George B and Solly on 1 Tim 3.15

[Solly]

George, here's the thread where we can pursue this matter further. From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=280&perpage=15&pagenumber=7
) You'll see it's in the Tennis Court, so it's just you and me at the moment. We can move it later if needs be.

Introductory

In the Infant Baptism thread you made the comment: What I have come to learn is that this saving is only from abnormal to normal, and not to supra-normal, which is life in Christ...
For me, this encapsulates the differences between the two big Catholic communions (East and West) and the Protestant, and also the misunderstanding of the Protestant communion by the Catholics (note that I am using that term for East and West when I use it without addition). The Roman Catholics would make a similar statement to the one you have, perhaps reworded as What I have come to learn is that this saving is only from unnatural to natural, and not to supra-natural, which is life in Christ.... The difference hinges on the fact that the Catholic communions are sacramental, whereas the Protestant are not in the same way. Catholics see grace as ministered and channeled through people and things; Protestants do not. This has led to the notion amongst Catholics that Protestants follow a very rationalistic religion, not knowing the supernatural apsects; but this is not so. We just don't believe in mediatory helps, but rely on the Holy Spirit directly. Christianity as I pursue it would be nothing without the Holy Spirit, whether in praying, studying, preaching, hearing, worshipping, believing, walking. Christianity is Christ, and my spiritual life is in Christ, and would be nothing outside of Christ. We see it that the Catholic communions have brought in a lot of extraneous matter that, while seeking to clarify this more, actually obscures it, because it places priesthoods and rites and rituals between man and God, and leads men to place their trust in those - in "Holy" things or "Holy" people, or "Holy" places, rather than in the "Holy" Spirit. While others would perhaps immediatley wish to challenge this view, I am merely pointing out that that is how we see it.

What does this have to do with the subject in hand? We shall see, but essentially, it is the Catholic creation of the idea of the Church as something that exists independant of the people who are part of it; the creation of an inner circle, a management level, who are more the Church. Have you ever noticed, in working life, how managers seem to be the company, whereas the likes of you or I are just employees of the company. The same has happened in the Catholic communions. That is where this verse comes in.

1 Timothy 3.15

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [KJV]
(Others render the word "ground" as "bulwark" or "foundation"


You said: What does the Church say? You see, if we are to believe scripture, then we must believe that with regard to Christian Truth, the Church is the "pillar and ground", ...
God's word tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truths, their basis and support, and that we are to keep all the teachings [traditions], whether by word or by epistle, and that the written is not exhaustive of these...

This verse is used by the Catholic communions as the support for their idea of the teaching authority of the Church in matters of doctrine (which is all well and good) and the need for Christians to defer to the accumulated wisdom of a group of Christian pastors and writers of the first few hundred years, some councils, and the continued interpretive authority of what the Romans call the Magesterium, to tell us what is taught, and to which we must defer.

Words

Pillar: Strongs 4769; Post, pillar, column
Ground: Strongs 1477; Basis, support, stay, prop.

Context

First Timothy.
Paul is writing to advise Timothy in his position as leader of the Church in Ephesus [1.3]. He has some very practical advice for Timothy re the organisation of the church there, esp with regard to false teachers, and disorderly practices. In chapter 1 he deals with the matter of false teachers/teaching, and encourages Timothy to remain firm. In chapters 2 & 3 he deals with order in the church, with regard to several different groups, that their behaviour might be sensible and established in grace. It is all about good order. Our verse follows on from this.

God's household, The Church of the Living God

What is interesting to note here, is that he is writing about a local church. This is my first critique of the Catholic view, who tend to elevate this verse to the level of the authorities within and over the church. It is the local church which is the context for Paul's advice. The advice Paul has given to Timothy is relevant to the local situation: each community of Christians bears witness to its establishment by God, and should show that fact. Each local community of Christians is responsible to God, not a denominational head. This is the Protestant Baptist idea of the independancy of the local church, while being submitted to the authority of God.

Pillar and Ground of the Truth.

