Pillar and Ground of the Truth?

[God_Seeker_1]

Protestant teachers are quick to point out that when Paul wrote the following verse to Timothy:

“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” (1 Timothy 3:15).

That Paul must be referring to the “local Church” where Timothy is “behaving”, and therefore this cannot be expanded to refer to the whole world-wide Church.

How should we respond to this?

 

[DavidFilmer]

That Paul must be referring to the “local Church” where Timothy is “behaving”, and therefore this cannot be expanded to refer to the whole world-wide Church.

Paul is absolutely referring to the “local” Church.

Why does this preclude the teaching from encompassing a larger Christian community? Such a larger community did not (yet) exist when Paul wrote this to Timothy. Are we to suppose that Paul’s instructions to local Christian communities should not apply to larger communities? (if Paul taught that those local communities should not steal, could anyone suppose that it is OK to steal in communities that Paul did not personally teach in?)

Then, I suppose, we ought to disregard most of the New Testament - such as both Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, etc, because ALL of these teachings were directed at specific Christian communities (which bear their names in these Epistles).

Clearly, if Paul was addressing the Christian community at Corinth, nothing he said could possibly apply to anyone other than the ancient Corinthians.

Or maybe this whole idea is absolutely silly.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Well, because when the Catholic reads Paul’s statement that the “church” is the pillar and ground for the truth they are seeing this as a piece of evidence for the Papacy. Catholics like to respond to the protestant, who thinks the Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth, that Paul says it is the Church.

But here is the problem, it is Ephesus that Paul is referring to. Paul is speaking of the Church of Ephesus. But the Church of Ephesus has no condition for infallibility. Likewise, Galatia was on the verge of apostacy, and the Corinthian Church was highly problematic, almost denying the faith. Neither Ephesus, Corintha, or Galatia can be considered the Pillar and Ground of the Church in the Catholic teaching, because these infallible attributes only refer to the Church at Rome.

When the Catholic hears that the Church is the Pillar and ground of the truth, he/she is not thinking of any local church, rather they are thinking of the Papacy, Rome, the Magesterium, no? (I may be mistaken)

 

[CEM5]

Well, because when the Catholic reads Paul’s statement that the “church” is the pillar and ground for the truth they are seeing this as a piece of evidence for the Papacy. Catholics like to respond to the protestant, who thinks the Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth, that Paul says it is the Church.

But here is the problem, it is Ephesus that Paul is referring to. Paul is speaking of the Church of Ephesus. But the Church of Ephesus has no condition for infallibility. Likewise, Galatia was on the verge of apostacy, and the Corinthian Church was highly problematic, almost denying the faith. Neither Ephesus, Corintha, or Galatia can be considered the Pillar and Ground of the Church in the Catholic teaching, because these infallible attributes only refer to the Church at Rome.

When the Catholic hears that the Church is the Pillar and ground of the truth, he/she is not thinking of any local church, rather they are thinking of the Papacy, Rome, the Magesterium, no? (I may be mistaken)

Yes, I believe you are correct in that. When reading Scripture many people conveniently forget that it must be read in context. The verse in context to the chapter; the chapter in context to the “letter” or “book of…”; and that in context to the whole Bible.

With that in mind, we bring to mind Peter’s supremacy bestowed by Jesus. We also recall the following verses:

Mt 16:18 -
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Mt 18:15 -
"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.

Mt 18:17 -
If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Ac 20:28 -
Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, (overseers), to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Eph 3:10 -
so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

1Ti 3:15 -
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

1Jo 4:6 -
We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

So, Jesus said to “listen to the Church”, obey your leaders (Bishops)…

Heb 13:17 -
Obey your prelates (bishops) and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing for that would be harmful to you.

CEM

 

[fhansen]

Protestant teachers are quick to point out that when Paul wrote the following verse to Timothy:

“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” (1 Timothy 3:15).

That Paul must be referring to the “local Church” where Timothy is “behaving”, and therefore this cannot be expanded to refer to the whole world-wide Church.

How should we respond to this?

Funny, I usually see them maintaining that “pillar and ground of truth” refers to the preceding word, “God”, in order to deflect it away altogether from referring to “church”.

 

[po18guy]

Protestant teachers are quick to point out that when Paul wrote the following verse to Timothy:

“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” (1 Timothy 3:15).

