Pillar and Foundation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
junostarlighter said:
Yes, the Protestant church is visible, but is it biblically visible? Are Protestant churches visible the way Christ originally intended?
How did Christ establish His visible Church? Through Peter and the 12 apostles.
How long will this visible Church last? Until Christ visibly returns.
Which Church is this? It’s the Church of Christ led by Peter and his successors, together with the bishops in apostolic succession from the Apostles.
Click to expand...
did the visible church Christ found fall?
Is the visible divided?
 
Curious said:
Is there some way that this “pillar and foundation of truth” phrase can actually fit into a Protestant model?
Click to expand...
Well, a phrase or a sentence can be forced to fit a meaning, if the will to force is there.

If we take the phrase to mean its first, obvious, intended meaning: we get a unified church whose very solidity allows the truth to stand upon it, as a mansion rests upon its rock foundation.

This is taking unity in its obvious and first sense. It is taking the meaning of pillar and foundation in their obviously intended senses.

It’s amazing to me that Protestants somehow co-opted the tagline that it is Protestants who literally interpret the bible, while Catholics don’t take the bible seriously.

Over and over again, I find the opposite to be the case. An obvious example is, Catholics eat and drink the flesh and blood of the Lord, as He told us literally to do. He said “This IS my body,” not “this resembles or signifies, or reminds of”, but IS. “Take and Eat.” Catholics take these verbs in their first meanings.

We have on earth an obvious, human, concrete leader; by the very basic fact of having a visible human head who we follow, we are one body. At the first level, it is no more subtle than that. Under his authority to teach and discipline we are able to be one with him, with each other, and with the real head of our body, Jesus Christ.

Another example, yes, Adam and Eve probably ate a fruit–why not? Their sin was committed by humans, and we humans exist in time and space, and we do things with our bodies. We glorify God with them; we sin against Him with them.

If all this seems less than subtle, if it seems childlike, then since it is the childlike who will enter Heaven, Catholics need not be abashed.

One principle of bible interpretation is that a spiritual interpretation of a passage cannot contradict the interpretation which is the “intended literal” interpretation. There is always a literal interpretation which is what the author literally intended. Then there are further layers of interpretation (four, I think, kinds of spiritual interpretation…). But never contradicting that meaning which is the intended literal interpretation.

Example: “and the sun stood still in the sky”. Intended literal–a huge miracle of the sun and earth standing still in relation to each other. (not the miracle of the sun standing still, because the sun always stands still in relation to earth).

(The rules of biblical interpretation I am giving from memory from St. Augustine’s book On Interpretation.)

Is any of this speaking to your area of puzzlement?
 
toaslan said:
Well, a phrase or a sentence can be forced to fit a meaning, if the will to force is there.

If we take the phrase to mean its first, obvious, intended meaning: we get a unified church whose very solidity allows the truth to stand upon it, as a mansion rests upon its rock foundation.

This is taking unity in its obvious and first sense. It is taking the meaning of pillar and foundation in their obviously intended senses.

It’s amazing to me that Protestants somehow co-opted the tagline that it is Protestants who literally interpret the bible, while Catholics don’t take the bible seriously.

Over and over again, I find the opposite to be the case. An obvious example is, Catholics eat and drink the flesh and blood of the Lord, as He told us literally to do. He said “This IS my body,” not “this resembles or signifies, or reminds of”, but IS. “Take and Eat.” Catholics take these verbs in their first meanings.

We have on earth an obvious, human, concrete leader; by the very basic fact of having a visible human head who we follow, we are one body. At the first level, it is no more subtle than that. Under his authority to teach and discipline we are able to be one with him, with each other, and with the real head of our body, Jesus Christ.

Another example, yes, Adam and Eve probably ate a fruit–why not? Their sin was committed by humans, and we humans exist in time and space, and we do things with our bodies. We glorify God with them; we sin against Him with them.

If all this seems less than subtle, if it seems childlike, then since it is the childlike who will enter Heaven, Catholics need not be abashed.

One principle of bible interpretation is that a spiritual interpretation of a passage cannot contradict the interpretation which is the “intended literal” interpretation. There is always a literal interpretation which is what the author literally intended. Then there are further layers of interpretation (four, I think, kinds of spiritual interpretation…). But never contradicting that meaning which is the intended literal interpretation.

Example: “and the sun stood still in the sky”. Intended literal–a huge miracle of the sun and earth standing still in relation to each other. (not the miracle of the sun standing still, because the sun always stands still in relation to earth).

(The rules of biblical interpretation I am giving from memory from St. Augustine’s book On Interpretation.)

Is any of this speaking to your area of puzzlement?
Click to expand...
Very well said. 🙂
 
In Galatians 2, 9

In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews.
 
Curious said:
Okay. I probably want to address several more things, but I’ll try to be organized and do things one at a time. Can be talk about Catholic Church as being a visible, living, organized structure? Exactly how is the Protestant church not visible and living and organized? I mean the only thing visible about any church, is the building, of course the people in the building, and various ministries. So…as far as visibility is concerned…
  1. Catholics have church buildings…Protestants have them too
  2. Catholics and Prots both have various ministries, charities, etc.
  3. Catholics and Prots both have people in them…duh…lol
Are they not both visible? Both living? What is meant when it is said that Protestants subscribe to a vaguer notion of an “invisible” church? What I’ve heard over and over from various Protestant pulpits is that “THE CHURCH ISN’T A BUILDING!! IT’S US!! PEOPLE!! BELIEVERS!!”

But Catholics don’t believe the Church is a building either, right?