Question: what is? Gregory Nyassa, Gregory Nanzianzen, Basil, and others consider that Timothy is himself the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, possible on the basis of similar usage in Gal 2.9, where the leaders of the Jerusalem church are called pillars, & Rev 3.12 where Christians who overcome are called pillars. John Gill, the 18th Baptist expositor also considers Timothy to be the Pillar, on the basis of the textual reading that says "how thou oughtest to behave thyself" rather than the variant "how you" ie, all of them. He also draws upon some Rabbinic uses of the term Pillar, as in “the pillar of the law”; “the pillars of doctrine”; & “the mystery of faith is the root and ground of the world”.

While I allow that Gill and the Fathers may be right in this one thematically, yet it is only partly right. Timothy might be denominated "pillar and ground" because he was the minister, and so bore the burden of the Word. But that ministry is not an end in itself, but is for the edification of the church, etc Eph 4.12,13. It is noted also, in the Pulpit Commentary on 1 Timothy, that with out the pronoun "se" [you are the..] in place, the personal application idea is undercut.

So what does it mean?

Pillars in ancient times were obviously used as a support for buildings, to hold up roofs especially. However, they had another function too, and that is to carry messages, either by being inscribed, or by having messages hung on them. I believe that is the idea here. The church is the place where God's message is inscribed - epistles written on the hearts of men, as Paul has it elsewhere. The church is the pillar and pedestal upon which God places his truth, to be supported, and displayed before the world. But note that the church is not itself the truth; the church is not on the pedestal, but only bears what is on it. As Paul says, we bear this treasure as in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God. We do not have the idea here of the Church as having ultimate teaching authority in the modern Catholic sense, certainly not in the idea of "infallibility" that issues from Rome. We do have the idea of the importance of the local church bearing that which has been given it, by the help of the Holy Spirit. The truth does not derive its authority from the Church, but from God. It is not necessary to say: the church says such and such, because it is God who says such and such, and the church bears witness to it. That is all. The church bears something of the ministry that Paul explains in 2 Cor: we as ambassadors. But ambassadors are only message bearers.

So...what?

A great responsibility has been given to the churches, all churches, each one individually - not as a denomination with a hierarchy and a priesthood divided from the people, whose responsibility it is to promulgate the authorative teaching of the church - but all Christians, in all ages. We do not need to bring forward the writings of the past, as if they are binding upon us, for only scripture is binding 2 Tim 3.16; we can be taught by past Christians, and value their input and labours, but we might find they were wrong - they spoke to their time, and we seek to speak to ours. Only the scriptures are timeless in their message.


regards

[Rdr. Arsenios]

This is a paste, and not yet responsive to your post - I will delete the thread from theol 102... My Hotmail is down this AM...

geo

1 Tim 3:15
(post#1 )
Solly and I, on the infant baptism thread, decided to begin this text as a fresh thread, in the hope that a discussion of Biblical ekklessiology might prove fruitful...

The Eastern Orthodox Church has taught from the times of the writing of this text that the Church is the center of Christian life, and indeed, so central, so essential, is the Church that St. Cyprian of Carthage writes: “He cannot have God as a Father who does not have the Church as a mother.”

And this Church is not some hairy fairy pie in the sky etherial type of new-age imaginative construct of fantasy, but the real, flesh and blood Church of Christ and his holy saints upon the earth, and is the body of our Lord, and the ark of salvation for those in Him...

The text reads very simply:

15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The ekklesiastical implication is hard to avoid - If you want the truth, you go to the church of the Living God, which is the house of God, and conduct yourself appropriately in it...

If there is any controversy, one is biblically enjoined here to NOT seek answers outside the pillar and ground of truth.

So having set up the matter, I turn it over to Solly or anyone else who should wish to contribute to a better understanding of the nature and role of the Church in the guardianship of truth and in the salvation of the people of God in the house of God....

geo

[Solly]

It's just you and me for the moment George; but once we have laid down some study, we could move it into a public area

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Solly:

> George, ... it's in the Tennis Court, so it's just you and me at the moment. We can move it later if needs be.

Why did you take it here?

> In the Infant Baptism thread you made the comment: What I have come to learn is that this saving is only from abnormal to normal, and not to supra-normal, which is life in Christ...

Yes, this was a rather idiosyncratic comment upon my own particular route into Christianity...

> For me, this encapsulates the differences between the two big Catholic communions (East and West) and the Protestant, and also the misunderstanding of the Protestant communion by the Catholics (note that I am using that term for East and West when I use it without addition).