That Paul must be referring to the “local Church” where Timothy is “behaving”, and therefore this cannot be expanded to refer to the whole world-wide Church.

How should we respond to this?

First, where does Paul specifically say that his writing applies only to the local Church? Paul’s letters, regardless of their original recipient, are universal and apply to all Christians everywhere. The Church of God was and is a single, living and breathing organism. The problem today is that the early Church - even beloved scripture - must be reverse engineered in order to justify factions and division in the Body of Christ. The unlearned and unstable twist and distort the scriptures today, as Peter warned (2 Peter 3:16) almost 2,000 years ago!

When the circumcisers demanded that all Gentile believers be circumcized (Acts 15), what did Paul do? He could not rely on scripture, as all post-Abrahamic scripture maintained that circumcision was necessary. Paul set those scriptures aside and went to the Church in Jerusalem. There, he presented his case and the Church debated it and made a binding ruling. This forever changed the subject. Scripture did not, and could not help Paul, so he went to the Church - from the “local” Church in Ephesus where the dispute arose. There is but One Church.

 

[JRKH]

Protestant teachers are quick to point out that when Paul wrote the following verse to Timothy:

“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” (1 Timothy 3:15).

That Paul must be referring to the “local Church” where Timothy is “behaving”, and therefore this cannot be expanded to refer to the whole world-wide Church.

How should we respond to this?

My response would be to ask him to - “Prove it”…Prove - from Scripture - that this cannot be expanded to include the world-wide Church.

Scripturally he cannot do it.

This allows one to move into some good discussion on authority and what Scripture actually DOES say about it.
For if one limits the above to the “local” community being the pillar and ground of Truth…what does one do with the fact that different “local communities” have evolved different and conflicting beliefs and teachings on matters that effect salvation (necessity of water baptism and the “real presence” being two).
Mt 18:15-18 and Acts 15 are HUGELY important passages in this regard. as are the many exhortations for unity that are found in the NT.

While not directed specifically at your particular question, this answer - that I commonly use in discussions - provides many references that you will find useful…

---

What Scripture says about “The Church”

The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)
The Church has authority to bind and loose - whatever (Mt 16:17-19) (Mt 18:15-18)
The Church settles arguments between distant church communities in a wonderful example of the instructions given in Mt 18…(Acts 15)
The Church is the vehicle by which God reveals His Wisdom to the world. (Eph 3:8-12)
Christ and the Apostles exhort the faithful to unity…to be of one mind

John 17:20-21
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Rom 15:5-6
5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Php 1:27
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

1 Pet 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

All of these calls to unity, along with the instructions in the Gospel of Matthew and the example in Acts as well as Paul’s presenting his teachings to Peter and others to assure they are correct, the Church being the Pillar etc…All point clearly to doctrinal unity within a visible and authoritative universal Church.

Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) adherents can offer nothing scriptural in support of the (evangelical?) protestant view of “church” and “authority” that comes anywhere close to this preponderance of evidence for the RC/EO “Model” of Church structure and authority.

I say this with confidence because I have repeatedly asked protestant apologists to counter this evidence with “equally clear and compelling” evidence for what I call the “Protestant model” of locally independent church communities based on SS.
They just simply cannot do it…

Peace
James

 

[God_Seeker_1]

All good responses!

I can agree whole heartedly that the Church is One. I believe that there should be worldwide unity. I do not think that each individual church has the right of her own to believe and reject whatever it is they want or see from the text of Scripture.

However, something that I am pointing out here has not been addressed.

Paul seems to be referring to the local church that Timothy himself was bishop over (be patient lol). Therefore Paul is saying that this function of being both “pillar” and “ground” for the truth somehow has a direct application to the local church of Ephesus.

The problem with this is that when I hear Catholics speaking, they seem to catch this verse as a way to promote the truthfulness of the visible hierarchical authoritarian magesterium- The Visible Church which cannot be destroyed, WHICH IS NOT EVERY DIOCESE OR LOCAL CHURCH but rather is the Pastorate of Rome.

