Jesus told his disciples, "If you remain in my word you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8: 31-32). Do you know the truth? All too often we are like the Ethiopian who when asked by the disciple Philip if he understood the passage he was reading in Isaiah, replied, "How can I unless some one guides me" (Acts 8: 17).
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)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. 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?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. 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? 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." 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.
Infallibility is pretty much a uniquely Catholic claim. Individuals making claim of it are generally trying to sell something, usually a magic prayer cloth or some such with vague promises of financial or health miracles in exchange for cash.
If you were to put people of many different Christian faiths in separate rooms and asked them to write down the three (for example) most important principles of Christianity, I’d venture a guess that the result would be pretty common agreement, and in aggregate a fair representation of “the truth”.
First, Pasting such portions of an article (http://www.catholic-defense.com/bible.htm) without attribution is plagiarism, but you should return what you borrowed as damaged goods.
And despite the polemical assertion, the answers to that question is Yes: “The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers ; http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp
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? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes."
Invalid. Even the 1st century church did not have comprehensive doctrinal unity, while there is much disagreement in Catholicism about what the Bible teaches, as Rome has only "infallibly" interpreted a few verses at best, while unity in core essentials is evidenced among classic evangelical commentaries (which are far more extensive than in Rome), and as said, evangelicals testify to greater unity in moral views and basic truths than Catholics, which reveals what Catholicism really is teaching. .
For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible?
Not so, as unlike the presumption of Rome, under SS no individual can claim assured infallibility, but instead the veracity of teaching is dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. And which is how the church established its truth claims, not under the unScriptural premise of perpetual assured infallibility as per Rome. "..by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2Cor. 4:2)
Moreover, it is in Roman Catholicism that sola individualitica (if there is such a word) is a reality, as the pope is supreme over councils, and supremely decides what is consistent with the past.
In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
True, unlike the Bereans but like cults, RCs are not to objectively search the Scriptures to see if what it taught is true, and while they engage in debate using the Bible as if they were reasonable souls open to be persuaded, and as if the weight of Scriptural warrant was a necessity for their doctrine and assurance, the reality is that it is not, and that they cannot allow even as a possibility that their church could be wrong, for she has infallibly declared herself to be infallible. At least as regarding higher levels of the magisterium, which level the RC may often have to discern, and its meaning to some degree.
I have a bad cold so i am late in responding. Hope you do not get it.