1 Tim. 3:15 and Protestantism

[aball1035]

What are Protestants’ thoughts on 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”

This describes the Christ’s church as one church, with one truth. This was the Catholic Church for 1500 years, but after that came literally hundreds of thousands of other churches and truths.

What are your thoughts?

 

[benidict]

What are Protestants’ thoughts on 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”

This describes the Christ’s church as one church, with one truth. This was the Catholic Church for 1500 years, but after that came literally hundreds of thousands of other churches and truths.

What are your thoughts?

my priest said something very interesting once. if another 1000 years goes by, and there is no longer an america, no longer anything we would recognize today, there will still be the Holy Catholic Church. dont know about all these other denominations and movements and where they will be. they come and they go. but The Church that was founded upon Christ and his apostles will still be here. teaching the same timeless Gospel, and holding to the same Holy Doctrines. this has been proven throughout history, and until Christ returns will hold true. he will not let his Bride down. Peace and Grace to you and yours

 

[VetA]

my priest said something very interesting once. if another 1000 years goes by, and there is no longer an america, no longer anything we would recognize today, there will still be the Holy Catholic Church. dont know about all these other denominations and movements and where they will be. they come and they go. but The Church that was founded upon Christ and his apostles will still be here. teaching the same timeless Gospel, and holding to the same Holy Doctrines. this has been proven throughout history, and until Christ returns will hold true. he will not let his Bride down. Peace and Grace to you and yours

in unity there is strength… thats why i think this whole non denominatinoal thing is doomed to fail. i have a non denominational friend and the way he explained it to me was “a few people got together and decided that none of the churches around here (st brenard parish[county] Louisiana) were teaching the Goosple, so they formed thier own church” so basically what i take from that is they did not like what they were hearing so they made thier own religion. thats weak idk how there is a sense of belonging if you can just go and do what you want if you dont like what you see. im going to use a slippery slope argument here and say soon we will have ‘churches’ that support abortion for any reason, support gay marrige, drug use… oh wait…

 

[Zenas]

What are Protestants’ thoughts on 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”

This describes the Christ’s church as one church, with one truth. This was the Catholic Church for 1500 years, but after that came literally hundreds of thousands of other churches and truths.

What are your thoughts?

There are no Protestant thoughts on 1 Timothy 3:15. I have read through the N.T. many times and never considered this verse until I started looking at Catholocism. I have heard over 3,000 sermons preached in Baptist churches and not one of them was on this verse.

 

[JonNC]

What are Protestants’ thoughts on 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”

This describes the Christ’s church as one church, with one truth. This was the Catholic Church for 1500 years, but after that came literally hundreds of thousands of other churches and truths.

What are your thoughts?

Lutherans would agree with the belief that there is, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. That there is one Truth.
The claim that it is the Catholic Church (in communion with the Bishop of Rome) can, of course, be disputed by Holy Orthodoxy which hold a similar claim on the one Church from Pentecost.

Lutherans view the Church as the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. We would also say that there is one Church, which is now divided and wounded by human sin, of which no Tradition is innocent.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nicely put, Jon…

Lutherans would agree with the belief that there is, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. That there is one Truth.
The claim that it is the Catholic Church (in communion with the Bishop of Rome) can, of course, be disputed by Holy Orthodoxy which hold a similar claim on the one Church from Pentecost.

Lutherans view the Church as the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. We would also say that there is one Church, which is now divided and wounded by human sin, of which no Tradition is innocent.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Lutherans would agree with the belief that there is, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. That there is one Truth.

The claim that it is the Catholic Church (in communion with the Bishop of Rome) can, of course, be disputed by Holy Orthodoxy which hold a similar claim on the one Church from Pentecost.

Hello JonNC Iam beginning to see Holy Orthodoxy used out of context in these forums from protestants which leads many to conclude a false pretense.

Would it not be more accurate to say (without using offensive terms such as schismatics) that those in Holy Orthodoxy who refuse communion with the Pope and those Holy Orthodoxy who are in communion with the Pope so as to distinguish the difference between those Holy Orthodox united with the Pope since pentecost and those who refuse communion with the above mentioned a thousand years later?

Never the less all remain in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church due to the validity placed by God, not necessarily the pride and voice of men which tries to separate what God has joined together in valid holy orders and sacraments.

