us, and we need an authoritative, trust worthy man to tell us that it is trustworthy - see my hypothetical question above.

Actually, you've already said God is the author of His word. As seen in the first scripture, we don't need man. Skepticism is a problem with faith. And to put trust in man is a manifestation of this lack of faith. The church may want you to put your faith in it, but that man is subject to the judgment of God! God wants you to trust in Him alone. The answer isn't to find a man you trust, but to increase faith and trust in God alone. Only then can you truly determine who His servants are. You have His sayso-His word that He sent to you. Although God chooses servants for Himself, man can add nothing to God. And the key is to determine which are chosen by God and which are self-appointed. (By self I also mean by man rather than God.)

obviously yes, God uses animals, nature, men, and our language to do it.

Absolutely. So can man add anything to a God who is omniscient [all-knowing], omnipresent [everywhere present], and omipotent [all-powerful]? (I know you understand these; the brackets are for the benefit of anyone who might be reading along who is unfamiliar with these terms.)

When we state what "could be" its always speculation. When we state what "is" its intended to be objective.

Agreed. You have a very gifted intellect, by the way.

I am so happy you brought this up! Who is it that is your authority?
Typically the answer to this is "God!" but then, why if we all have God as our authority, do we have so many different denominations (including yours) within protestantism?

My authority is God, which is why I'm demonstrating the insufficiency of man.

Yet another excellent question. The reason we have so many denominations isn't because God isn't the authority, but man always wants to be. So a faithful church may begin to veer away from scripture, until the faithful see where the church is headed. They see that man insists upon doing it his way. So they cut loose and start fresh. Everytime a man gets in the way, God raises up a faithful church who is willing to do it His way. It isn't because God is incapable, after all he is omnipotent, but because man insists on being the authority he is not. These people do not rely upon the Holy Spirit, nor do they wish to submit. But how do you know which church is man-centered and which is God centered? By the church's own claim?

Amen! Every heresy was born of dissention from the Church.

Isn't heresy rather the church's dissention from God? What is more important: the man a church claims was its founder, or how closely that church knows and obeys God? For it is written:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matthew 3:9

What do you think was the point Jesus was making with these words?

agreed, I am so anxious for you to tell me who your authority is.
(mine is the Church btw)

Mine is God.

 

[Godzman]

lets all do the lords work on sunday

 

[geocajun]

In what sense is this church the pillar?

In the scriptural sense.

Who ordained it as such?

God

Surely this is not to supplant God's authority. It is her usefullness by God that gives her this distinction-it is not equal or above God.

It is concecrated to God (Holy), with the mission to be our pillar of fire (guide to salvation), and our pillar of truth (visible protector of truth).

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
Have you read this yet?
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

 

[Godzman]

I praise the Lord and do work, sometimes it is work

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

In the scriptural sense.

God


It is concecrated to God (Holy), with the mission to be our pillar of fire (guide to salvation), and our pillar of truth (visible protector of truth).
[/size]
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
Have you read this yet?
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

Nope, I've just been typing away. In fact, I think I'm going to brew another cup of coffee in a minute.

 

[Godzman]

just praise the lord

 

[geocajun]

I can't believe I answered this whole post, and then my puter froze. Here we go again...

sorry to hear that.

So who is in charge? God, or man? Do you think God needs man to validate Him?

It isnt a matter of God needing man to validate Him.
God doesn't need us at all, period.
God does use man to communicate His revelation to us though - will you agree with that?

I can understand why you would think that, but I didn't ignore it-first it needs to be sorted out where your authority is so we can determine whether it is God or man who is your authority. This question is only a stumper for those who put their trust in man. If you put your trust in God, don't you think He would show the fallacy of this faulty claim as He has throughout history?

When a person puts thier faith into the Church, they are putting their faith in God. This does not mean that the Church is = to God, but it does mean that we use the Church to get to God, as the Church is Holy.
"He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4)
Saul was persecuting the Church for following Jesus - Jesus did not say "Why are you persecuting the Church" but rather "Why are you persecuting Me"

You can't have two authorities. It really should be a simple matter to determine whether God is in charge or man is. The only reason people lean on man is because they do not trust God to do His own work in them. It's more comfortable to rely on what we can se.. But it is written:

When people lean on man, they start trusting doctrines like "sola scriptura" - which is not found in the bible.