Well, this is a thread on ekklesiology, and by lumping together two Churches that have not been in communion for about a millennium you have violated the ekklesiology of my Church.

> The Roman Catholics would make a similar statement to the one you have, perhaps reworded as What I have come to learn is that this saving is only from unnatural to natural, and not to supra-natural, which is life in Christ....

I cannot speak for them... And my particular remark was personal, and not all that ekklesiological... I happened to start out in personal terms as very abnormal, even by human terms, and my enlightenment, from athiesm, brought me to "Human normal"... I am sorry I was not more clear on this...

> The difference hinges on the fact that the Catholic communions are sacramental, whereas the Protestant are not in the same way. Catholics see grace as ministered and channeled through people and things; Protestants do not. This has led to the notion amongst Catholics that Protestants follow a very rationalistic religion, not knowing the supernatural apsects; but this is not so.

Solly, I really cannot speak for Catholics...

> We just don't believe in mediatory helps, but rely on the Holy Spirit directly.

Then revelation is private? And each person is accountable only to God? There are huge problems with this, if I am understanding you aright.

> Christianity as I pursue it would be nothing without the Holy Spirit, whether in praying, studying, preaching, hearing, worshipping, believing, walking. Christianity is Christ, and my spiritual life is in Christ, and would be nothing outside of Christ.

So you rely on the Holy Spirit exclusively, and your life is in Christ...? And the Holy Spirit places you in Christ in the privacy of your own revealed experience?

> We see it that the Catholic communions have brought in a lot of extraneous matter that, while seeking to clarify this more, actually obscures it, because it places priesthoods and rites and rituals between man and God, and leads men to place their trust in those - in "Holy" things or "Holy" people, or "Holy" places, rather than in the "Holy" Spirit. While others would perhaps immediatley wish to challenge this view, I am merely pointing out that that is how we see it.

Yes, I understand that for Protestants, it is the individual in relation to God, and the Church is not a core factor... For the best of my Protestant friends, the whole matter of choosing one's church is a core matter, whereas for an Orthodox, there is one Church...

> What does this have to do with the subject in hand? We shall see, but essentially, it is the Catholic creation of the idea of the Church as something that exists independant of the people who are part of it; the creation of an inner circle, a management level, who are more the Church. Have you ever noticed, in working life, how managers seem to be the company, whereas the likes of you or I are just employees of the company. The same has happened in the Catholic communions. That is where this verse comes in.

I really cannot speak for Catholics... And you are familiar with the Roman Church, which has been out of communion with Eastern Orthodoxy for a thousand years - and this Roman Church had a revolt, and you are the child of that revolt, and the religious wars in Europe that came from it...

Look - If you want to indict the "catholic communions", I really am not your guy to talk with... If you want to talk about what the Church is, and its role in salvation, according to the Bible, and according to Orthodoxy, and in contrast with Protestant ecclesiology, we can do that... And if you want to understand Eastern Orthodox ekklesiology, then you need but ask, and I will try to give an answer, or cop a plea of ignorance!

1 Timothy 3.15

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [KJV]

> This verse is used by the Catholic communions as the support for their idea of the teaching authority of the Church in matters of doctrine (which is all well and good) and the need for Christians to defer to the accumulated wisdom of a group of Christian pastors and writers of the first few hundred years, some councils, and the continued interpretive authority of what the Romans call the Magesterium, to tell us what is taught, and to which we must defer.

I cannot speak for the Catholics - Could you maybe start over?

Words

Pillar: Strongs 4769; Post, pillar, column
Ground: Strongs 1477; Basis, support, stay, prop.

Context

> First Timothy.
Paul is writing to advise Timothy in his position as leader of the Church in Ephesus [1.3]. He has some very practical advice for Timothy re the organisation of the church there, esp with regard to false teachers, and disorderly practices. In chapter 1 he deals with the matter of false teachers/teaching, and encourages Timothy to remain firm. In chapters 2 & 3 he deals with order in the church, with regard to several different groups, that their behaviour might be sensible and established in grace. It is all about good order. Our verse follows on from this.

God's household, The Church of the Living God

ina eidhs pws dei en oikw qeou anastrefesqai, htis estin ekklhsia qeou zwntos, stulos kai edraiwma ths alhqeias.

"...in order that you should perceive how it is necessary in God's household to conduct oneself, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth..." [very literal translation - mine]

> What is interesting to note here, is that he is writing about a local church.

