Before this point gets buried:

Christians are expected to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. God did not send the angels to feed the babies; God sent us. In Matthew 25 Christ is very clear that "whosoever doeth (or doeth not) unto the least of these doeth (or doeth not) unto Me."

This is in addition to financial support of the church. We are to give of our substance to the home church in which we are being spiritually fed. God did not send the angels to spread the Gospel; God sent us. Scripture reminds us in Paul's letters, Malachi, and several other places that we should give to God what belongs to God, and also that the worker is worthy of the wages.

(This latter is actually a pretty useful guideline. If a church started pressuring its members to give more so that they can build bigger barns a bigger church, the guidelines about whether this is spiritually feeding the flock and spreading the Gospel will help clarify the true purpose of the purchase.)

"Earn all you can. Save* all you can. Give all you can."

*by "save," Wesley did not mean "get big bank." He was referring to "frugality and discipline: saving money by not wasting it."

I take prescience in another direction...that God foreknew in order to make Man in his image, it would cost him the death of Christ upon the cross that some men might find salvation from the inevitibililty of sin.

Have you been reading Barth lately? You're starting to sound neo-Orthodox here.

God hates the sin, not the sinner. If the two can be separated, God can and will provide the opportunity. However I don't believe, as many do, that God was walking through Eden one day when he saw his prized pets wearing clothes and tossing apple cores at one another, gasping, putting his hand over his heart, and saying, "WHAT IS ALL THIS??? I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'D DO SUCH A THING!!!" And then being so angry that if Jesus didn't die on the cross to make him feel avenged he'd wipe us all out like so many mice in the corn crib.

No indeed, God ordained that Adam and Eve would sin so that He would be able to send His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of His elect, of whom I am one, and (I hope) you also. Christ did indeed die to satisfy the righteous wrath of God--you may not like it, but that's the Gospel.

If you want a good picture of the Divine wrath and Divine Grace, I recommend Jonathan Edwards' sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. It is truly one of the classics of Puritan thought because it spells out the bad news--that we are deserving of the full wrath of God--and the good news--that Christ paid for it.

Before Dr. Ransom beats me to it, I'll post these lyrics from Calvinist rapper Shai Linne (who I heard perform just this past Friday).

So forever will I tell
In three hours, Christ suffered more than any sinner ever will in hell (4x)

(Chorus)

It’s where we see Your holiness- at the cross
We see that You’re controlling this- at the cross
We see how You feel about sin- at the cross
Your unfathomable love for men- at the cross
It’s where we see Your sovereignty- at the cross
We see our idolatry- at the cross
We know that there’s a judgment day- from the cross
May we never take our eyes away- from the cross

In practical terms, the final outcome of God predestining people and people acting and reacting in a series of steps God could accurately predict is practically the same. My rejection of predestination as a concept is that it blames God for the failure of some people to accept the free will gift of Christ.

No it doesn't. People choosing Hell is their own choice in line with their own natures. In a murder trial, one thing that has to be proved is a motive. Why? Because our legal system recognizes that murder comes from within and that we cannot be held responsible for actions that we did not desire.

How is God unjust to send people to Hell who deserve it and have chosen it freely?

But I believe in the end God gives people what they want...to those who love him an eternity with him, and to those who don't love him, an eternity without him. Which is...no humour intended...sheer hell.

No--the souls in Hell have God's presence with them, which is what is so tormenting on a spiritual level (adding to the physical torment).

Otherwise we have no agreement--I did choose God, because He chose me first. I love Him because He first loved me. I would not have called to Him unless He had been calling to me. I could not have chosen but for His miraculous work through the Holy Spirit.

The "Calvinist" only says: according to Scripture, man has a will, but his sin nature is stronger than that and will always result in the same choices toward rejection of God.

I think you've got it wrong. The will is the slave of the passions and as our nature, without regeneration, is depraved, we will choose accordingly.

TBG

Boy, there are a lot more posts that the last time I look – one whole page and at least part of the second. I’m going to try to get caught up on some of the topics.
Denominations:
The problem with denominations comes when people forget that they are “Christians” first and “fill in the blank second.” When someone asks you (the general you) about your religion that answer should first be “I’m Christian” not “I’m Lutheran / Catholic / Presbyterian, etc. (I just picked the first three that came to my mind).” Relations between different denominations have come a long way. As far as I know, they aren’t fighting [physical] wars any more. The situation in Germany after the Reformation (the anniversary of which is on Oct. 31) was horrible. Now look instead of fighting with each other Catholics and Lutherans are doing things together (at least in some places). In my town, a Catholic church and Lutheran Church used to do a music camp together in the summer. (they stopped because our music director left not over disagreements). Sometimes our town has a joint Good Friday service. I think the pastors of the different churches sometimes meet to talk. In another town a lived in, (a very small one) the churches took turns hosting Wednesday night services during Advent and Lent – I can’t remember for sure if all of the churches in town did it or just most. I know the Lutheran church, Catholic Church, and Methodist church did. The only other option was one or two Baptists churches.