I hear catholics quickly citing 1 Tim 3:15 as a way to enforce the Magesterium. They are usually responding to the protestant claim of SOLA SCRIPTURA! as the bulwark and ground for the truth, and the Catholic Responds to say that the CHURCH is the bulwak and ground for the truth. But, the catholic does not refer to the diocese of Miami Beach or the diocese of HollyWood or the Diocese of Bagdad, etc,etc…they are specifically referring to Papal Infallibility excercised in the Ecumenical Council, the Magesterium, the Bishop of Rome.

I see this same mistake when trying to prove infallibility from the Scripture in terms of “WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and WHATEVER you loose on earth will be loosed in heave” (Matt 16) when this is later referred to all bishops of all local churches (Matthew 18). Is each local church infallible? The Catholic would say “No”, but this “Whatever you bind” has direct application in the local church.

 

[JRKH]

God Seeker -
You bring in some wonderful points. Sometimes in conversation we might use a somewhat “extreme” view in order to counter what we see as an “extreme” opposing view. This is often done in an attempt to try to “meet in the middle” so to speak. This doesn’t always work…maybe even “rarely” works…but there is that tendency.

That said…I would like to address your very good point about the issue of infallibility and binding and loosing. The local bishop’s authority and the Universal Church authority. There are several points that need to be addressed.

First is that we need to remember that for the vast majority of Church history, communication moved at the speed of a walking man, a horse and a sailing ship. This is a critical thing to remember. It really relates clearly to both the OP’s quote as well as the “Bind and Loose” quotes (and I’m glad that you brought up Mt 18 in this.)

Secondly - it’s important to recognize that in the Early Church there were many things that had not yet been resolved. many things did not yet have “definitive” answers. Connected with this is the idea that in trying to figure these things out, bishops might come up with things that are essentially correct yet also contain some things not quite right.

Third - how does this effect the faithful who are following the Bishop in all sincerity? We not in Mt 23:1-3 that Jesus tells the faithful Jews to obey the Pharisees who “sit on the seat of Moses”. Yet we know hos Jesus felt about the Many of the Pharisees. To me - this basically means that the lay faithful will not be held accountable for any erroneous teaching of their bishop. For them…that which the Bishop bound or loosed on earth is what they will be held accountable to. The Bishop will be held to a higher standard.
Consider Christ’s comment about leading others astray and the proper use of a millstone on such people…

Now keeping the above in mind let us consider what happens with bishops who - in all humility and sincerity - find they are teaching things that just don’t mesh with what others are teaching. These good men will do just what we do - and just what Jesus instructs in Mt 18:15-18. They will discuss, debate, bring in others, pray and so forth. They will test each others arguments to see what parts might hold true and what parts do not. If need be councils will then be convened to address the issue (or issues) and try to reach a consensus.
Only then - if necessary - does the Holy Father really come into his own. He listens. He questions. He reads. He prays. And then he gives pronouncement - often (though not always) just affirming the consensus already largely reached.

The above is but a brief sketch of the interplay of these things. Naturally there are many avenues and specifics that fit into it.

It is for this reason that something like the verse in the OP can be seen as applying to both the local AND the universal Church.
In the OP, the protestant is trying to limit it by saying it cannot be applied to the whole Church. Scripture itself does not support such a view…let alone Church history.

Peace
James

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Thank you JRKH for responding to the question that was pertinent.

I have a few responses.

First, Jesus does not seem to extend it beyond the local assembly. He speaks to the small and simple situation of one brother offending another brother. The offended brother is to try to win the brother back to peace by a 1 to 1 encounter and admonishment to repentance. If this fails, the offended brother is to bring 2 or 3 to the sinning brother, to admonish him to repent and to verify the facts of the situation between the two brothers at odds. If this fails, then the offending brother and the brothers who assisted (2 or 3) at the last attempt to bring peace to the situation are to bring the situation to the “church”. Now the Church is the last avenue, there is no higher appeal. Grant this, but it poses a great difficulty when we think of this "church’ in terms of something outside the realm of the pastors of the “local” church. The situation cannot stretch in proportion from 2 people to the entire worldwide magesterium. Jesus implies that the situation will stop at the local level, and that whatever decision is reached at this local level is infallible (unless we give another meaning to the binding and loosing sentence). This simply provides evidence against the Roman Catholic position.