Because the truth of the Church is found in scripture, and the truth of scripture is found in the Church, we see that these are two of the legs of Christianity, which when coupled with the Magesterium, make us the Pillar of Fire, and Pillar of Truth that God ordained for us to have as our ark of salvation.

(For we walk by faith, not by sight.): II Corinthians5:7

Amen!

Okay, let's get your authority worked out first. It can't be both God and man.

Well maybe if I put it like this it would help. God is the principal authority for Christians, who uses the Church as the instrument of His revelation, and guide to all Truth.
Thus, faith in the Church as the instrumental cause of grace and salvation does not in any way take away from God as the principal cause of grace and salvation.

Actually, you've already said God is the author of His word. As seen in the first scripture, we don't need man.

yes, God is the author of scripture, but here we get into the principal versus instrumental discussion again.
God was the principal cause of scripture, who inspired men, and they became the instrumental cause of sacred scripture.
Thus, scripture is a co-operation of God and man.
God did not need to use men, but God chose to use men to write His scriptures.

<snip> (addressed above)

Absolutely. So can man add anything to a God who is omniscient [all-knowing], omnipresent [everywhere present], and omipotent [all-powerful]? (I know you understand these; the brackets are for the benefit of anyone who might be reading along who is unfamiliar with these terms.)

Man could never add to God, who is the all perfect being. Man can only help other men come to know God better.

Agreed. You have a very gifted intellect, by the way.

thanks

My authority is God, which is why I'm demonstrating the insufficiency of man.

fair enough, but as I said, all Christians make this claim, and yet we have so many divisions. God, being truth, would not reveal Himself differently to each of us, claiming each revelation is the truth.
I do agree that man is insufficient, but I beleive the Church is sufficient as it is Holy, and protected by the Holy Spirit.

Yet another excellent question. The reason we have so many denominations isn't because God isn't the authority, but man always wants to be. So a faithful church may begin to veer away from scripture, until the faithful see where the church is headed. They see that man insists upon doing it his way. So they cut loose and start fresh.

90% of denominations claim that they just want to follow Jesus, and they use only the scriptures to accomplish this. They are making the same claims you are making right now, so whats different about you or your church?

Everytime a man gets in the way, God raises up a faithful church who is willing to do it His way. It isn't because God is incapable, after all he is omnipotent, but because man insists on being the authority he is not. These people do not rely upon the Holy Spirit, nor do they wish to submit. But how do you know which church is man-centered and which is God centered? By the church's own claim?

That is where we must use faith and reason. If the church claiming to be the true church is riddeled with contradictions, then it would not be reasonable to adhere to it as truth does not contradict truth.

Isn't heresy rather the church's dissention from God?

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same (CCC 2089)

What is more important: the man a church claims was its founder, or how closely that church knows and obeys God? For it is written:

obviously being Apostolic is important, but the claim should be that the Church follows God, not man.
God gave us Bishops, Priests and Deacons for a reason, and they do not undermine, but rather glorify Him.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matthew 3:9

What do you think was the point Jesus was making with these words?

Well that particular verse in context is about how the Jews must follow Jesus instead of relying on their soley on their Jewish roots for salvation.

 

[Tawhano]

Here are a few questions posted throughout this thread that I would like to address again.

Is James 2: 8 teaching us a need to obey the law?

James 2:8
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

If you read just that verse then you could quite possibly come to that conclusion. However if you read all of that passage you will see that it is not talking about obeying the law at all.

James goes on to say this:

James 2:9-10
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

We already know from scripture that no one was able to keep the law because all have sinned. Did not James know this? We also know that no one can be justified by the law.

Acts 13:39
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Did not James know this either?