Another example of a successful non-denominational church body in Intervarsity. IV tends to consider themselves interdenominational, but I see little difference between inter- and non-. IV is one of the largest organizations in the world that not denomination specific that I am aware of. And they are solid on thier Biblical foundations. ... And all the churches regardless of denomination MUST preach the Word. No church can thrive spiritually without a regular preaching and teaching from the Bible. If two churches that have no denominational relationship both preach the Bible, they can get along because they both serve the same God, same Jesus, same Spirit. So yes, doctrine is a cricital part of the solution for the lack of unity, but if anyone is truly following the Bible, they can look past the denomination's name and have a good, solid relationship with someone else.

I agree that it is important for churches to preach the Word and use the Bible as a foundation, but I don’t think it is as easy as it sounds. If we were to decide right now to do away with all denominations and all worship together and have the church preach the Word and be founded on the Bible to what extent could we do it? How would you (anybody not just FencerforJesus) make Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc. all feel welcome in your church? How far can we go to Biblically back up beliefs before we find topics that both sides feel they have Biblical support. Let’s try and see how far we can get.
Our new-include-everybody-church believes:
The statements in the Apostles’ Creed. (From what I can tell there is very little difference between the versions and Catholics and Protestants use it. Some different versions are listed here
(To be perfectly honest, I can’t go be on this. I know most Protestants believe we are “saved by grace through faith” however, I’m not sure where the Catholics stand on that. It is my understanding that in order to be forgiven they have to do what the priest tells them (ex. Say x-number “Hail Marys”) I’d be happy to hear opinions / additions / common believes).
(side note: I could be missing the point of “non denominational” / this discussion if that is so I’m sure someone will correct me ) Is the topic under discussion (or the one that was under discussion before it started off on other lines) more about “labeling” churches that have different beliefs or the issue that churches do have different beliefs? In other words, if we were going to do away with all denominations and start from scratch what would it look like? Do you (the general you) want one large Christian church with members that believe the new-include-everybody-church beliefs, or that each church (congregation decides what they believe), or do you want something along the lines of Full Communion:

One of the ecumenical goals the ELCA pursues is a model of ecumenism called "full communion." The ELCA takes seriously its call to act ecumenically for the sake of the world and not for itself alone. Unity does not mean that two churches merge; rather, in reaching consensus churches also respect difference. In this way, full communion is when two churches develop a relationship based on a common confessing of the Christian faith and a mutual recognition of baptism and sharing of the Lord’s Supper.

These denominations likewise jointly worship, may exchange clergy, and also share a commitment to evangelism, witness and service in the world. A central document to Lutherans is the Augsburg Confession. Article VII of the Augsburg Confession states that “the true unity of the church” is present where the Gospel is rightly preached and Sacraments rightly administered. The ELCA is committed to this model of full communion as an authentic expression of Christian unity. Currently, the ELCA shares full communion relationships with five churches. Click below and learn more about these vibrant relationships.
For the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the characteristics of full communion are theological and missiological implications of the Gospel that allow variety and flexibility. These characteristics stress that the church act ecumenically for the sake of the world, not for itself alone. They will include at least the following, some of which exist at earlier stages:
• a common confessing of the Christian faith;
• a mutual recognition of Baptism and a sharing of the Lord's Supper, allowing for joint worship and an exchangeability of members;
• a mutual recognition and availability of ordained ministers to the service of all members of churches in full communion, subject only but always to the disciplinary regulations of other churches;
• a common commitment to evangelism, witness, and service;
• a means of common decision making on critical common issues of faith and life;
• a mutual lifting of any condemnations that exist between churches
We hold this definition and description of full communion to be consistent with Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, which says, "For the true unity of the church it is enough to agree concerning the teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments." Agreement in the Gospel can be reached and stated without adopting Lutheran confessional formulations as such. It allows for flexible, situation-oriented decisions about order and decision making structures. It does not demand organic union, though it does not rule it out. This definition is also in agreement with the understanding of unity adopted by the Seventh Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation in 1984, "The Unity We Seek" (quoted under the Lutheran World Federation section of this statement). The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America seeks to be faithful to its scriptural and confessional foundations. As a confessional church that is evangelical, catholic and ecumenical, this church will pursue the goal of full communion and will rejoice in all movement toward that goal.