If you mention those Holy Orthodox not in communion with the Pope paints a more accurate picture which does not include those Holy Orthodoxy in communion with the Pope. Then you bring the truth of the reality more plainly without confusing the two Holy Orthodox Communities.

I don’t know how protestants are going to transmit the language that pertains to the Truth of the matter between these two Orthodox communities who are not in communion with other Orthodox churches who are in communion with the Popes, without displaying a false pretense by grouping all of “holy Orthodoxy” which is not a reality.

From Pentecost history reveals the Eastern Church Fathers in “unity” communion with the Popes in the West. Your “Holy Orthodoxy” who refuses communion with Holy Orthodoxy in communion with Pope does not come around for another thousand years after pentecost. But this is another topic.

Peace be with you

 

[guanophore]

What are Protestants’ thoughts on 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”

This describes the Christ’s church as one church, with one truth. This was the Catholic Church for 1500 years, but after that came literally hundreds of thousands of other churches and truths.

What are your thoughts?

I have been told here on CAF by many of my separated brethren that it is a reference to the Scripture. Since only the Scripture is considered inspired and inerrant, the Church has a duty to support it. This is also construed to mean “under” it, holding it up, acting as a foundation, with the Scripture more authoritative.

 

[Teneas]

I have been told here on CAF by many of my separated brethren that it is a reference to the Scripture. Since only the Scripture is considered inspired and inerrant, the Church has a duty to support it. This is also construed to mean “under” it, holding it up, acting as a foundation, with the Scripture more authoritative.

I would ask those same people that say such a thing, what scripture? The only scriptures that were really spoken of in the Bible are those of the OT. So, the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, in that context would mean it’s the Church’s job to uphold the OT alone, not the NT.

I do notice that few of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters have yet to respond.

 

[Joshua27]

in unity there is strength…[snip]…idk how there is a sense of belonging if you can just go and do what you want if you dont like what you see. [snip]

Is this the general view of all non-Catholics from all Catholic CAF members?

I’d hate to continue without receiving a proper response but…

Is there strength in unity, as in “do not forsake the assembly of believers” [Hebrews 10:25]. In what context is there disunity? Is the context (in which this is spoken) to mean, “disunity from the Catholic Church (as it is believed to be the only real, true Church)” or “disunity from the assembly of like-minded believers (of any denomination)”?

---

As far as 1 Timothy 3:15, I’ll share my thoughts on it since I’m considered a protestant (I’m not-Catholic)…and in hopes to stay “in context”, I’ll interpret the letter from the very beginning and then work my way through to passage “3:15”.

Take note that asking Protestants for their “thoughts” is asking for “their” interpretation; “their” understanding of the passage. Even still, please read for yourselves starting at Chapter 1; Verse 1 to see that I am staying in context:

“From 1 Timothy1:1 to 3:15…”

• First Paul recalled asking Timothy to stay in Ephesus and rebuke those who would teach other doctrines that are opposed to the Gospel, who focus too much on fables and endless geneologies (which create more questions than answers), rather than the end (all be all) of the commandment/Law, which is charity out of a pure heart…
• These people [these same who would also consider themselves followers of the Law], who desire to teach the Law (of God) don’t really understand what contrary things they’re saying or what contrary things they’re agreeing to. But Timothy and Paul know that the Law (of God) is good IFF a man uses it lawfully as opposed to twisting it to one’s own doctrines or teachings]. With this said, the Law isn’t established for the righeous man per say, but as a boundary for those who would do wrong, including those who would promote anything contrary to doctrine that is in accordance with [or supported by] the Gospel.
• Paul then blesses Christ who took him (one of the chief sinners) and changed him and made him responsible to preach the gospel and the law to the gentiles. He then gives honor to the invisible God.
• Paul then charges Timothy to hold faith and a good conscience which some have forsaken (of those people we have Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom Paul delivered to Satan so they could learn not to blaspheme).
• Paul then prays for all men: for kings, for people in authority, that all will reach a level of godliness because God will have ALL men saved and to come into the knowledge of the truth: For One God [YHWH] - and also for the one mediator between [that] God and man [Christ] - Paul was ordained a preacher, an apostle and a teacher of the gentiles.
• Paul then says that women should remain modest and should only draw attention to the godliness in them through good works, in honoring their role as man’s helper and in lifegiving (childbearing) in holiness.
• Paul then says IF a man wants a religous office [bishop], first of all such is a good profession, but the bishop must be:

.blameless
.a husband (of one wife)
.sober
.a good teacher
.good behaving
.vigilant
.patient
.not covetous
.not confrontational
.have disciplined children (because a man can’t properly handle a Church if he can’t handle a family household)
.experienced [lest he be influenced of the devil]
.of good social person
.not a flipflopper
.not greedy for shameful profit
.of pure conscience…

Finally, potential bishops must be proven of the Truth [which is the Gospel, as is expressed in the first portion of Paul letter, not additional doctrines], THEN let them become a deacon and be found blameless there [before becoming bishops].