He is writing to Timothy who is IN a particular church, but he is writing ABOUT the Church of the Living God, which is the household of God...

> This is my first critique of the Catholic view, who tend to elevate this verse to the level of the authorities within and over the church.

I really cannot speak for Catholics... We are not in communion with them... We can talk about what the verse means - And it seems pretty obvious that it states that the household of God is the Church of the Living God, and that it is the pillar and ground of the Truth...

> It is the local church which is the context for Paul's advice.

It is the Church, and it is a real, flesh and blood, and local church, and its head to be, Timothy... This is the Biblical Church...

> The advice Paul has given to Timothy is relevant to the local situation: each community of Christians bears witness to its establishment by God, and should show that fact.

This Church was established by Paul, as were most of the ethnoi Churches of this time, yes? God established this church through a person IN his Church... The advice is not merely particular and but locally applicable - The text flatly contradicts this understanding...

" how it is necessary in God's household to conduct oneself, which is the Church of the living God,"

Clearly there is no textual limitation to Ephesus, but instead is to God's household... That is the meaning of the words, yes?

And indeed, this epistle was copied and sent to ALL the Churches, and was considered so applicable to all in the early Church that it was included in the canon of the New Testament some 400 years later...

> Each local community of Christians is responsible to God, not a denominational head. This is the Protestant Baptist idea of the independancy of the local church, while being submitted to the authority of God.

So do Baptists have bishops who run the household of God? Who are in charge of local churches? Each Church is responsible to God, [see the messages to the 'angels' of each of the 7 in Rev... Nothing about private revelation there...], and each has an 'angel' for its head - the bishop, who is responsible for its conduct as a Church of God...

Pillar and Ground of the Truth.

> Question: what is?

God's household, the Church of the living God...

> Gregory Nyassa, Gregory Nanzianzen, Basil, and others consider that Timothy is himself the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, possible on the basis of similar usage in Gal 2.9, where the leaders of the Jerusalem church are called pillars, & Rev 3.12 where Christians who overcome are called pillars.

The pillars of the Church are indeed the WHO of the pillar and ground of truth that the Church is... Not as individuals, but as ones conquering [Rev 3:12], as the saints perfected in the faith... But the sentence here does not say that Timothy is the pillar and ground of truth, but the Church...

> John Gill, the 18th Baptist expositor also considers Timothy to be the Pillar, on the basis of the textual reading that says "how thou oughtest to behave thyself" rather than the variant "how you" ie, all of them. He also draws upon some Rabbinic uses of the term Pillar, as in “the pillar of the law”; “the pillars of doctrine”; & “the mystery of faith is the root and ground of the world”.

Are you arguing that this passage states that Timothy is the pillar and ground of truth?????????

While I allow that Gill and the Fathers may be right in this one thematically, yet it is only partly right.

The fathers do not argue this...

> Timothy might be denominated "pillar and ground" because he was the minister, and so bore the burden of the Word. But that ministry is not an end in itself, but is for the edification of the church, etc Eph 4.12,13. It is noted also, in the Pulpit Commentary on 1 Timothy, that with out the pronoun "se" [you are the..] in place, the personal application idea is undercut.

Yes...

> So what does it mean?

> Pillars in ancient times were obviously used as a support for buildings, to hold up roofs especially. However, they had another function too, and that is to carry messages, either by being inscribed, or by having messages hung on them. I believe that is the idea here. The church is the place where God's message is inscribed - epistles written on the hearts of men, as Paul has it elsewhere. The church is the pillar and pedestal upon which God places his truth, to be supported, and displayed before the world.

The relationship of the Church to truth, according to this passage, is that of ground and pillar [support]... The result of this ground and elevation is holy lives, which in their turn also support and ground the truth...

> But note that the church is not itself the truth;

It is the body of Christ... which grounds and elevates His Truth... Glorifying God in the establishment of holy lives upon the earth...

> the church is not [b]on the pedestal, but only bears what is on it.

It is the ground and pillar of truth...

> As Paul says, we bear this treasure as in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God.

Yup...

> We do not have the idea here of the Church as having ultimate teaching authority in the modern Catholic sense, certainly not in the idea of "infallibility" that issues from Rome.

I cannot speak for Catholics...

