Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
That makes a lot of sense. It can't be the bible but the Church. I agree. The question then is, which church? And that's the main issue here. A problem arises when what the Church says does not line up with what the bible says.
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
But can't you see that your assertion that individuals cannot correctly interpret Scripture, must mean that individuals can also correctly interpret Scripture? What you are saying is that any individual who reads Scripture by themself will
always come to the wrong interpretation. That's a 100% failure rate which is pretty high, and seems a bit unrealistic to me. The vast majority of passages in the bible were written not by highly qualified theologians but by simple men. So they aren't that hard to understand for most of us who have 12+ years of education.
I find it hard to believe that different interpretation of the bible is the reason for different denominations. Did different interpretations of the bible cause the Orthodox-Roman Catholic split? Did it cause the reformation? No, there were bigger issues at play here, like who was the leader, corruption, and things like these etc. It's well known that the Roman Catholic church has many different smaller beliefs and interpretations of views, ranging from female priests to homosexuality, creation and evolution. But this does not cause denominations within the Roman Catholic church. Otherwise the Roman Catholic church would have split up into smaller denominations long ago. It takes a lot to create a new denomination, and it is not often a result of an individual's different interpretation of the bible as you claim. I happily mix with other christians in my own denomination who each have different interpretations. But this does not mean we all want to or will start our own denomination.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)?
That is not really the situation. The situation is that there is only one Truth, but can anyone claim to fully understand all the truth 100% perfectly? No. Such a requirement is not even seen in university courses on science or math or anything. The teacher knows each student has different learning styles, some smarter than others, some will see things in a totally different light to another, some take years to learn something that to another might take a week. Or perhaps two look at the same issue from different sides. There is only one truth, but the problem here is your claim that the Roman Catholics are the only one with the truth. That is the real sticking point here. Not the method or manner in which a person arrives at the truth - whether that is via personal bible study, or being spoon fed from Roman Catholic authorities and being told to accept it as is.
For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible?
No we aren't. That's why many of us consult theologians, or other resources. That's why we belong to a larger church and learn from those who have gone before us. That's why we have bible studies. The idea is that many individuals learning from the same book will all eventually reach the right conclusion, and it's surprising how many of us do. For example, even though I have never met in person any of these folk in these forums, and we are in different countries, my beliefs are probably 98% the same as everyone elses on here who reads the bible for themself. The 2% is usually personal preference or opinion. So your suggestion that individuals can't never arrive at the same or right conclusion is unfounded.
Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office.
Which is a very strange doctrine. One minute the Pope is infallible if he is making some decision on doctrine, but he is allowed to say wrong things or do wrong things. I have never known a person, any person, to be infallible one minute, but fallible the next. That doesn't make sense to me. All humans are fallible, and if God somehow protects the Pope from making errors in doctrine, then God would also have stopped the mouth of every heretic long ago.
Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?"
We do all agree on the important points of Scripture. I'd say the variation between beliefs person to person in the Roman Catholic church is no different to the variation in protestant churches. Unless you want everyone to be in a cult and be brainwashed into believing the same thing?, everyone will come to different conclusions or interpretation. Whether that is interpretation in what the bible says, or what the priest says, or even what the Pope says.
When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy.
But you have to admit, that some passages are so simple to understand, that it is hard to get them wrong.
If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation?
You know as well as I do, that if you tried the same experiment with two Catholic christians, they would also have different views. I know because I often encounter different "types" of catholics if you like. In fact I doubt that many Catholics even know what's written in their bibles if they never read them. We often get Catholics come in who want us to take them through a course or study in the bible. They've read the Popes books lots of times, or their churches teachings, but as for the bible they don't know where to begin.
If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No."
Not necessarily. The different disciples of Christ had different views on who he was. Some doubted (eg Thomas) while others didn't.
Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Protestants have limits too on individual interpretation. No one is left to their own devices, I mean if you come up with a doctrine that is not in line with the protestant beliefs, you won't be considered to be true.
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
It would be easy to believe the claims about Sacred Apostolic Tradition if they all occurred while the apostles were still alive. The thing is, a lot of doctrines that are disputed between Protestants and Catholicism came in fairly late, after the apostles had passed on. By some round about way, the Catholic claims that the apostles had always believed these things, when it is simply not the case. Look at history and you see the various differnet beliefs about indulgences or purgatory for example, not evident at the time of the apostles, but coming in later and claimed to be by catholics (by some miracle of backwards time travel)
always practiced or believed by the apostles.
The problem is that the Catholic oral tradition is not consistent with the Scriptures. One would think that an organisations own sacred writings should support their own beliefs. In fact it doesn't. Not one case of any apostle praying to Mary, not one case of any apostle, not even the first pope Peter, granting indulgences, can be found in the Scripture. Given the importance placed upon these things by Catholics today, you would think there would be at least one reference to these in Scriptures, but there isn't.
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings.
But even though the bible was not "compiled" until then, the individual writings or books were well in circulation amongst the various churches at the time. The references by the early church fathers show this. So your claim that they did not use writings is unfounded.
Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."
In part I agree, sometimes people take verses too literally and misapply them.
Why do Fundamentalist Christians take certain books of the Bible very much literally such as Genesis (creationism vs. evolutionism), but then claim that the "whore of Babylon" in the Book of Revelation is actually the "Catholic Church?" Why would one book be taken so literally yet another not?
I don't know, the view of the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon is a long standing belief from the earliest protestant theologians etc. But who can blame them, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church at the time? The references to Rome, the greed, power and corruption in the church, not to mention the church-supported killing of innocents and even those who considered themselves true christians. Granted, protestants weren't innocent of blood either, but perhaps the lesson here was that any large, powerful organisation that did what they did, could be the Beast. When it is referred to as the whore of babylon, it doesn't mean those faithful within it, but the corrupt, power-hungry organisation which rules over them.
Did Jesus Christ write down any part of the New Testament with His own hand? No, He did not. If the Bible was to be the sole authority of the Church, shouldn't the Founder have written down His Own teachings? Shouldn't He have at least stated something similar to the following: "the written works of My disciples will be the authority upon which My Church is based?"
Didn't Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct His disciples to "write down" His teachings? No. With the possible exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles. In fact, only the Apostles Sts. Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the ONLY authority to be followed in the Christian religion?
Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).
I agree the scriptures was probably not the foundation of the Church. Then again scripture does say that it is useful for doctrine and resolving disputes. With that in mind, there should be some consistency between the Scriptures and what the Church teaches and practices. And that is the problem here - there isn't. There would be no problem I'm sure, if the Catholic Church's practice and teachings matched what the Scriptures say. For example, Jesus said not to call anyone "Father" on earth, there is only one Father in heaven. Yet the Pope is called the most Holy Father. Would the apostles who were taught by Christ to not call anyone Father, allow themselves to be called that? No I don't think they would. They would be too humble and know that there is only the Father in heaven to be reserved that title , especially a title that has "most holy" in it.