• Paul then explains that deacons also are to be husbands (of one wife) and discipline their children and run their houses well, because being a deacon is also a great job…
• Paul then explains that he’s sending this letter ahead of himself; "writing these things to Timothy so Timothy knows how deacons and bishops and women Ought to behave" in the house of God - the Church of the living God, the Pillar and foundation of Truth. He wanted Timothy to know how things are supposed to be in the House of God incase he took too long getting there to tell the Church himself [as he was obviously intending to get there].

Now again 1 Timothy 3:15 {in context} - “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”

So - respectfully - the question is, “if the entire preceeding list of qualities is what Teachers, Bishops and Deacons must have (and “yes” Paul uses the word “must”); if this is how leaders OUGHT to be in Church”, is Paul speaking about the Catholic Church per say? My answer is “no”.

And if you believe he is speaking about the Catholic Church specifically, why aren’t bishops allowed to marry; to only teach doctrine that’s in accordance with the Gospel; and to promote the unchanging Law of God [instead of promoting “changed” Laws]…all like Paul teaches in this letter?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Joshua27;6717038]
Now again 1 Timothy 3:15 {in context} - “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”

So - respectfully - the question is, “if the entire preceeding list of qualities is what Teachers, Bishops and Deacons must have (and “yes” Paul uses the word “must”); if this is how leaders OUGHT to be in Church”, is Paul speaking about the Catholic Church? My answer is “no”.

First of all in all of our 2000 year history since Jesus resurrected; Bishops, Deacons, presbyters have always been maintained in the Catholic Church. Do you know of another “church” that can trace its bishops, deacons all the way back to New Testament time period? Only the Catholic Church has a history leading all the way back to the original apostles, so yes St. Paul is speaking about the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Unless you know of another, please reveal which church St. Paul teaches that consist of Bishops and deacons that existed back then with unbroken succession today?

And if you believe he is speaking about the Catholic Church, why aren’t bishops allowed to marry, to only teach doctrine that’s in accordance with the Gospel, and to promote the unchanging Law of God [instead of promoting “changed” Laws], all like Paul teaches in this letter?

I think you forget St. Paul was never married, Peter and other apostles took a vow of chastity later in their ministries, it was common among these early believers who came from Jewish backgrounds when it was a blessing from God to take a wife and bare children. The discipline of chasitity first gets revealed by Jesus (Matthew 19:12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.")
Then St. Paul and by the small traditions that the apostles themselves took on the discipline of chasitity.

Any how just food for thought, chastity is a voluntary discipline by Catholic Bishops, priests and deacons…God’s moral laws have never changed in the Catholic Church.

 

[Joshua27]

First of all in all of our 2000 year history since Jesus resurrected; Bishops, Deacons, presbyters have always been maintained in the Catholic Church. Do you know of another “church” that can trace its bishops, deacons all the way back to New Testament time period? Only the Catholic Church has a history leading all the way back to the original apostles, so yes St. Paul is speaking about the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Unless you know of another, please reveal which church St. Paul teaches that consist of Bishops and deacons that existed back then with unbroken succession today?

I think you forget St. Paul was never married, Peter and other apostles took a vow of chastity later in their ministries, it was common among these early believers who came from Jewish backgrounds when it was a blessing from God to take a wife and bare children. The discipline of chasitity first gets revealed by Jesus (Matthew 19:12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.")
Then St. Paul and by the small traditions that the apostles themselves took on the discipline of chasitity.

Any how just food for thought, chastity is a voluntary discipline by Catholic Bishops, priests and deacons…God’s moral laws have never changed in the Catholic Church.

Again with respect, you are attempting to rebut what Paul said by what Paul did…which wasn’t the topic posed for this thread. The question was about the interpretation of the verse 1 Timothy 3:15 as it related to the Catholic Church.