Second, the binding and loosing power that was granted to Peter is given to all bishops in all local churches, and therefore the power to bind and loose resides equally to all bishops even at a local level. Therefore, to pose the argument that binding and loosing power is only in operation under the conditions for infalliblity (ex cathedra) is to reduce the wider application that Jesus intended for the power to bind and loose. I mean, put in lay men’s terms, Jesus saw binding and loosing power in the local assembly pastors…why limit and reduce it to papal infallibility constraints???

Third, Catholics see the statement “whatever you bind” and “whatever you loose” as being honored in “heaven” as the basic description of “infallibility”. If in fact whatever one binds is bound in heaven, this ensures that the human binding must be protected from error. However, I retain the previous argument to strengthen this one, Jesus sees this binding and loosing authority as operative in the local assembly each and every time there is an issue of sin to deal with. Now, how can we reconcile this with the Catholic teaching that infallibility has only been in operation a few times in the history of the Church and that it surely does not happen until the conditions for it are in action (ie Ex Cathedra).

Finally, the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth has also been cited as a reference to the binding authority of the Church to make decisions infallibly. For if the Church was not protected from error, than how could it be the pillar and ground for the truth? Grant this, the same principle is working to refute the very claim of the Roman Catholic Magesterium because Paul applies this attribute of the Church to the local assembly of Ephesus where Timothy presided. Therefore infallibility, if we are consistent with the Catholic interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15, must be in action and operation*** in as much as there is a Church existing in whatever region of the world***. This again refutes the reduction and limitation of this “pillar” and “ground” function to provide truth ONLY in the circumstances of “infallibility” established by the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

What I am doing is taking the Catholic reading of these Scriptures and then taking a mirror and reflecting what meaning is really there and comparing it to what the Catholic Church claims about itself. These Scriptures are no doubt speaking of a binding and loosing power and an infallibility of the Church, but not in the little reduced circumstances of ex cathedra, but as in operation in all local assemblies in all regions of the world.

 

[JRKH]

I have a few responses.

As do I…

First, Jesus does not seem to extend it beyond the local assembly. He speaks to the small and simple situation of one brother offending another brother. The offended brother is to try to win the brother back to peace by a 1 to 1 encounter and admonishment to repentance. If this fails, the offended brother is to bring 2 or 3 to the sinning brother, to admonish him to repent and to verify the facts of the situation between the two brothers at odds. If this fails, then the offending brother and the brothers who assisted (2 or 3) at the last attempt to bring peace to the situation are to bring the situation to the “church”. Now the Church is the last avenue, there is no higher appeal. Grant this, but it poses a great difficulty when we think of this "church’ in terms of something outside the realm of the pastors of the “local” church. The situation cannot stretch in proportion from 2 people to the entire worldwide magesterium. Jesus implies that the situation will stop at the local level, and that whatever decision is reached at this local level is infallible (unless we give another meaning to the binding and loosing sentence). This simply provides evidence against the Roman Catholic position.

I note here that you use “Jesus seems to” and Jesus Implies"…but I can just as easily say that that Jesus seems to imply the opposite…So where does that leave us?
If we follow your logic and apply it to the situation at the beginning of Acts 15…then one local community (Jerusalem) has determined that circumcision is required and another local community has determined it is not. That then should be the end of it. In other words - no need for a council of Apostles and elders of the Church in Jerusalem.
OR
if a council IS called to deal with the question - it would be a different question. The question would be where does the authority to bind and loose reside…and by your judgement…It does not reside with the council of Jerusalem…

So - this simply provides evidence for the Catholic (and EO) position.

Second, the binding and loosing power that was granted to Peter is given to all bishops in all local churches, and therefore the power to bind and loose resides equally to all bishops even at a local level. Therefore, to pose the argument that binding and loosing power is only in operation under the conditions for infalliblity (ex cathedra) is to reduce the wider application that Jesus intended for the power to bind and loose. I mean, put in lay men’s terms, Jesus saw binding and loosing power in the local assembly pastors…why limit and reduce it to papal infallibility constraints???

I tend to agree with this in principle. I do think that there is a wider application of the bind and loose principle than simply the ex-cathedra one. This is what I tried to express in my post above…maybe I did not do too well.
That said - unity of the body ultimately requires a place for the buck to stop - particularly on difficult issues. The Papal office provides that.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

Third, Catholics see the statement “whatever you bind” and “whatever you loose” as being honored in “heaven” as the basic description of “infallibility”. If in fact whatever one binds is bound in heaven, this ensures that the human binding must be protected from error. However, I retain the previous argument to strengthen this one, Jesus sees this binding and loosing authority as operative in the local assembly each and every time there is an issue of sin to deal with. Now, how can we reconcile this with the Catholic teaching that infallibility has only been in operation a few times in the history of the Church and that it surely does not happen until the conditions for it are in action (ie Ex Cathedra).