> We do have the idea of the importance of the local church bearing that which has been given it, by the help of the Holy Spirit.

In Paul's time, the time of the Bible, the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost and the Church was established, and the ordination of its headship was by the laying on of hands... That was the vehicle of transmission... It still is in my Church from this time...

> The truth does not derive its authority from the Church, but from God.

God's word says that it is the Church that is the ground and pillar of the truth...

> It is not necessary to say: the church says such and such, because it is God who says such and such, and the church bears witness to it.

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

> That is all. The church bears something of the ministry that Paul explains in 2 Cor: we as ambassadors. But ambassadors are only message bearers.

I don't see how you can avoid the meaning of the words...

So...what?

A great responsibility has been given to the churches, all churches, each one individually - not as a denomination with a hierarchy and a priesthood divided from the people, whose responsibility it is to promulgate the authorative teaching of the church - but all Christians, in all ages. We do not need to bring forward the writings of the past, as if they are binding upon us, for only scripture is binding 2 Tim 3.16;

Was not the faith given?

And was it not given once for all?

And was it not given to the apostles?

And is it not handed [given] from them to others?

This is the church in action, from generation to generation...

> we can be taught by past Christians, and value their input and labours, but we might find they were wrong - they spoke to their time,

The Church is the ground and pillar of the truth - They spoke within and for the Church... Insofar as they did so, they are authoritative...

> and we seek to speak to ours. Only the scriptures are timeless in their message.

Which translates to each individual's private interpretation according to their private experience of the Holy Spirit...

Back to you - Please do not lump me with western Catholocism...

geo.


regards [/QUOTE]

[Solly]

George, Big post!!

Geo--Why did you take it here? So we can deal with the subject together, before others join in and it gets off topic.

Geo--This is a thread on ekklesiology, and by lumping together two Churches that have not been in communion for about a millennium you have violated the ekklesiology of my Church.

I know you see it that way George, but you were in communion for a millennium, and share a lot in common; it is only natural that I would draw comparisons. Not to be picky, but you did say that the Roman communion "birthed" the Protestant Reformation, and that comment and idea is just as wide of the mark as you believe mine about the links between the Eastern and Western communions is.

Geo--I cannot speak for them... And my particular remark was personal, and not all that ekklesiological... I happened to start out in personal terms as very abnormal, even by human terms, and my enlightenment, from athiesm, brought me to "Human normal"... I am sorry I was not more clear on this...

It is still a good summary of what the Eastern and Western Catholic communions teach though; I have seen it expressed in almost those very words. Confirmation of your personal road, I would think.

Geo-- I really cannot speak for Catholics...

Not expecting you to; don't worry.

----
Geo--Then revelation is private? And each person is accountable only to God? There are huge problems with this, if I am understanding you aright.

Revelation is private, but also communal; and scripture based. That is what the church is, the community of the redeemed; that is why we have creeds, confessions and articles of faith. What I am countering is the idea that there is a specific teaching authority residing in the church to which we defer, ie, let's see what the Church Fathers (or at least, the approved Church Fathers) said on it, cos my view doesn't matter against theirs.

Geo--So you rely on the Holy Spirit exclusively, and your life is in Christ...? And the Holy Spirit places you in Christ in the privacy of your own revealed experience?

NO, my life is in Christ with the rest of the Church. i know the west has slipped into excessive individualism, but I myself hold to the idea that we need the balance of remembering that the Church is a community. Christ saved the Church as a whole; we are in Christ as a whole. The church is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. But my experience will match that of others; and in that experience, I am in Christ by faith, and know it to be so by the work of the Holy Spirit who is given to each Christian. How would I pray? How would I walk I the Spirit? Because I turn to others who supposedly have this blessing when I don't?

Geo--Yes, I understand that for Protestants, it is the individual in relation to God, and the Church is not a core factor... For the best of my Protestant friends, the whole matter of choosing one's church is a core matter, whereas for an Orthodox, there is one Church...

We differ on our understanding of "One Church". We also differ on our understanding of what the church is. To my mind, it is the organic unity of Christians, especially in a local congregation, but also united to those around the world, and those who have gone ahead. Ultimately, it is that unity of believers in Christ, for we are all united to him: he IS the Church in essence. It is not an organisation that exists regardless of whether anyone is there.