---

Often times many non-catholics are accused of taking verses out of context; of not reading the preceeding and following verses to understand the message the writer is conveying. Paul had a theme he carried throughout the letter up to the moment of the verse in question: Keep the faith, guard against (false) doctrine contrary to the Gospel, and establish [start; commence; initiate] the manner of how bishops and deacons of the Church are to behave {as listed in my previous post}".

---

What you’ve just conveyed to me however is:

(a) “Paul is talking about the Catholic Church”, but not because of what he said but by focusing in on 2000 years of endless geneology back to the early bishops, which Paul just spoke against [as contrary to following the spirit of the Law/Gospel as testified through Paul’s instructions of how to behave in the Church of God]; and

(b) That “Paul’s words aren’t reliable and don’t need to be followed exactly since Paul (himself) did not do the things he says leaders of the Church should do in this specific letter, which - by the way - is AFTER the passage in Matthew your cite”, adding that such disciplines are “voluntary” (even though Paul uses words like “must” and “ought”).

And yet one doesn’t hesitate to use words from the same source; words from Paul’s same letter [just a few verses later in verse 15] to support the premise that “the Catholic Church is the one true church”, claiming “these words [however] are true without question or manipulation”.

My point is “either ALL of Paul’s words matter (and all are to be taken as truth; as instructions to be followed) or none of them matter”. We can’t pick and choose which words of Paul - which we all agree are inspired of God - that we follow and those that don’t really apply, can we?

So if all of Paul’s word’s matter, either Paul IS speaking of the Catholic Church (and the Catholic Church is currently being disobedient to one of its first leaders), or Paul is NOT speaking of the Catholic Church per say, but of the concept of what the “true Church of God” is supposed to behave like as Paul travels from one group of gentiles to the next.

Which is it?

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;6716383]Hello JonNC Iam beginning to see Holy Orthodoxy used out of context in these forums from protestants which leads many to conclude a false pretense.

I hope, Gabriel, that you don’t think it is intentional on my part. My intent is to make clear that the Bishop of Rome is not the only patriarch that has a claim to the early, undivided Church.

Would it not be more accurate to say (without using offensive terms such as schismatics) that those in Holy Orthodoxy who refuse communion with the Pope and those Holy Orthodoxy who are in communion with the Pope so as to distinguish the difference between those Holy Orthodox united with the Pope since pentecost and those who refuse communion with the above mentioned a thousand years later?

I can see your point. I wouldn’t use the terms " refuse communion with Rome", as that makes it look one-sided. One could say " not currently sharing communion with Rome".

Never the less all remain in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church due to the validity placed by God, not necessarily the pride and voice of men which tries to separate what God has joined together in valid holy orders and sacraments.

Yes, as I said above, and that pride of men (a sin in all our our communions) is what separates us, as well.

If you mention those Holy Orthodox not in communion with the Pope paints a more accurate picture which does not include those Holy Orthodoxy in communion with the Pope. Then you bring the truth of the reality more plainly without confusing the two Holy Orthodox Communities.

I don’t know how protestants are going to transmit the language that pertains to the Truth of the matter between these two Orthodox communities who are not in communion with other Orthodox churches who are in communion with the Popes, without displaying a false pretense by grouping all of “holy Orthodoxy” which is not a reality.

I will try to be more clear in the future.

From Pentecost history reveals the Eastern Church Fathers in “unity” communion with the Popes in the West. Your “Holy Orthodoxy” who refuses communion with Holy Orthodoxy in communion with Pope does not come around for another thousand years after pentecost. But this is another topic.

Yes, it is another topic, and one I will leave those here who are in Orthodox communion wiith which Rome does share communion to discuss with you.

Peace be with you

And also with you,
Jon

 

[Dokimas]

What are Protestants’ thoughts on 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”

This describes the Christ’s church as one church, with one truth. This was the Catholic Church for 1500 years, but after that came literally hundreds of thousands of other churches and truths.

What are your thoughts?

That verse, as all the inspired Word of God, is 100% correct as written and means what It says.

IMO, that’s not in question. What’s in question is whether the church mentioned is the present day CC.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Again with respect, you are attempting to rebut what Paul said by what Paul did…which wasn’t the topic posed for this thread. The question was about the interpretation of the verse 1 Timothy 3:15 as it related to the Catholic Church

.