Search the old covenant laws and find the law that says you should not have respect to persons. It isn’t there in letter. James was pointing out that for those who believed that they were justified by keeping the letter of the laws were guilty of breaking the laws because they knew not the spirit of the law. The only law James exhorted us to keep was the law of liberty.

James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

So what is the law of liberty?

Galatians 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Paul explains to the Galatians that we are the seed of promise and not the seed of the law keepers:

Galatians 4:31
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Galatians 5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

The law of liberty is not the old covenant laws but the new covenant laws, which Christ brought to us from the Father. Christ set us free from the laws.

Why did Jesus make a distinction between fulfilling and abolishing the law in Matthew 5:17?

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Better still why did they think he had come to destroy the laws in the first place? If Jesus was teaching them to keep the laws then why did they think he came to destroy them? Could it be that they understood the significance of the Sermon on the Mount as its relevance to the passing of the old covenant? Could it be that they understood that when Jesus quoted the old covenant laws and adding to it that they understood he was going to bring in a new covenant to replace the old?

Do the laws being fulfilled mean they are still in effect because they were not destroyed? Jesus fulfilled the old covenant; it was completed. The obligation to keep the old covenant was completed by Jesus. If you have a contract to pay a certain amount each month for something you bought and I came by and paid it in full for you do you then keep paying? No I fulfilled your contract. The contract wasn’t destroyed it was fulfilled but you no longer are bound to it. You no longer pay towards it.

Why did Jesus say in Matthew 7:12 to do unto others as we would have done unto us, for this sums up the law and the prophets if the laws were fulfilled?

Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

This is the same as the commandment to love that Jesus gave us. By obeying Jesus in keeping this commandment of love that fulfills the righteousness of the law does not mean we are keeping the law. The law has been fulfilled and it is the love of Christ that fulfills it.

Romans 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

What about James 2:14-26, particularly v. 18 telling us that faith without works is dead?

James 2:14-26
What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Notice in this passage that the works being referred to is not the works of the law. The works are the actions one has taken in direct influence of their faith. They did what they did by faith. Our faith or unbelief is manifested in our works. Jesus told a story that sums this up quite clearly. In Matthew 25 Jesus tells of a Master who gave his servants talents before he left on a journey. When he returned one of them did nothing with the talents whereas the others made more with what they had. That servant had his talents taken away. It is the same with our faith; use it or lose it.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Okay, a distinction needs to be made between being saved by works, and the necessity of works as manifest in genuine faith. Works, keeping of the law cannot save-only the blood of Christ. But if our faith in Him is real, those works will be manifest.

1. How did Jesus summarize the law? Matthew 7:12:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

2. And what did John son of Zebedee say about hating our brothers, a violation of this law? I John 4:19-21
We love Him, because He first loved us. If a man say, I love God, but hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment hath we from Him, That he who loveth God loveth his brother also.

This is a fulfillment of the commandment. This is obeying the law and prophets.

Can it save? No. Can we be saved without it? See what the verse says.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

sorry to hear that.

Thank you.

It isnt a matter of God needing man to validate Him.
God doesn't need us at all, period.
God does use man to communicate His revelation to us though - will you agree with that?

Absolutely-I do agree. The question then is...who?

When a person puts thier faith into the Church, they are putting their faith in God.

If you know of a verse I'd be happy to take a look.

When people lean on man, they start trusting doctrines like "sola scriptura" - which is not found in the bible.

But don't you advocate leaning on man? Wouldn't putting faith in the church in order to put faith in God fall under this category? About sola scriptura, those exact words may not be in scripture, the principle surely is. It didn't come from man. They sumarize the truth of scripture, and this is where the doctrine came from. The word trinity isn't in there either, but we know there is a trinity from other teachings in the Bible.

Because the truth of the Church is found in scripture, and the truth of scripture is found in the Church, we see that these are two of the legs of Christianity, which when coupled with the Magesterium, make us the Pillar of Fire, and Pillar of Truth that God ordained for us to have as our ark of salvation.

But we can't have two authorities. The church is still comprised of sinful human beings. And, to give man the equal authority of God isn't scriptural. That verse refering to the church being the pillar is not a relinquishment by God of His authority, nor does God make man equal with Himself. For it is written:

Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. Ephesians 5:24-26

This may help shed some light on I Timothy 3:15.