Geo--I really cannot speak for Catholics... And you are familiar with the Roman Church, which has been out of communion with Eastern Orthodoxy for a thousand years - and this Roman Church had a revolt, and you are the child of that revolt, and the religious wars in Europe that came from it...

LOL; perhaps we can both unlearn some "propoganda?

1 Timothy 3.15

Geo--I cannot speak for the Catholics - Could you maybe start over?

I did point out at the start that the term catholic communions covered east and west.

Geo--He is writing to Timothy who is IN a particular church, but he is writing ABOUT the Church of the Living God, which is the household of God...

I beg to differ. This kind of idea would have come up in Ephesians, where he is doing such. How can Timothy and the others be instructed on how to behave themselves in the universal Church? There wasn't one. NO Church buildings, Cathedrals, Monasteries, Bishops, ArchBishops, Metropolitans, Popes, Councils, etc. Just local churches tied together by the labours of apostles and evangelists. However, you then go on to say...

Geo--It is the Church, and it is a real, flesh and blood, and local church, and its head to be, Timothy... This is the Biblical Church...This Church was established by Paul, as were most of the ethnoi Churches of this time, yes? God established this church through a person IN his Church... The advice is not merely particular but locally applicable - The text flatly contradicts this understanding...

I agree; perhaps we are misunderstanding each other? My point is that it is the local church that is the pillar and ground of truth, not mega corporation churches with head offices, cathedrals, colleges, teaching authority over the members of the church etc.

Geo--Clearly there is no textual limitation to Ephesus, but instead is to God's household... That is the meaning of the words, yes?

I admit I am finding it difficult to follow your train of thought. First you imply it is the Church as such, terrible as an army with banners, then you say it is the flesh and blood local church; then you go international again.

Geo--So do Baptists have bishops who run the household of God? Who are in charge of local churches? Each Church is responsible to God, [see the messages to the 'angels' of each of the 7 in Rev... Nothing about private revelation there...], and each has an 'angel' for its head - the bishop, who is responsible for its conduct as a Church of God...

We have ministers and elders/deacons. A charge is given to them, esp in teaching; but it is not an authority, and does not require automatic deferral to them by the laity. All should search the scriptures, all should have a Berean spirit. When I finish teaching or preaching, I instruct them to see if these things are so, not just take it because I am six foot above correction. so yes, I agree with the idea you put forward here. How is this the Orthodox church? I know each region is autocephalos, but you still have a hierarchy that is more than local bishops and elders/deacons; plus you have monasteries etc.

Pillar and Ground of the Truth.

Geo--Are you arguing that this passage states that Timothy is the pillar and ground of truth?????????

No, read on

Geo--The fathers do not argue this...

I repeat: Gregory Nyassa, Gregory Nanzianzen, Basil, and others consider that Timothy is himself the Pillar and Ground of the Truth,

Sadly, at this point your side of the case descended to merely restating several times that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. We are trying to establish what that means, and you cannot do that by saying, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Geo--The Church is the ground and pillar of the truth - They [the Church Fathers] spoke within and for the Church... Insofar as they did so, they are authoritative...

"Gregory Nyassa, Gregory Nanzianzen, Basil, and others consider that Timothy is himself the Pillar and Ground of the Truth" Were they speaking authoritatively, even though you say they are wrong, because "the Church is the, etc"?

Geo--Which translates to each individual's private interpretation according to their private experience of the Holy Spirit...
Back to you - Please do not lump me with western Catholocism...

I do not intend to lump you with Western Catholicism, but when Eastern Orhtodoxy's arguments are the same, then I will deal with them on the level. Your last comment was made much use of by John Henry Newman in his path to Rome, and is being made use of by contemporary converts to Eastern orthodoxy such as Franky Schaeffer V, and Michael Harper; and is part of the Roman apologetic against Protestantism.