No, I have not attempted to interpret 1Tim.3:15 at this time. What I have indicated to you that “overseers” (Bishops) and Deacons existed in the early Christian Church succeeded in the Catholic church today and that Marriage was still being practiced by Jewish and Gentile clergy converts but it is not mandated for a Bishop to be married as you misinterpret the whole of the scriptures which gives the option that some are “enuch’s” as Jesus teaches and Paul practices.

The Catholic teaching never conflicts with the whole content of scripture. Paul is speaking to Timothy who is made an overseer and now is given the power from Paul to make bishops and deacons with instructions for the Ephesian community. Paul is not giving instructions for the Church in Corinth, Jerusalem, Rome etc… although these instructions can apply including celebate clergy as himself.

In summary Paul is writing to Timothy who “oversees” bishops the Church of Ephesus who must guard the apostolic deposit of faith in the Church and fend of false teachers who come from Jewish origins. What many neglect here is that in 3:16 Paul makes mention a part of the Mass liturgy (recited) practiced by the Church of Ephesus, which I find fascinating in Paul to quote a part of the Church’s Liturgy to Timothy practiced in Ephesus.

---

Often times many non-catholics are accused of taking verses out of context; of not reading the preceeding and following verses to understand the message the writer is conveying. Paul had a theme he carried throughout the letter up to the moment of the verse in question: Keep the faith, guard against (false) doctrine contrary to the Gospel, and establish [start; commence; initiate]

I am not sure I understand your interpretation here? Paul is speaking to Timothy of how he is to behave in the Church as a whole which is the Pillar and foundation of Truth. If you can distinguish the Ephesian Church united with all the other Apostolic Churches teaching and following the Apostolic Traditions which is included in the “universal” Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

And if you believe he is speaking about the Catholic Church specifically, why aren’t bishops allowed to marry; to only teach doctrine that’s in accordance with the Gospel; and to promote the unchanging Law of God [instead of promoting “changed” Laws]…all like Paul teaches in this letter?

The entire NT is written by, for, and about CAtholics. Paul is a Catholic Apostle, writing to one of the first Catholic bishops about the structure of the Catholic Church.

The Church does not forbid marriage to anyone. She cannot. This is a theological impossiblity.

If a candidate for holy orders wishes to marry, he may do so.

The Latin Rite chooses for service from among those commended by Jesus and Paul to be eunuchs for the Kingdom.

 

[guanophore]

First of all in all of our 2000 year history since Jesus resurrected; Bishops, Deacons, presbyters have always been maintained in the Catholic Church. Do you know of another “church” that can trace its bishops, deacons all the way back to New Testament time period? Only the Catholic Church has a history leading all the way back to the original apostles, so yes St. Paul is speaking about the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Unless you know of another, please reveal which church St. Paul teaches that consist of Bishops and deacons that existed back then with unbroken succession today?

Holy Orthodoxy has this, and it is recognized by the Catholic Church.

Then St. Paul and by the small traditions that the apostles themselves took on the discipline of chasitity.

Persons who honor their marriage vows are also considered chaste.

Any how just food for thought, chastity is a voluntary discipline by Catholic Bishops, priests and deacons…God’s moral laws have never changed in the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

What you’ve just conveyed to me however is:

(a) “Paul is talking about the Catholic Church”, but not because of what he said but by focusing in on 2000 years of endless geneology back to the early bishops, which Paul just spoke against [as contrary to following the spirit of the Law/Gospel as testified through Paul’s instructions of how to behave in the Church of God];

Paul was talking about Catholics because there were no other Christians.

You are contradicting yourself. If the geneology goes back 2000 years, and stops with the Apostles, it is obviously NOT “endless”.

and (b) That "Paul’s words aren’t reliable and don’t need to be followed exactly since Paul (himself) did not do the things he says leaders of the Church should do in this specific letter,

No, Joshua, you are mistaken. The Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. They need to be followed exactly. What does not need to be followed exactly is your fallible interpretation of them.

You see, The Scriptures are perfectly consistent with Catholic Sacred Tradition. Why is this? Because the same person (Paul) who committed these Sacred Traditions to the Church was the same one writing by the power of the HS.

We read the Scriptures in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. They taught that celibacy is a gift of God that should be embraced by those to whom it was given. Since we have no record of Timothy, the youngest bishop ever, having married or had children, we know that this is a rule that applies only to those persons not called to celibacy.

Since you are separated from the Apostolic Teachings, you read the passage and come to a different conclusion.