Agreed - but then what does one do with the problem of one local community “binding” a teaching and another local community “loosing” the same thing where the teaching touches upon salvation?
To me, this is the fundamental flaw of the protestant argument - it simply fails this fundamental test.

Finally, the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth has also been cited as a reference to the binding authority of the Church to make decisions infallibly. For if the Church was not protected from error, than how could it be the pillar and ground for the truth? Grant this, the same principle is working to refute the very claim of the Roman Catholic Magesterium because Paul applies this attribute of the Church to the local assembly of Ephesus where Timothy presided. Therefore infallibility, if we are consistent with the Catholic interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15, must be in action and operation*** in as much as there is a Church existing in whatever region of the world***. This again refutes the reduction and limitation of this “pillar” and “ground” function to provide truth ONLY in the circumstances of “infallibility” established by the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

What I am doing is taking the Catholic reading of these Scriptures and then taking a mirror and reflecting what meaning is really there and comparing it to what the Catholic Church claims about itself. These Scriptures are no doubt speaking of a binding and loosing power and an infallibility of the Church, but not in the little reduced circumstances of ex cathedra, but as in operation in all local assemblies in all regions of the world.

And again - I would agree that there is truth in what you say…but the fundamental issue remains that when different ecclesial communities come to different conclusions. There are only two possible ways to go…One is to get together and hammer out a common understanding, or…Two each community goes it’s own way.
The Catholic Church has chosen the first alternative from the days of the first council in Jerusalem until now… The Protestants have chosen the second. The first has resulted in one split (east and west)…The second has resulted in many many many different belief systems and groups.

As Ever - I ask - which one better exemplifies the call to unity that we see repeatedly in the NT Scriptures?

Peace
James

 

[fred_conty]

What the passage of 1 Tim 3:15 provides is that the church is the pillar of truth in contrast to those who maintained sola scriptura is the final pillar.

The authority of the church is presented in these passages:

Matt 28:18-20
John 20:23
Matt 16:18-19
1 Cor 11:24
Luke 10:16
Matt 18:17-18

Just a thought.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

(Cont)

Agreed - but then what does one do with the problem of one local community “binding” a teaching and another local community “loosing” the same thing where the teaching touches upon salvation?
To me, this is the fundamental flaw of the protestant argument - it simply fails this fundamental test.

And again - I would agree that there is truth in what you say…but the fundamental issue remains that when different ecclesial communities come to different conclusions. There are only two possible ways to go…One is to get together and hammer out a common understanding, or…Two each community goes it’s own way.
The Catholic Church has chosen the first alternative from the days of the first council in Jerusalem until now… The Protestants have chosen the second. The first has resulted in one split (east and west)…The second has resulted in many many many different belief systems and groups.

As Ever - I ask - which one better exemplifies the call to unity that we see repeatedly in the NT Scriptures?

Peace
James

Thank you for your responses.

Please take my comments in Charity, as I do not mean to degrade or insult or even definitively refute, I am under the motive of clarity

The point remains that the texts which Roman Catholics wish to specifically refer (exclusively) to the ability to make infallible and authoritative judgments/doctrines in the fixed conditions of Ecumenical Council in conjunction with Ex Cathedra; whereas it is clear that the texts are referring to local communities and local churches in every instance.

To say that because all local communities and local churches everywhere cannot agree on what is binding for salvation that Jesus’ teaching concerning the truth that infallibility exists in local communities and local churches everywhere is not a valid argument. For this would a pragmatic argument. If unity does not exist, then it does not exist; despite the plans for unity among st God’s people. God intends sexual purity in the Church. God intends absolute peace among brothers. God intends holiness in the life of each person in the church. But to argue that all of these intentions must be there in 100% perfection at all times throughout history is a far stretch.

