Where is it in Scripture?

[JonLanceBarker]

Thank you Jon,
I appreciate your comment however the question remains.


What is the"pillar and ground of truth"? Your wording of that sentence in not clear in meaning. Is the church the truth or is Christ the truth?

Christ is the truth. His Father is the Source.

The Church is the "pillar and ground" of that truth, the medium by which the Holy Spirit reveals and preserves the truth.

For example, the canon of Scripture was decided on the basis of what the Church had received from Christ through the Apostles and their successors.

[Alan3838]

Christ is the truth. His Father is the Source.

The Church is the "pillar and ground" of that truth, the medium by which the Holy Spirit reveals and preserves the truth.

For example, the canon of Scripture was decided on the basis of what the Church had received from Christ through the Apostles and their successors.

Thank you Jon,
Alan

[brother vinny]

Well, DUH. Who said the Church was the SOURCE of truth?

I might add, in this light, the Bible also is not the ultimate source of truth, but is rather a resource (just as the Church is) containing and maintaining truth from the original source, which is God.

I find it amazing that there are those who would uphold God's ability to maintain His truth in written form, but deny His ability to do so for truths being passed down orally.

I also find it amazing that those who proclaim sola Scriptura trust the ability of the early Chuch-- basically a bunch of Mary-loving, icon-reverencing, dead-saints-praying, Real-Presence-believing folks, you know the type-- to get the content of the canon correct.

[Adrift]

I might add, in this light, the Bible also is not the ultimate source of truth, but is rather a resource (just as the Church is) containing and maintaining truth from the original source, which is God.

If what is written in the Bible is the inspired revelation of God's word, it certainly is "A" source of truth... is it not? It's obviously not "The" ultimate source, but it's proven to be consistently reliable.

I find it amazing that there are those who would uphold God's ability to maintain His truth in written form, but deny His ability to do so for truths being passed down orally.

I don't see anyone denying truth handed down orally... again, as Bill has said over and over again Sola Scriptura simply "means that scripture is the FINAL say on doctrine and that tradition could not trump it"

I also find it amazing that those who proclaim sola Scriptura trust the ability of the early Chuch-- basically a bunch of Mary-loving, icon-reverencing, dead-saints-praying, Real-Presence-believing folks, you know the type-- to get the content of the canon correct.

I don't find it amazing at all. Most of what Protestant type Christians find offensive in current RCC and EO doctrine grew out traditions that were but a shadow of their current self when the final Bible was canonized. Furthermore, the canon of the Bible was pretty obvious. If you read any of the history of the process of the canonization you find that the whole of the Bible was traded between the early churches in some form or the other far before Constantine decreed it. There was very good reason that the books of the Bible that were chosen, got chosen.

This is what surprises me though, that those in the Catholic Church (whatever splinter group) would think they hold the trademark on Christianity, it's history, and the Bible. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. Joint-heirs.

[JonLanceBarker]

If what is written in the Bible is the inspired revelation of God's word, it certainly is "A" source of truth... is it not? It's obviously not "The" ultimate source, but it's proven to be consistently reliable.

Even an inspired revelation has to be interpreted correctly....and the interpretations of individuals approaching the text without consideration of context, tradition, or history are consistently UNreliable.

I don't see anyone denying truth handed down orally... again, as Bill has said over and over again Sola Scriptura simply "means that scripture is the FINAL say on doctrine and that tradition could not trump it"

Which is itself a strawman...because the Orthodox, at least, hold doctrinal developments up to two standards: consistency with Scripture and consistency with Apostolic Tradition...especially that tradition as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

They hold that Scripture and the rest of Holy Tradition (because Scripture is itself Holy Tradition) must not contradict.

Neither can "trump" the other, because both are the products of God's revelation and the Church's actions upon that revelation.

I don't find it amazing at all. Most of what Protestant type Christians find offensive in current RCC and EO doctrine grew out traditions that were but a shadow of their current self when the final Bible was canonized.

The Christian Bible wasn't canonized until the 4th century. Those traditions were pretty full-blown into much of what we see today by then.

Furthermore, the canon of the Bible was pretty obvious.

Tell that to the Assyrian Church of the East; they still deny that the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) is canonical.

Or the Ethiopian Church...they still include the Book of Enoch in the Old Testament.

Or the Roman Catholics...the Council of Trent removed books from their canon that were in the Septuagint texts.

Or Luther, who rejected the Septuagint canon in favor of the (later) Jewish canon, and called the Epistle of James "a book of straw."

