The Pillar and Foundation of the Truth?

[Consistent]

I Timothy 3:15-
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I have been in a discussion with some who say Sola Scriptura means that we don't need the Church in order to know what God's Word says. I am under the persuasion that this verse demonstrates that the Christian community is neccessary for a sound interpretation of God's truth.

Am I off on this? Please help.

In Christ-

John

 

[fredtgreco]

John,

You are correct. Calvin says much the same thing:

Hence we may easily conclude in what sense Paul uses these words. The reason why the Church is called the "pillar of truth" is, that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known his truth; but he employs pastors, whom he has appointed for that purpose. To express it in a more homely manner, is not the Church the mother of all believers? Does she not regenerate them by the word of God, educate and nourish them through their whole life, strengthen, and bring them at length to absolute perfection? For the same reason, also, she is called "the pillar of truth;" because the office of administering doctrine, which God hath placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men.

Consequently this commendation relates to the ministry of the word; for if that be removed, the truth of God will fall to the ground. Not that it is less strong, if it be not supported by the shoulders of men, as the same Papists idly talk; for it is a shocking blasphemy to say, that the word of God is uncertain, till it obtain from men what may be called a borrowed certainty. Paul simply means what he states elsewhere in other words, that since our "faith is by hearing," there will be no faith, unless there be preaching. (Romans 10:17.) Accordingly in reference to men, the Church maintains the truth, because by preaching the Church proclaims it, because she keeps it pure and entire, because she transmits it to posterity. And if the instruction of the gospel be not proclaimed, if there are no godly ministers who, by their preaching, rescue truth from darkness and forgetfulness, instantly falsehoods, errors, impostures, superstitions, and every kind of corruption, will reign. In short, silence in the Church is the banishment and crushing of the truth. Is there anything at all forced in this exposition?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I am always blessed when reading Calvin. Thanks, Fred. That's a great quote.

We do need the Church. It is the God-ordained means of grace without which we may not ordinarily be saved. God has perfectly furnished the church will all that is necessary for the good of his people and the glory of his name, ie., officers, elements of worship, Scriptures, communion of the saints, councils/synods/presbyteries, etc.

I might also add that 1 Tim. 3.15 is a proof text for Chap. I, sec. V of the Westminster Confession dealing with the Holy Scriptures.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture [k]. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts [l].

[k] 1 Tim. 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.

[l] 1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 1 Cor. 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Isa. 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

 

[Scott]

I appreciate the Calvin quote too and think it is right on the money.

I would add another reason the institutional church is important to understanding the Bible - namely the Church is the context of the Bible.

Consider the New Testament, for example. The content teaches how to form, govern, and live within the institutional Church, the community of the New Covenant. This aim in seen in the express teachings of the New Testament. Paul likens the members of the church to a body, with each part needing each other. The New testament expressly covers crucial community topics such as the appointment of officers, qualifications for officers, duties of members, using church councils to resolve controversies of faith, censuring, excommunicating, and absolving sinful church members, how officers are to administer the sacraments, how to publicly worship, etc.

The community nature of the New Testament is also implied by its very structure. Most congregational epistles (such as 1 Corinthians) are addressed to particular organized churches and discuss particular issues facing those organized churches. The epistles often mention real people by name and commend them or instruct them for some particular task. The pastoral epistles (such as 1 Timothy) are directed at elders and instruct them about how to organize and rule the visible church. The very structure of the New Testament presupposes that it is a community book, belonging to the church.

This is important to remember because if taken out of its context, the Bible will be misunderstood. The context of the Bible is the tangible worshipping community. The biblical documents were all created to be read and taught in the context of public worship. This is one reason Paul states that the organized church is the "œpillar and ground of truth." 1 Tim. 3:15. Outside of its context, the institutional church, the Bible will be misunderstood.

 

[Scott]

Also, you might find this analogy helpful. The Church is as necessary to the interpretation of the Bible as a football team is as necessary to the interpretation of a football playbook. Using a football playbook to improve one's golf game or some other individual, non-team, endeavor would not make much sense. The playbook does not fit and is not addressed to those contexts. Its context is a football team. Similarly, individualizing the Bible and taking it out of its ecclesial context does not make much sense either.

