Posted on 08/03/2008 11:01:07 AM PDT by NYer
I quite agree with you.
And yet I cannot imagine why you would direct such a post to me.
Doesn't it say that "the living God" is "the pillar and foundation of truth"??
Well going by the rules of English which I learned in 7th grade lets look at it.
We have the independent clause: you should know how to behave in the household of God
This stands alone. The subject "you" is told that he should "Know" (The verb) how to behave.
Where should he do this? "In the household of God ."
After this there are two dependent clauses.
The first,which is the church of the living God, The general rule is that it refers back to the the nearest noun, in this case it would be "Household of God". This modifies "Household of God" to now be a "Church"
The second dependent clause is the pillar and foundation of truth. Generally a dependent clause doesn't modify another dependent clause, but in this case it does not matter.
If you choose to say that it modifies "Household of God" or "church of the living God" either way it is describing/ modifying a building in which God resides.
So according to the rulews of English the Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth
You need to look at the entire clause in context and using the punctuation of the commas.
Ps 53:1 To the choirmaster: according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none that does good
Funny, in all my years, I have never seen Adv. Haer. III.4 used to defend sola scriptura. I could almost thing that I'd seen it all.
Well, since you've quoted Irenaeus, maybe you should thumb back a couple of pages to III.1-2:
1.1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
1.2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
2.3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.
Sort of sounds familiar (there is nothing new under the sun...)
If a Catholic quotes Scripture, the Catholic is accused of misinterpreting it. If a Catholic quotes Tradition (big "T" Tradition, that is), he is told it doesn't apply.
I always like, at times like this to consider the words of +Peter:
2Pe 3:15-17 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
And that is why God provided the Magesterium.
My apologies. I missed that.
So according to the rulews of English the Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth."
I thought that you might cite something that the Roman Catholic Church had written about this verse.
After all, no verse can truly be correctly interpreted, except by the Roman Catholic Church, correct?
You chose, however, to interpret this verse based upon your own learning of the rules of English!!
Perhaps you could share with me your own interpretation of how your interpretation of I Timothy 3:15 squares with the words Jesus Himself says concerning truth in John 14:6.
My own interpretation of John 14:6 is that Jesus Himself says that He (not a "building") is, indeed, the way, the truth, and the life.
I acknowledge the Catholic Church as having its origins in the ancient apostolic faith, so what?
The Church clearly made up things, whole cloth, invented by men, and there's no getting around that for me (and for millions of other Protestants). All the Marian doctrines, Purgatory (a money making scheme and nothing more, in my opinion), indulgences, relics, confession to priests, purges, inquisitions, persecution of anyone who translated scripture, refusing to offer the wine and only the host to those taking communion, etc. The list of errors, major and minor, and all manner of offenses committed by the church in Luther's day was nearly endless. They were power mad and had become nothing more than legalistic Pharisees. Luther was acting by God's Will, I have no doubt of that.
I adhere to the tradition inherited through Scripture. I adhere to the Creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian), and I even acknowledge that for some time the church, as it came to be in Rome, had its origins with the apostles...
But the Church fell into two errors: invention and legalism. I believe the Reformation was God's judgment on the Church for its errors, and His way of going around the institution. Further, I do not believe that the "church" is an institution, but is the community, the priesthood, of all who believe and acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord.
Jesus didn't come to establish an institution called the Church of Rome. That is not what "ekklesia" means, nor what the kingdom of God means, and Catholics have used that one poorly translated verse from Matthew ever since (and assuming it meant the actual institution called the Catholic Church of Rome).
Sorry, I acknowledge the historical legacy the Church of Rome gave to us, but I refuse to acknowledge the (certainly to me) obviously man made traditions that they piled on to the tradition handed down in Scripture. Since I am not free to choose the Catholic Church, without accepting that baggage, I remain Protestant, without accepting that baggage. Believe what you believe to be true, and I will believe what I know to be true.
Did God also provide the murdering, incestuous, perverse Borgias with the Papacy and the power to speak “from the seat”?
Typology most certainly is important.
Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. One of those seven or all of those seven? Seven types of churches, some of which are His or will return to Him?
Surely we don't want to be smug about types, do we?
Yup.
I assume you're primarily talking about Alexander VI, here. And, praise God, God held his tongue.
And, the only doctrinal works of Calistus III (the other Borgia pope) was to reverse the sentence against Joan d'Arc and to issue a Bull that eliminates a particular kind of cheating on contracts (see Denzinger 716).
With Catholics pointing non-Catholics towards the Early Church Fathers, it was only a matter of time before someone had to dig deeper and juxtapose the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura on those books as well. Here is their source argument.
Given what we know of St. Irenaeus, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, we are not easily hoodwinked.
Thank you for a wonderful post!
Lord, if we all could portray that Christian attitude!
