Is the church a pillar & pedestal of truth?

triablogue ^ | September 08, 2008 | Steve

[RnMomof7]

Ping

[sagar]

“The Church” is, not the “church”.

[WVKayaker]

[Dr. Thorne]

“Popery is contrary to Christ’s gospel and is the antichrist” - Charles Spurgeon

[LurkingSince'98]

“since Catholics keep citing it as a prooftext for Catholicism, I have to correct them more than once”

so that means you must be divinely inspired to determine what “The Church” means kind of like protestants’ individual interpretations of Scripture.

what makes you think that only YOUR interpretation can possibly be correct one??

AMDG

[CynicalBear]

There is no way the Catholic Church can claim that distinction. Their leadership doesn’t even qualify to be in leadership positions per Paul.

[Mark17]

I always thought it was God who is the pillar and pedestal of truth, not some church.

[Tao Yin]

Regarding Peter and the church, Galatians 2 is food for thought.

Peter "stood condemned" because his "conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel". Because of the actions of Peter and the other Jews, "even Barnabas was led astray".

Should we just accept anything we hear in church as the truth? How can we measure or verify what we hear? Should we just follow our betters without question?

[CynicalBear]

>>I always thought it was God who is the pillar and pedestal of truth, not some church.<<

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the household of God, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. It is the assembly of God that is to uphold and support the truth of God here on earth. That "household" consists of all true and faithful followers and believers in Christ. One of the "truths" contained in scripture is that anyone who aspires to leadership in that household is to conform to the ( ) set by the Holy Spirit through Paul.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

The Catholic Church couldn't even uphold that basic truth. The Catholic Church doesn't qualify.

[Boogieman]

I’m of the opinion that what he is describing as a “pillar and foundation of the truth” is actually not the church, but the words that directly precede that description: “the living God”. That is consistent with other verses about God being described as “the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20) and “sure foundation” (Isaiah 33:6).

[Boogieman]

I have to side with Mark17 on this question. The wording is not cut and dry, as the phrase in question could be describing “the church of the living God”, or simply the directly preceding “the living God”.

So I think this is a case where one needs to look to the rest of Scripture to see which is the more likely interpretation. It is God, not the church, that is consistently described in the rest of Scripture with symbols like “the rock”, “the chief cornerstone”, “the sure foundation”, etc. So, I think it is more in line with the rest of Scripture to read this description as meant to apply to God, not the church.

[Mark17]

How can we measure or verify what we hear?

I think all we can do, is what the Berean's did. Search the scriptures daily, to see if these things are so.

[Mark17]

So I think this is a case where one needs to look to the rest of Scripture to see which is the more likely interpretation.

I always try to interpret the more difficult to understand verses, in light of the clear teaching of the Bible, not the other way around. Make sense?

[ealgeone]

>How can we measure or verify what we hear? <

I think all we can do, is what the Berean's did. Search the scriptures daily, to see if these things are so.

THIS!!!!!!!

[Mad Dawg]

... since Catholics keep citing it as a prooftext for Catholicism, ...

Catholics don't "proof-text," generally. Not the way Protestants do.

Steps 3 and 4 are not logically necessary. As arguments there is NO WAY they're self-sufficient.

Should we just accept anything we hear in church as the truth?

Catholic teaching IN NO WAY says you should accept anything you hear in church. We argue with our priests and with our bishops. We write letters to Rome complaining about false teaching in our local pulpits or in our dioceses.

(Sometimes Rome actually responds. A very heterodox bishop in Virginia had his chain severely yanked.)

We write papers, start periodicals, give lectures, start prayer and study groups -- yes, yes, INCLUDING Scripture study.

And we have been known to remind our Popes of Peter's behavior.

Big
Fat
Straw
Man!
as usual.

Keep on shadow boxing. At least it keeps y'all off our backs.