As I said in the first paragraph, Ephesus, the church in which Timothy presided, is described as the pillar and ground for the truth. If the same could be said of Ephesus, the same could be said of Corinth and Galatia, both of which were on the verge of absolute apostasy. Therefore, somehow a local church can be the pillar and ground for the truth and yet at the same time be on a possible route into absolute and total apostasy. To reject this argument would be to reject that Paul calls Ephesian Church the pillar and ground of the truth, which in turn would make Paul senseless in 1 Timothy 3:15.

How does this pertain to us today? Well, it could mean that being the “pillar” and “ground” for the truth is really not in fact what Catholics say it is, ABSOLUTE AND PERMANENT INFALLIBILITY. To carry this meaning into the Ephesian Church is a bit of a stretch. To apply this meaning to the Ephesian Church then you would, by necessity of logic, apply this meaning to the Galatian Church and the Corinthians Church and all the Churches which Christ threatens in Revelation to come to judge and remove it’s lampstand.

Therefore, the question remains. How can Catholics use 1 Timothy 3:15 to justify an infallible magesterium when, as I have shown, it cannot be referring to that?

 

[JRKH]

Thank you for your responses.

Please take my comments in Charity, as I do not mean to degrade or insult or even definitively refute, I am under the motive of clarity

Thanks for the heads up…

The point remains that the texts which Roman Catholics wish to specifically refer (exclusively) to the ability to make infallible and authoritative judgments/doctrines in the fixed conditions of Ecumenical Council in conjunction with Ex Cathedra; whereas it is clear that the texts are referring to local communities and local churches in every instance.

In regard to the part I bolded, I do not find your conclusion to be clear at all. The very fact that Paul was writing from some distance to Timothy giving instruction, as well as the Fact that Paul exercised the right to instruct over many church (singular) locations works against your understanding.
Likewise - as I have already stated…The Council in Acts is clear evidence that the Apostles did not view the local communities as doctrinally autonomous.

So when one sees - in Scripture - how the Apostles viewed and acted on the matter…The Catholic understanding of Binding and Loosing makes much more sense.

To say that because all local communities and local churches everywhere cannot agree on what is binding for salvation that Jesus’ teaching concerning the truth that infallibility exists in local communities and local churches everywhere is not a valid argument. For this would a pragmatic argument.

Can’t really make out what you are saying here…

If unity does not exist, then it does not exist; despite the plans for unity among st God’s people. God intends sexual purity in the Church. God intends absolute peace among brothers. God intends holiness in the life of each person in the church. But to argue that all of these intentions must be there in 100% perfection at all times throughout history is a far stretch.

So far as I am aware I have not argued this…How did you get this from what I have written?

As I said in the first paragraph, Ephesus, the church in which Timothy presided, is described as the pillar and ground for the truth.

Why do you seek to limit it? The Church in Ephesus is the same as the Church in Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem etc…“The Church”

If the same could be said of Ephesus, the same could be said of Corinth and Galatia, both of which were on the verge of absolute apostasy. Therefore, somehow a local church can be the pillar and ground for the truth and yet at the same time be on a possible route into absolute and total apostasy. To reject this argument would be to reject that Paul calls Ephesian Church the pillar and ground of the truth, which in turn would make Paul senseless in 1 Timothy 3:15.

Thank you - You just presented a wonderful example of what I am saying. Yes - certain parts of the Church can get off track…people sin - even groups can become misled. It is the authority of all of the church locations in concert - in council - in communication with each other - that seeks to correct the problems that come up.

How does this pertain to us today? Well, it could mean that being the “pillar” and “ground” for the truth is really not in fact what Catholics say it is, ABSOLUTE AND PERMANENT INFALLIBILITY. To carry this meaning into the Ephesian Church is a bit of a stretch. To apply this meaning to the Ephesian Church then you would, by necessity of logic, apply this meaning to the Galatian Church and the Corinthians Church and all the Churches which Christ threatens in Revelation to come to judge and remove it’s lampstand.

Again - you present a wonderful argument FOR the validity of the Catholic view.

If I am to accept your assertion here, I am going to have to see the Scriptural evidence that says that local church communities were allowed to be doctrinally independent.

Therefore, the question remains. How can Catholics use 1 Timothy 3:15 to justify an infallible magesterium when, as I have shown, it cannot be referring to that?