Some people read it,a nd conclude there should be no bishops or deacons at all!

which - by the way - is AFTER the passage in Matthew your cite", adding that such disciplines are “voluntary” (even though Paul uses words like “must” and “ought”).

How do you figure that?

Do you honestly believe this letter was written later than Matthew?

And yet one doesn’t hesitate to use words from the same source;words from Paul’s same letter [just a few verses later in verse 15] to support the premise that “the Catholic Church is the one true church”, claiming “these words [however] are true without question or manipulation”.

I think this means you believeCatholics “manipulate” the scriptures, because we understand them differently than you.

My point is “either ALL of Paul’s words matter (and all are to be taken as truth; as instructions to be followed) or none of them matter”. We can’t pick and choose which words of Paul - which we all agree are inspired of God - that we follow and those that don’t really apply, can we?

I agree. They just matter to us in the light of what he actually believed and taught, rather than what you think they mean.

So if all of Paul’s word’s matter, either Paul IS speaking of the Catholic Church (and the Catholic Church is currently being disobedient to one of its first leaders), or Paul is NOT speaking of the Catholic Church per say, but of the concept of what the “true Church of God” is supposed to behave like as Paul travels from one group of gentiles to the next.

No, Pauls words are inspired and inerrant. And the Church followed them infallibly. The only disobedience here is yours, because you have separated yourself from that Church.

Which is it?

It could also be a case of ignorance. It may be you are separated because you don’t know any better.

 

[Joshua27]

One second Gabriel…

Paul was talking about Catholics because there were no other Christians.

First off, let’s dispense with the labels of Catholic and Christian because neither applied to the Church until the Church officially removed all things Jewish from the religion. So you have no evidence to make this claim but what tradition of geneology says.

You are contradicting yourself. If the geneology goes back 2000 years, and stops with the Apostles, it is obviously NOT “endless”.

Now you’re playing on simantics, because not even Paul literally meant “endless” (infinite) geneology as “endless geneology” is an oxymoron. No Geneology is endless. Paul was making a point that those who rely on saying “well our authority goes back to…” are missing the point of the “end all be all”; the spirit of the Law; the Gospel.

No, Joshua, you are mistaken. The Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. They need to be followed exactly. What does not need to be followed exactly is your fallible interpretation of them.

~Yes! Of course my interpretation is (I was waiting on this reply)! Prove to me that I am flawed…other wise you’re just regurgitating this reply.

You see, The Scriptures are perfectly consistent with Catholic Sacred Tradition. Why is this? Because the same person (Paul) who committed these Sacred Traditions to the Church was the same one writing by the power of the HS.

We read the Scriptures in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. They taught that celibacy is a gift of God that should be embraced by those to whom it was given. Since we have no record of Timothy, the youngest bishop ever, having married or had children, we know that this is a rule that applies only to those persons not called to celibacy.

Even if the written Law of the Church says celebacy is a gift for thoses specifically called, tradition from the SAME Church says that celibacy IS what one’s suppose to practice. I know because I was approached by my brothers in Catholic School because my character exemplified the qualities necessary to enter the order. “One is to be married to God” was always the answer I received even to the question about bishops marital status.

Do you honestly believe this letter was written later than Matthew?

Yes. This particular gospel was first written in Hebrew, while the others books were written later on in Greek.

I think this means you believe Catholics “manipulate” the scriptures, because we understand them differently than you.

I’m simply saying that Catholics (who are also human) are sometimes guilty of doing exactly what they accuse non-Catholics of doing, which is a valid accusation against non-Catholics because they do cherry-pick to support their own beliefs instead of reading in context for the message that the author was trying to convey.

I agree. They just matter to us in the light of what he actually believed and taught, rather than what you think they mean.

#3…] I’m counting to see how many times I am told that I am wrong simply because you believe differentlt…when this thread was secifically directed at Non-Catholics’ thoughts of the passage 1 Timothy 3:15.

No, Pauls words are inspired and inerrant. And the Church followed them infallibly. The only disobedience here is yours, because you have separated yourself from that Church.

So I ask you then:

Is there strength in unity, as in “do not forsake the assembly of believers” [Hebrews 10:25]. In what context is there disunity? Is the context (in which this is spoken) to mean, “disunity from the Catholic Church (as it is believed to be the only real, true Church)” or “disunity from the assembly of like-minded believers (of any denomination)”?

It could also be a case of ignorance. It may be you are separated because you don’t know any better.