Sorry, I know I said one thing at a time, but I seem to have rambled some.

Thanks

Curious
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is visible as a SINGLE entitity with Bishops, Priests, Deacons and laity, etc. throughout the world.

The Protestant world, however, is characterized by many different denominations teaching conflicting and sometimes contradictory doctrines. Additionally, its many denominations are not present in each and every country worldwide.

Consequently, when one sees the Presbyterian faith community in the US and the Anglican Church in England (as just two examples), one is not seeing a single, visible Church. They are not one - in organization or in doctrine.

Consequently, Protestantism is forced to conclude that the Church MUST be an invisible one that is made up of all believers throughout the world regardless of their denomination OR beliefs.

This is the jumping off point for the “essentials” debate…

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Randy,

That was way helpful. Thanks. 👍

I have a crazy schedule the next few days. I’ll drop in as often as I can. I don’t want this thread to die, at least not yet. So I’ll do what I can.
 
Most recent obsession, as a result from a questionnaire posted on these forums.

Did the Apostles teach error? If not, then why, oh why, are we not protected from error in the present day? The Catholic Church claims to teach infallibly. I believe the correct understand of infallible teaching means: to be prevented from teaching error, am I right?

I know someone who is also Protestant. She is open-minded, intelligent and a much better argue-er than me. I called her today.

**Me: **Did the apostles teach error?
**Her: **Hmmm…I don’t think so.
**Me: **Can the church teach error now?
**Her: **Yes
**Me: **Why?
**Her: **Well, because the Bible is already written.
**Me: **huh? So the Apostles were only protected from teaching error in order to form the Bible?
**Her: **Well, yes. Now we have the Bible. That is error free.
**Me: **(passing up the opportunity to ask who gets to decide that the Bible is error free). So, the church can teach error now because we have the Bible?
**Her: **We are protected from error by the Bible/
**Me: **Really? which interpretation of any given verse is the correct one? The incorrect one?
**Her: **Well that’s the beauty of it. That’s why we have so many denominations. We have to find one that fits us.
**Me: **(feeling very Catholic and having a heart attack): BEAUTY?? You call that BEAUTY?? It’s disunity!! It’s horrible!! “Finding one that fits us” is LAME!" There has to be some truth!!
**Her: **(pause)
**Me: **So God protects the Apostles from teaching error, then we get the Bible, and God says, “Too bad, church. You can teach error now. Hope you can figure everything out!!”
What about the period of time between the death of the last apostle and the time the Bible was compiled. Was error taught then?
**Her: **Yes, probably

Well my memory becomes fuzzy here and the conversation was short as both of us had to hang up.

For some reason, no question has nagged me like this one.

So help me, I’m going to find an answer.
 
Curious said:
Most recent obsession, as a result from a questionnaire posted on these forums.

Did the Apostles teach error? If not, then why, oh why, are we not protected from error in the present day? The Catholic Church claims to teach infallibly. I believe the correct understand of infallible teaching means: to be prevented from teaching error, am I right?

I know someone who is also Protestant. She is open-minded, intelligent and a much better argue-er than me. I called her today.

**Me: **Did the apostles teach error?
**Her: **Hmmm…I don’t think so.
**Me: **Can the church teach error now?
**Her: **Yes
**Me: **Why?
**Her: **Well, because the Bible is already written.
**Me: **huh? So the Apostles were only protected from teaching error in order to form the Bible?
**Her: **Well, yes. Now we have the Bible. That is error free.
**Me: **(passing up the opportunity to ask who gets to decide that the Bible is error free). So, the church can teach error now because we have the Bible?
**Her: **We are protected from error by the Bible/
**Me: **Really? which interpretation of any given verse is the correct one? The incorrect one?
**Her: **Well that’s the beauty of it. That’s why we have so many denominations. We have to find one that fits us.
**Me: **(feeling very Catholic and having a heart attack): BEAUTY?? You call that BEAUTY?? It’s disunity!! It’s horrible!! “Finding one that fits us” is LAME!" There has to be some truth!!
**Her: **(pause)
**Me: **So God protects the Apostles from teaching error, then we get the Bible, and God says, “Too bad, church. You can teach error now. Hope you can figure everything out!!”
What about the period of time between the death of the last apostle and the time the Bible was compiled. Was error taught then?
**Her: **Yes, probably

Well my memory becomes fuzzy here and the conversation was short as both of us had to hang up.

For some reason, no question has nagged me like this one.

So help me, I’m going to find an answer.
Click to expand...
If your Heart is leaning towards the Catholic Chruch, the day will
come when it will all just “CLICK” and you will be standing on the Rock with us, sword and shield in Hand.
 
Curious said:
Most recent obsession, as a result from a questionnaire posted on these forums.

Did the Apostles teach error? If not, then why, oh why, are we not protected from error in the present day? The Catholic Church claims to teach infallibly. I believe the correct understand of infallible teaching means: to be prevented from teaching error, am I right?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct in your understanding:thumbsup:

Remembering that an individual priests and bishops can teach error, even a pope can espouse error, but the pope will be prevented from “making official” the error they believe in. I think if one studies the Arian heresy, one can get a good idea of exactly what this involves.

Alos,there was a pope who was going to declare as dogma the next day, a teaching that was false. He died in his sleep. (Who was this pope people? Help me out.)

I personally always find it interesting the people who believe they are right because the Bible says they will be led to all truth. God is big enough to led them personally, but not a whole church. I find it comforting that I personally can be in error (and still be a Christian!), but I can look to the Church to see what I am “supposed” to believe.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top