No, the source of the argument is the writings of Irenaeus. In Book III, Chapter V, Irenaeus gives the key to his understanding of “Apostolic Tradition”; it is the scriptures left to the churches by the Apostles.
“Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.”
He tells the reader how he will use this “tradition in the beginning of the book III,
“But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood………Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.”
The gospel was first preached and learned by the oral tradition and then reduced to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and given to the churches by the Apostles,
“WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
“Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.”
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.”
Notice his argument on the importance and primacy of scripture over “tradition”. He says, “if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”
“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”
Well, neither one of us is going to talk the other one out of their beliefs, I suspect. Seems that’s the only attitude a Christian can take then. I don’t accept the authority and teaching of the Catholic Church and I especially don’t recognize or accept the “Magesterium”. Obviously, you do. And there we are.
In Book III, Chapter V, Irenaeus gives the key to his understanding of “Apostolic Tradition”; it is the scriptures left to the churches by the Apostles.
AMEN! As Irenaeus wrote...
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
Have our anti-sola Scriptura FRiends ever read Irenaeus?
My own interpretation of John 14:6 is that Jesus Himself says that He (not a "building") is, indeed, the way, the truth, and the life.
I will be glad to give you my interpretation right after you explain what Paul meant in 1 Tim 3:15 using the rules of English, that is the only time that the term "Pillar and foundation" is used?
No, you're missing the point. Adversus haereses is written as an apologetic piece against the heresy of the followers of Valentinus, a gnostic. Thus, the reference to Marcion, who began his gnostic heresy about 10-15 years earlier.
I mention Marcion, because one of the many things that he did was to establish a "Canon" of Scripture: He stated that the only authoritative works were the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline epistles. This was possible, because the Church as of that time had not yet officially formulated a Canon (the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage wouldn't happen for another 200 years). Yes, Irenaeus, did document the quadriform Gospel. Yes, the Pauline epistles were uniformly accepted, but there were serious questions about the Johnine and Petrine writings.
So the term "Scripture" is sort of misleading, if one doesn't understand the historical context. In addition, statements like the following (III,3,2) are confusing without that historical context:
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Without an understanding of what Marcion did, in forming his canon, the bolded statement makes no sense.
None of what you've written decreases the argument from Irenaeus, supporting the requirement for a Magesterium (in fact, it validates the idea). Catholics don't discount Scripture, so please don't take anything I've said to mean that. And, yes, we Catholics refer to Scripture continually. If you take a look at the Catechism, you will note that the vast majority of the footnotes are Scriptural references. Likewise with other Magesterial documents.
(In fact, when I discuss theology with Protestants, I try not to make authoritative references to Tradition, as I understand that you won't accept anything with Tradition as a source. I also don't typically reference post-Nicene Church Fathers, as I recognize that many Protestants believe the Church to be totally corrupt and pagan after Constantine legitimized it within the Roman Empire, and I typically only reference pre-Nicene writings to illustrate what people in the early Church believed or practiced)
Sacred Tradition (as opposed to cultural tradition) fills in the gaps. It was the teachings of Christ and His apostles that were not contained in the Gospels. There is nothing in Sacred Tradition that is offensive to Sacred Scripture. There can't be. For example, the Immacuate Conception. The Gospel According to +Luke says that the Blessed Virgin was "full of grace." It is impossible to one be "full of grace" while one has original sin, so it is obligatory that she could not have original sin. We know that from the Scriptures. The Immaculate Conception defines how that happened (the apostolic teachings are from the early Church, such as the Protoevangelium). And that's the point that Irenaeus is getting at: we use the Scriptures with the understanding from the Church. And the Scriptures, with the proper understanding, as passed down from the apostles and contained within the Church, can be used to defend the faith against heretics, such as Valentinus and Marcion.
“None of what you’ve written decreases the argument from Irenaeus, supporting the requirement for a Magesterium (in fact, it validates the idea).”
Where in Book III does Irenaeus argue for a magesterium?
I am familiar with the problems with the gnostic, Valentinus, and with Marcion, however, Irenaeus’ apologetic is broad enough to cover all heresies when he says,
“1. Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.”
“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question(12) among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”
At the time of the writing all of the books of the canon were in circulation along with lesser writings like Clement’s and Polycarp’s letters he refers to, but he still says that it is to te writings of the Apostles that he goes to before resorting to tradition.
3.2.2 is a pretty good start (see post #44).
“3.2.2 is a pretty good start (see post #44).”
I fail to see where 2.2 gives any warrant for a magesterium. All that it says when taken in context with the rest of the book III is that the Apostles and their appointed leaders of the church have passed down and kept the oral tradition that they taught in the church in the form of the written scriptures. 2.2 speaks of the heretics opposing the Apostles and the church leaders teaching.
2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.
1.1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.