If you read any of the history of the process of the canonization you find that the whole of the Bible was traded between the early churches in some form or the other far before Constantine decreed it.

Hardly. Very, very few churches had all the Apostolic writings that are in the NT today, and plenty of them used books that were deemed non-canon in the 4th century.

There was very good reason that the books of the Bible that were chosen, got chosen.

Indeed, but think for a moment about why you think that.

This is what surprises me though, that those in the Catholic Church (whatever splinter group) would think they hold the trademark on Christianity, it's history, and the Bible.

When everyone could truly say that there was one Church (Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic), the Church believed it DID hold the trademark, and it has always thought so since.

There can be only one Body of Christ, and it must be visibly one. Otherwise, unity is a useless word for describing the Church.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. Joint-heirs.

I must call that an assertion without proper foundation.

[Alan3838]

[COLOR="Blue"]

I might add, in this light, the Bible also is not the ultimate source of truth, but is rather a resource (just as the Church is) containing and maintaining truth from the original source, which is God

[COLOR="Black"]1jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Who was John writing of here? Who is the Word of life? John was referring to Christ as the personal manifestation of the Word.The word,Word represents Christ.

Re 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
John almost used art in describing the "living Word" How can anyone know the living Word unless He is expressed or spoken in scripture?

Ro 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Ro 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

If Christ claimed to be the light of men and the head of the church does that make the church a rsource or an illuminator of Christ and if so shouldn't we be using the very word he gave us?
The bible




I find it amazing that there are those who would uphold God's ability to maintain His truth in written form, but deny His ability to do so for truths being passed down orally.

When those oral truths become truths based on traditionand not the inspired word of God then they cease to be the truth of Christ. Inspired men of God still proclaim the gospel of Christ using the bible. Therfore your argument is paradoxical. How can it be proclaimed orally unless it was first expressed?

I also find it amazing that those who proclaim sola Scriptura trust the ability of the early Chuch-- basically a bunch of Mary-loving, icon-reverencing, dead-saints-praying, Real-Presence-believing folks, you know the type-- to get the content of the canon correct.

I think that the RC does this. The bible says nothing about praying to the saints. And I have yet to see a valid argument from anyone that says praying to the saints is scriptual.

[themuzicman]

In 2 Peter 1, Peter says that he is writing so that they will always be reminded of what he taught them. He then goes into evidence for his authority, namely seeing Christ's glory. Then he says that those who have seen Christ's glory have the word of prophecy made more sure, and finally says that Scripture writers are born along by the Holy Spirit.

Given this, Scripture is the highest authority on doctrinal issues given to us.

Michael

[Jezz]

Yet, your church denies the tradition of the Pope as the head of the church, does it not? So why is YOUR God-breathed tradition more correct than the RCC's?

The same way that we decided every other matter of importance in the Church (including deciding which books of Scripture were canonical) - by looking at the witness throughout the and seeing what the consensus opinion was. It's a matter of witnesses. We had four major witnesses who testified that the tradition of our Church was that the Pope did not have universal supreme jurisdiction over the Church, and only one who testified that he did. Moreover, that testimony came from one who was testifying about himself, so it was immediately suspect. The conclusion to reach from there was easy. Supposing that four ancient writers claimed that the epistle of St James was canonical Scripture and one who claimed that it wasn't - what would you conclude about the canonicity of that particular epistle?

But let me turn this around on you: Why is your tradition more correct than ours?

[themuzicman]

So, if four significant "witnesses" said that Buddah was a valid path to salvation, you'd accept it?

[Jezz]

I don't find it amazing at all. Most of what Protestant type Christians find offensive in current RCC and EO doctrine grew out traditions that were but a shadow of their current self when the final Bible was canonized.

I think that perhaps this comment is spoken in ignorance. Most of the practices that I see Protestants complain about - including, to name just a few, prayers to saints, prayers for the departed, the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the real presence in the Eucharist, the four-fold structure of the Church (bishop, priest, deacon, laity) - are all well attested before the canon of Scripture was firmly established.

Perhaps you could facilitate this conversation by coming up with an example of one of the doctrines that you find "offensive" which you feel has grown out of a tradition that was "but a shadow of its current self when the final Bible was canonized."

Furthermore, the canon of the Bible was pretty obvious. If you read any of the history of the process of the canonization you find that the whole of the Bible was traded between the early churches in some form or the other far before Constantine decreed it. There was very good reason that the books of the Bible that were chosen, got chosen.