Well maybe if I put it like this it would help. God is the principal authority for Christians, who uses the Church as the instrument of His revelation, and guide to all Truth.

Well, I would agree that the church does reveal the truth, but only as it is revealed to them in the word. They, in and of themselves do not have authority greater than or equal to God. Since we agree on that, we can only rely on God's inspired word for this truth. If the church ever veers away from this, the church is in sin. It is no longer revealing the truth. Also, the Holy Spirit is the guide of all truth, not the church. The church's job, as revealed in the verse you gave me, is to send forth God's word, not add its own.

Thus, faith in the Church as the instrumental cause of grace and salvation does not in any way take away from God as the principal cause of grace and salvation.

Actually, it does. Then it is no longer faith in Christ. Where is it written that the church can save? Rather, is it not written:



3:22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

3:24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Also: 2 Peter 1:20-21

1:20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

1:21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Let's take a look at Acts 17:10-11:
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

yes, God is the author of scripture, but here we get into the principal versus instrumental discussion again.
God was the principal cause of scripture, who inspired men, and they became the instrumental cause of sacred scripture.
Thus, scripture is a co-operation of God and man.
God did not need to use men, but God chose to use men to write His scriptures.

I don't think they were instrumental. There is no cooperation per se, it is obedience under the rulership of God, not a partnership. Man is finite, God is infinite. Man is subject to the judgment of God. How could he judge the church if the church is co-author with God?

Man could never add to God, who is the all perfect being. Man can only help other men come to know God better.

If the human is under submission to God, as revealed in God's word alone.

fair enough, but as I said, all Christians make this claim, and yet we have so many divisions. God, being truth, would not reveal Himself differently to each of us, claiming each revelation is the truth.

Exactly. But these are all churches. So, how would we know which one is right?

I do agree that man is insufficient, but I beleive the Church is sufficient as it is Holy, and protected by the Holy Spirit.

But the church is comprised of men. And I think the church that is protected is not the visible church, but the spiritual one.

90% of denominations claim that they just want to follow Jesus, and they use only the scriptures to accomplish this. They are making the same claims you are making right now, so whats different about you or your church?

An excellent question! They all use the scriptures, but which use it correctly? The answer requires diligent study of the word itself, not what someone says about the word. It can be helpful to get the reflections of others, but not in place of personal prayer and study. The scriptures laud the Bereans for not taking even the apostles' word as true by its own merit. They didn't go to another human being. They went straight to God through His word. And I find it is also wise to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and be open to His leading.

That is where we must use faith and reason. If the church claiming to be the true church is riddeled with contradictions, then it would not be reasonable to adhere to it as truth does not contradict truth.

A good start. Contradictions. But then we have another problem. Some say that the Bible contradicts itself, which further study reveals to be false. So how do we know an apparent contradiction from an actual one? Does this not go back to the scriptures?

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same (CCC 2089)

Okay, this is what the church says. Now we would check the scriptures to see if this is true. Catholic is spelled with a small c, so that would be the universal church of God. But this isn't what the Bible teaches, is it? This document is not scripture. There's something not right about what it teaches either, as we can see from the above verses-it doesn't place authority on God, but on man. If man is in submission to God, he will never try to usurp God's authority.

obviously being Apostolic is important, but the claim should be that the Church follows God, not man. God gave us Bishops, Priests and Deacons for a reason, and they do not undermine, but rather glorify Him.

The Bereans would have disagreed with the importance of being apostolic, as written in the verse Matthew 3:9:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Well that particular verse in context is about how the Jews must follow Jesus instead of relying on their soley on their Jewish roots for salvation.

And here we have the same principle. Jewish roots, or apostolic roots-it doesn't matter. Where is it written that either can save? What matters is Holy Spirit roots. Messianic roots. The blessing of God Himself.

If I may offer something up as gently as I can: who was Jesus, and what did He wear?
Who is the head of the church, and what does he wear?
Why?