Finally, for this post: how far apart are we really. You say: Which translates to each individual's private interpretation according to their private experience of the Holy Spirit; but the orthodox Church says:

The Orthodox Church is the body of Christ, the pillar and ground of the Truth, and it is both the means by which God wrote the Scriptures (through its members) and the means by which God has preserved the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church understands the Bible because it is the inheritor of one living tradition that begins with Adam and stretches through time to all its members today. That this is true cannot be "proven" in a lab. One must be convinced by the Holy Spirit and experience the life of God in the Church. From here (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.htm)
Not very different, as far as the highlighted comment goes; it was through God the Spirit that I was convicted, and brought to where I am; it was through God the Spirit I have been taught his ways, and now preach them. It is through God the Spirit I have been united to a group of people I would not normally have spent time with. It was through God the Spirit I was led away from walking that road to Catholicism, and have found no direction to follow it to orthodoxy. Were you led in any other way than this? Are your "convictions" that you had come home, any different from mine, when I found the people I now minister too?

We differ on what form the Church takes, and from where it draws its teaching, re the comment about "tradition from Adam.."; we differ on substantial points of theology; but I hope and pray that we do not differ in being of the twice born who shall meet in glory atround the throne.

regards
Solly

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Solly: writes:

> Geo--This is a thread on ekklesiology, and by lumping together two Churches that have not been in communion for about a millennium you have violated the ekklesiology of my Church.

> Sol - I know you see it that way George, but you were in communion for a millennium, and share a lot in common; it is only natural that I would draw comparisons.

> Geo--I cannot speak for them...

> Geo-- I really cannot speak for Catholics...

> Sol - Not expecting you to; don't worry.

You keep bringing them into this conversation, Solly - Perhaps it would be better for you to find a Roman Catholic and have your conversation there. You are talking to someone who is not in front of you... [Certainly not to me...]

> Geo--I really cannot speak for Catholics... And you are familiar with the Roman Church, which has been out of communion with Eastern Orthodoxy for a thousand years -

> Geo--I cannot speak for the Catholics - Could you maybe start over?

> Solly - I did point out at the start that the term catholic communions covered east and west.

Then you really do need to find someone else with whom to discuss ekklesiology. You are arguing as if against one, against two that are two, and not one. The communion of the apostolic Churches of the Eastern Orthodox is NOT in communion with the western Roman Church, and has not been for a thousand years... We have utterly different ekklesiological understandings.

Now if I were to lump you together with the JW's because you both are "Non-Catholic Sola Scriptura confessions", and argue that because the JW's and you both say this and that, and I stand proudly against you, who are one with those JWs, how long would you converse with me? Would you not tell me to go talk to a JW? And especially so if you had told me some 5 times that you are not a JW, that you cannot speak for them, and that by lumping me into one bag with them, I was violating your confession...?????

And if I were then to insist that you are both Sola Scriptura, so OF COURSE I will address you both in my coversation with you alone, in the tennis court where we cannot get side-tracked [no less!], I would expect you to walk away from the non-discussion...

If we cannot get straight on this, we have no conversation.

> Geo--The Church is the ground and pillar of the truth - They [the Church Fathers] spoke within and for the Church... Insofar as they did so, they are authoritative...

> Gregory Nyassa, Gregory Nanzianzen, Basil, and others consider that Timothy is himself the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Were they speaking authoritatively, even though you say they are wrong, because the Church is the [etc]?

I suspect you are misreading them - There is a sense in which the Holy Fathers embody the Church, and this is what you are perhaps missing in your reading of these... Got the quote?

> Geo Back to you - Please do not lump me with western Catholocism...

> I do not intend to lump you with Western Catholicism, but when Eastern Orhtodoxy's arguments are the same, then I will deal with them on the level. Your last comment ... is part of the Roman apologetic against Protestantism.

Please reconsider this decision.

geo

[Solly]

George; I think you are getting bogged down in the RC thing - my post was an "opening post" on the subject which i spent an evening putting together, and hoped you would address the textual points, not get sidetracked into this part; I am not discussing the Roman Catholic church, they were mentioned in the opening remarks, and some side comments because, although they are not in communion with you, there are similarities - I don't think it is wrong to say that I have heard an argument before, since that places us in a wider context. Shall I kick up a fuss everytime you say: this Roman Church had a revolt, and you are the child of that revolt, and the religious wars in Europe that came from it...
We are not in communion with the RC's either, but do you think that points can be made about the Protestant church on that basis?
I am not seeking to:indict the "catholic communions", I am seeking to understand the Eastern one; a response from you will show how it is different from the Western.
And I would quite understand if you thought Protestants and JWs were the same thing if your knowledge of Protestantism was small. Others do it all the time.