 

[Consistent]

Brothers-
I am deeply grateful for your responses. Calvin is always refreshing. And the Westminister Confession is in my opinion a result of I Tim. 3:15 (for example Acts 2:42). Thank you all again. I always find such help and encouragement at this site...may God continue to bless it.

Those who oppose me in my debates on this verse say that I am denying Sola Scriptura...but are they not denying Sola Scriptura by denying what the "Scriptura" teaches...namely, that the Church is the "context" (I like that wording Scott, hope you don't mind me stealing it.. ) within which the Bible is to be interpreted?

John

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Consistent]

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Consistent]

 

[Scott]

John: It is a useful term. Everybody today seems to recognize the importance of context.

I also had a thought on the analogy. It might be more accurate to compare the bible outside the church to the football playbook outside football. Say we encounter some people from another country who have never heard of football. We give them a football playbook. Their understanding will necessarily be limited often wrong, because they don't understand the context of the playbook, namely football.

 

[Rich Barcellos]

I think Ephesians 4:11ff. comes into play here as well. First, Christ gives pastors and teachers for the three-fold purpose of v. 12 (i.e., the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ). Second, Christ gives pastors and teachers for the entire duration of the interadvental period (v. 13). Third, Christ gives pastors and teachers to effect: 1) protection from spiritual immaturity and heresy-4:14; and 2) promotion of spiritual maturity and orthodoxy-4:15, 16.

The Christian ministry is the Christ-ordained means through which His Word is proclaimed and His Church is protected. He gives gifts to men and, in turn, gives those men to the Church.

 

[Scott]

Richard, I think you are right. I expect that John may be met with an exagerated view of the priesthood of the believer and assertions that viewing the ministerial orders as special would violate the doctrine that there is only one mediator between Christ and man. Of course, I think they would be wrong to do this, but I personally encounter it often enough in the evangelical world.

 

[Rich Barcellos]

Scott,

You are right. Some take the priesthood of all beleivers as a denial of any functional distnctives within the priesthood. The "Evangelical" Feminists do the same with marriage, women in the minsitry, etc.

 

[Consistent]

I have been engaged in a controversy concerning the priesthood of believers when a friend of mine became a "member" of a plymouth brethren fellowship.

But the current debate I am referring to is with some local hyper-preterists I know. They claim that my ministry denies sola scriptura in our defense of orthodoxy being defined by the ecumenical creeds.

I believe the reformed position in that the creeds are faithful passing alongs of the teaching of the apostles, who taught the Church the truth they learned from Christ. I do not believe that any true Christian who knows the Christian faith can deny the Apostles Creed...the truths stated therein are crucial and the very most basic tenets of Christianity, therefore to deny any of them is to not be Christian but something else. The hyprets of course deny the resurrection of the body and the return of Christ, therefore I believe they are to be categorized as unchristian heresy.

Am I too far off the wagon here?

John

 

[Scott]

John: You sound right on the money on all counts to me.

The creeds are not sources of doctrine that are separate from and independent of scripture. They are interpretations of scripture. It is like the decision of a court that resolves conflicting interpretations of a statute. The court's decision interprets the statute. The court, not individuals, is the body authorized to authortatively resolve the conflicts.

The creeds tell us what parts of scripture are the most important. Sometimes we hear that we should major on the majors and minor on the minors. The creeds tell us what the majors are.

You will notice that the Westminster standards strongly affirm sola scriptura. And, the standards also recognize the authority of creeds.

Consider this:

CHAPTER XXXI
Of Synods and Councils
I. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils: and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.
II. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.
III. All synods or councils, since the Apostles´ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

The proof texts rely heavily on Acts 15. Acts 15 should be your main text in dealing with your friends. When the early church has a doctrinal dispute, they did not just say "everybody get your scriptures and make up your own mind." They called the Jersusalem Council. The council issued an authoritative decision that local congregations were obligated to obey. Acts 16:4. If your friends are right, then the model of Acts 15 does not make any sense.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Scott]