I'm sorry, but it wasn't obvious, and a cursory glance at the history of its formation shows this. If it was obvious it wouldn't have taken the Church more than 300 years to figure it out. Eusebius of Caeserea - who was by no means a dummy when it came to historical matters - didn't quite figure it out.

And, btw, as far as we know, Constantine had nothing to do with decreeing the canon. The earliest reference we have to the NT canon as we know it was in a letter by St Athanasius, which was written in AD 367 when he was bishop of Alexandria (and even after this time there were still a few disputes). Constantine died thirty years earlier in AD 337.

[DanK]

I happened upon some notes on 2 Tim 3:16 in NET Bible that I thought were pretty interesting and somewhat related to the discussion at hand (or maybe not, I thought it was neat )

http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=%202Ti%203:15-17&mode=print

There is very little difference in sense between every scripture (emphasizing the individual portions) and "all scripture" (emphasizing the composite whole). The former option is preferred, because it fits the normal use of the word "all/every" in Greek (pa/j, pas) as well as Paul's normal sense for the word "scripture" in the singular without the article, as here. So every scripture means "every individual portion of scripture."
...
Inspired by God. Some have connected this adjective in a different way and translated it as "every inspired scripture is also useful." But this violates the parallelism of the two adjectives in the sentence, and the arrangement of words makes clear that both should be taken as predicate adjectives: "every scripture is inspired…and useful."

© source where applicable

It is kind of interesting, although I would need to do more research into the original Greek before I could make a final decision about whether that's correct or not (at this rate tWeb is going to have made me spend $200 on resources about Koine Greek and a Greek NT before the end of the semester).

Either way, however, the second part of my problem with the common protestant interpretation of this verse still stands, as far as I can tell.

[DanK]

I think that the RC does this. The bible says nothing about praying to the saints. And I have yet to see a valid argument from anyone that says praying to the saints is scriptual.

The RCC doesn't profess Sola Scriptura...

[Alan3838]

The RCC doesn't profess Sola Scriptura...

Thanks for clarifying that Dank. I was referring to praying to Mary which I should have emphasised.

[Bill the Cat]

The same way that we decided every other matter of importance in the Church (including deciding which books of Scripture were canonical) - by looking at the witness throughout the and seeing what the consensus opinion was. It's a matter of witnesses. We had four major witnesses who testified that the tradition of our Church was that the Pope did not have universal supreme jurisdiction over the Church, and only one who testified that he did. Moreover, that testimony came from one who was testifying about himself, so it was immediately suspect. The conclusion to reach from there was easy. Supposing that four ancient writers claimed that the epistle of St James was canonical Scripture and one who claimed that it wasn't - what would you conclude about the canonicity of that particular epistle?

But let me turn this around on you: Why is your tradition more correct than ours?

I have no tradition to speak of. I am unaffiliated at this time, although I go to a Church of the Nazarene church. I can accept your proposal that your tradition of the Pope not being the top dog in the Church, but why do they not?

From my perspective, the whole argument is circular, and a "what came first" exercise. Which is the ultimate authority though, tradition or scripture? If tradition, whose? If scripture, whose? Many issues can be brought to bear here, and they won't be resolved by simply saying "we won the vote".

[DanK]

I have no tradition to speak of. I am unaffiliated at this time, although I go to a Church of the Nazarene church. I can accept your proposal that your tradition of the Pope not being the top dog in the Church, but why do they not?

From my perspective, the whole argument is circular, and a "what came first" exercise. Which is the ultimate authority though, tradition or scripture? If tradition, whose? If scripture, whose? Many issues can be brought to bear here, and they won't be resolved by simply saying "we won the vote".

That's kind of (although I don't think exactly) where I am right now as well, which is how I've come to my conclusions about the role of the church, scripture, etc. The church shouldn't be making dogmatic assertions about things that aren't explicitly said by God or Jesus. There are necessary things (i.e. God created the world, men sinned, we need to accept Jesus to be saved - the usual types of things that are recognized as being required for salvation), but in general, the church shouldn't be a place where we indoctrinate people with a certain brand of Christianity, but let them discuss the different ideas and learn about them. That kind of dialogue would lead to much more growth for all Christians and a much healthier body of Christ.

I'd also like to add that I find it ludicrous the way so many different branches of Christianity think they have a corner on correct interpretation. It is impossible for finite men to fully understand an infinite God, and no one is ever going to have a full understanding of God until we get to heaven - period.