OHH!! StiNG!! You really got me, Guano (lol).

 

[Nicea325]

Is this the general view of all non-Catholics from all Catholic CAF members?

I’d hate to continue without receiving a proper response but…

Is there strength in unity, as in “do not forsake the assembly of believers” [Hebrews 10:25]. In what context is there disunity? Is the context (in which this is spoken) to mean, “disunity from the Catholic Church (as it is believed to be the only real, true Church)” or “disunity from the assembly of like-minded believers (of any denomination)”?

---

As far as 1 Timothy 3:15, I’ll share my thoughts on it since I’m considered a protestant (I’m not-Catholic)…and in hopes to stay “in context”, I’ll interpret the letter from the very beginning and then work my way through to passage “3:15”.

Take note that asking Protestants for their “thoughts” is asking for “their” interpretation; “their” understanding of the passage. Even still, please read for yourselves starting at Chapter 1; Verse 1 to see that I am staying in context:

“From 1 Timothy1:1 to 3:15…”

• First Paul recalled asking Timothy to stay in Ephesus and rebuke those who would teach other doctrines that are opposed to the Gospel, who focus too much on fables and endless geneologies (which create more questions than answers), rather than the end (all be all) of the commandment/Law, which is charity out of a pure heart…
• These people [these same who would also consider themselves followers of the Law], who desire to teach the Law (of God) don’t really understand what contrary things they’re saying or what contrary things they’re agreeing to. But Timothy and Paul know that the Law (of God) is good IFF a man uses it lawfully as opposed to twisting it to one’s own doctrines or teachings]. With this said, the Law isn’t established for the righeous man per say, but as a boundary for those who would do wrong, including those who would promote anything contrary to doctrine that is in accordance with [or supported by] the Gospel.
• Paul then blesses Christ who took him (one of the chief sinners) and changed him and made him responsible to preach the gospel and the law to the gentiles. He then gives honor to the invisible God.
• Paul then charges Timothy to hold faith and a good conscience which some have forsaken (of those people we have Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom Paul delivered to Satan so they could learn not to blaspheme).
• Paul then prays for all men: for kings, for people in authority, that all will reach a level of godliness because God will have ALL men saved and to come into the knowledge of the truth: For One God [YHWH] - and also for the one mediator between [that] God and man [Christ] - Paul was ordained a preacher, an apostle and a teacher of the gentiles.
• Paul then says that women should remain modest and should only draw attention to the godliness in them through good works, in honoring their role as man’s helper and in lifegiving (childbearing) in holiness.
• Paul then says IF a man wants a religous office [bishop], first of all such is a good profession, but the bishop must be:

.blameless
.a husband (of one wife)
.sober
.a good teacher
.good behaving
.vigilant
.patient
.not covetous
.not confrontational
.have disciplined children (because a man can’t properly handle a Church if he can’t handle a family household)
.experienced [lest he be influenced of the devil]
.of good social person
.not a flipflopper
.not greedy for shameful profit
.of pure conscience…

Finally, potential bishops must be proven of the Truth [which is the Gospel, as is expressed in the first portion of Paul letter, not additional doctrines]

, THEN let them become a deacon and be found blameless there [before becoming bishops].

• Paul then explains that deacons also are to be husbands (of one wife) and discipline their children and run their houses well, because being a deacon is also a great job…
• Paul then explains that he’s sending this letter ahead of himself; "writing these things to Timothy so Timothy knows how deacons and bishops and women Ought to behave" in the house of God - the Church of the living God, the Pillar and foundation of Truth. He wanted Timothy to know how things are supposed to be in the House of God incase he took too long getting there to tell the Church himself [as he was obviously intending to get there].

Now again 1 Timothy 3:15 {in context} - “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”

So - respectfully - the question is, “if the entire preceeding list of qualities is what Teachers, Bishops and Deacons must have (and “yes” Paul uses the word “must”); if this is how leaders OUGHT to be in Church”, is Paul speaking about the Catholic Church per say? My answer is “no”.

And if you believe he is speaking about the Catholic Church specifically, why aren’t bishops allowed to marry; to only teach doctrine that’s in accordance with the Gospel; and to promote the unchanging Law of God [instead of promoting “changed” Laws]…all like Paul teaches in this letter?

.a husband (of one wife)

.have disciplined children

(because a man can’t properly handle a Church if he can’t handle a family household)

If “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.