You go on to say: And if you want to understand Eastern Orthodox ekklesiology, then you need but ask, and I will try to give an answer, or cop a plea of ignorance!
Well isn't that what this verse is all about? You said I turn it over to Solly or anyone else who should wish to contribute to a better understanding of the nature and role of the Church in the guardianship of truth and in the salvation of the people of God in the house of God....

The points I have addressed about 1 Tim 3.15 are pursuant to the text and our [you and me] understanding of it; that is what your reply should be about. I was also expecting a post from yourself on the matter, so that I can see your [Eastern orthodox] understanding of the text, and we can then discuss.

this is back in a public arena, as I don't think it is going to go much further. :shrug:

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Solly: writes:

> George; I think you are getting bogged down in the RC thing -

It is a conversation stopper for me - Sorry. If you want to talk to an Orthodox about ecclessiology, you will do well to NOT address him as a co-comunicant of the RCC, based on your understanding of similarities.

> my post was an "opening post" on the subject which i spent an evening putting together, and hoped you would address the textual points, not get sidetracked into this part;

I appreciate the effort you put into it, and understand that your differentiation of the Protestant confessions from those of the the non-protestant is central to your understanding of the Protestant confession. Yet because you do not know the Orthodox understanding, it is a mistake to lump the Orthodox with the RCC and differentiate yourself from both. [Just as I do not lump you with the JWs on sola scriptura... Even though you both believe it...]

> I am not discussing the Roman Catholic church, they were mentioned in the opening remarks, and some side comments because, although they are not in communion with you, there are similarities - I don't think it is wrong to say that I have heard an argument before, since that places us in a wider context.

I did not open my remarks with your similarity to the JWs in your sola scriptura approach to ecclesiology...

Do you really not understand this?

> Shall I kick up a fuss everytime you say: this Roman Church had a revolt, and you are the child of that revolt, and the religious wars in Europe that came from it...

If it gives you trouble in the format of the discussion, I would say yes, and I would back off from it...

> We are not in communion with the RC's either, but do you think that points can be made about the Protestant church on that basis?
I am not seeking to:indict the "catholic communions",

Do you know what "catholic communions" means? The two communions you include in this category are NOT in communion...

> I am seeking to understand the Eastern one;

Then simply agree to leave the RCC at the door, and have a conversation about the passage with me...

> a response from you will show how it is different from the Western.

All you have to do is agree to leave the RCC out of your discussion with me and we can proceed.

> And I would quite understand if you thought Protestants and JWs were the same thing if your knowledge of Protestantism was small. Others do it all the time.

Perhaps I am just too small minded - If you think the RCC and Orthodoxy are both catholic confessions and can be approached together, then we have to get solidly established right away that they are different confessions, and you are talking to one, and not the other.

> You go on to say: And if you want to understand Eastern Orthodox ekklesiology, then you need but ask, and I will try to give an answer, or cop a plea of ignorance!

Indeed!

> Well isn't that what this verse is all about?

It is indeed, and we can discuss it IF you will but agree to leave the RCC at the door...

> You said I turn it over to Solly or anyone else who should wish to contribute to a better understanding of the nature and role of the Church in the guardianship of truth and in the salvation of the people of God in the house of God....

Yes... Nothing there about the RCC...

> The points I have addressed about 1 Tim 3.15 are pursuant to the text and our [you and me] understanding of it; that is what your reply should be about.

Then why drag the RCC into the matter at all? Will you just agree to drop it?

> I was also expecting a post from yourself on the matter, so that I can see your [Eastern orthodox] understanding of the text, and we can then discuss.

We can once we get past your RCC opening remarks that lump two Churches that are not in communion as one...

> this is back in a public arena, as I don't think it is going to go much further. :shrug:

It will not go anywhere as long as you stick to your RCC opening and do not agree that it was an error to bring it into the discussion at all, and further to agree to set it aside...

Is that so hard to do?

One of the hardest things for Orthodox Christians to do in conversations with Protestants is to separate themselves from this penchant Protestants so often have for lumping them together with Rome. There is simply way too much baggage attached to the word Catholic in the Protestant phronema...

That is why I stopped it here... I will not consent to just slush it through with all that baggage bogging the discussion down. There is plenty of OTHER baggage to deal with!! ':smile:'

So are we clear to begin??

geo