Well I must say that you have done a fine job of presenting your argument.
I believe that I have done a fine job of presenting my argument.
We have both used Scripture to support our positions.
We both believe the other is in error - perhaps serious error.
We can’t both be right.

How do we seek the correct understanding?
Mt 18 says that I should bring others to confirm each point…
I’m sure that you can do the same…
Then we are told to “tell it to the Church” and “listen to the Church”.
So - If I am like the one from Jerusalem and you are like the one from Antioch…Which “local church” do we take it to?

Who shall decide between us so that either I will need to become Anglican - or you will need to become Catholic?

This is where all such discussions must, by necessity, end up. The question of authority. Who decides?

Peace
James

 

[CEM5]

All good responses!

I can agree whole heartedly that the Church is One. I believe that there should be worldwide unity. I do not think that each individual church has the right of her own to believe and reject whatever it is they want or see from the text of Scripture.

However, something that I am pointing out here has not been addressed.

Paul seems to be referring to the local church that Timothy himself was bishop over (be patient lol). Therefore Paul is saying that this function of being both “pillar” and “ground” for the truth somehow has a direct application to the local church of Ephesus.

The problem with this is that when I hear Catholics speaking, they seem to catch this verse as a way to promote the truthfulness of the visible hierarchical authoritarian magesterium- The Visible Church which cannot be destroyed, WHICH IS NOT EVERY DIOCESE OR LOCAL CHURCH but rather is the Pastorate of Rome.

I hear catholics quickly citing 1 Tim 3:15 as a way to enforce the Magesterium. They are usually responding to the protestant claim of SOLA SCRIPTURA! as the bulwark and ground for the truth, and the Catholic Responds to say that the CHURCH is the bulwak and ground for the truth. But, the catholic does not refer to the diocese of Miami Beach or the diocese of HollyWood or the Diocese of Bagdad, etc,etc…they are specifically referring to Papal Infallibility excercised in the Ecumenical Council, the Magesterium, the Bishop of Rome.

I see this same mistake when trying to prove infallibility from the Scripture in terms of “WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and WHATEVER you loose on earth will be loosed in heave” (Matt 16) when this is later referred to all bishops of all local churches (Matthew 18). Is each local church infallible? The Catholic would say “No”, but this “Whatever you bind” has direct application in the local church.

HI God Seeker,

The Bishops obey the Pope, and the Priest/deacons obey the Bishops. With that said, Christ is the head of the Pope, as well as the head of the Church He established: His Kingdom on earth.

Jesus is the King of kings, and it is His kingdom to which all believers belong to. A kingdom is not a democracy, so those who belong to the kingdom of Christ listen and obey the King. If they do not, they are free to leave and cannot enter until they obey Him. When a King is away from His kingdom or busy with other duties the King hands over the keys to the kingdom to His Royal Stewart - his "right hand man’ per se. With these keys, the Royal Stewart can open and lock the doors to the kingdom and it is only through him that one gets to enter. The keys also open and close the royal treasury. Even when the king is in the palace, it is only through the king’s Royal Stewart that one gets an audience with the King - he decides who sees the king. The Royal Stewart is the person the king trusts the most of anyone. This is a position held for life and when the Royal Stewart dies, another, a successor, takes that position of whom the king chooses. When the king is away, it is the Royal Stewart who runs the kingdom until the king comes back.

Jesus, the King, appointed Peter as His “Royal Stewart”.
Jesus the King gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter!!!
Jesus the king gave authority to Peter to take care of the kingdom in His absence - until Jesus returns again.
Jesus the king gave the Holy Spirit to His Church - His kingdom on earth - His beloved Bride. This Holy Spirit guides the bishops to choose another successor when the “Royal Stewart” passes from this earth. His title is “Pope”.

Jesus ordained before He left this earth, those who have charge over the flock on earth – Bishops and Priests. In “charge” of all the bishops and priests, etc, is the Pope (the Vicar of Christ - His “right hand man”), the successor of Peter.

Matthew 16:19 NRSA
I [Jesus] will give you [Peter} the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

John 21:14-17
14 This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from the dead. 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

So, anyone with eyes to see, and a mind following Christ can understand the truth of these things. Peter and his successors have the keys to the kingdom, given by Jesus, until He comes again at the Parousia (translation: second coming) when the King of kings returns in all His glory!!

Blessings,
CEM