Sorry about the length of that quote, but I wasn’t sure how to cut it down.
Fencer, I know that Intervarsity is successful but how do they do it? Do they have to side step and ignore certain issues? I went to a couple of Intervarsity meetings(?) (I’m not sure what the correct word is) when I was in college but that is about the extent of my knowledge. Do they ever do services with communion? Do they have pastors?
Tithing: I read an article a Brio about offering. The gist (as I remember it) was that you (general you throughout) should give 10 percent to the church and if you want to give to charities (even religious ones) that should be above that ten percent. Personally, I believe that you should give ten percent to the church you are attending. Many churches really are struggling financially. If you don’t care enough about your church and the work it is doing for God to support it financially, they find one you are willing to support. If there is a certain project you don’t want to support than don’t give to that project (I think many churches use offering envelopes that allow you to designate what you give to). It’s great if you want to support missionaries, help fight hunger, give supplies to people who have lost all they had, but what are you going to do when the church you are going to has to cut program, reduce staff, or close because no one is supporting it? (I hope I didn’t come across too strongly. It is one of my pet peeves when people don’t support their church / tithe.)

P.S. I apologize if my post doesn't make sense in part or in entirety. I wanted to post it before the discussion had completely passed the topics it addresses so I didn't have time to proof it. I spent the morning with children who were continually misbehaving so my brain is a little fried.

Tithing: I read an article in Brio about offering. The gist (as I remember it) was that you (general you throughout) should give 10 percent to the church and if you want to give to charities (even religious ones) that should be above that ten percent. Personally, I believe that you should give ten percent to the church you are attending. Many churches really are struggling financially. If you don’t care enough about your church and the work it is doing for God to support it financially, they find one you are willing to support. If there is a certain project you don’t want to support than don’t give to that project (I think many churches use offering envelopes that allow you to designate what you give to). It’s great if you want to support missionaries, help fight hunger, give supplies to people who have lost all they had, but what are you going to do when the church you are going to has to cut program, reduce staff, or close because no one is supporting it?

I agree in some ways. I personally try to give 10% to a local church, if I like the church. I won't monetarily support a church I have doctrinal/other issues with, even if I'm willing to attend [because I don't have a choice]. I'd rather be in church as not. In the past, though, I gave 15-20% to various Christian ministries, which sometimes included a local church. And I'm a bit picky about the ministries I give to. They have to be Christian, and not just in name only. They have to provide for people's spiritual needs, whether or not the recipients are Christians. If they also provide for people's physical needs, great! But I won't give to a so-called Christian ministry that provides only for people's physical needs. God convicted me this year about this particular point.

I think you've got it wrong. The will is the slave of the passions and as our nature, without regeneration, is depraved, we will choose accordingly.

I disagree. What is the seat of the passions? The heart. It directs what we choose with our eyes and ears, what we long for. But I learned recently that the will directs the heart, if that makes sense.

To love God with all our heart we must first of all will to do so. We should repent our lack of love and determine from this moment on to make God the object of our devotion. We shall soon find to our great delight that our feelings are beginning to move in the direction of the "willed tendency of the heart." Our emotions will become disciplined and directed. We shall begin to taste the "piercing sweetness" of the love of Christ. The whole life, like a delicate instrument, will be tuned to sing the praises of Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood. But first of all we must will, for the will is master of the heart.

CHURCH / WORSHIP
Where should we worship? In the Old Testament, it was a building. First the tabernacle, then the temple. In the New Testament, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well,

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

Worship doesn't have to take place in a building anymore. And the church isn't a building. It's people. At the same time, I believe in the local church. I love church! Isn't that what's going on in Acts-Jude? But then look at Revelation. Angels and people are worshipping God around the throne 24/7. There's no more local church. It's not necessary [at least not after Rev 3 ]. The church is basically people coming together to worship Jesus. It's spiritual unity. Isn't this what Jesus prayed for in Gethsemane?

that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

People can "have church" [worship, prayer, Bible study, etc] in their homes. And in many places they do. China is full of underground "house churches." The church, the body of believers, exists to point people to Jesus and worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Acts 2 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Acts 7 “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He appointed, instructing Moses to make it according to the pattern that he had seen, which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, who found favor before God and asked to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built Him a house. “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, Or what is the place of My rest? Has My hand not made all these things?'"

Hebrews 10 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

When it comes to John Calvin, I don't see him in the usual demonized caricature drawn by his detractors of a grim unfeeling man who paints a grim unfeeling God in his image. Indeed he felt his portrayal of God as determined to save some (rather than none) was one of astonishing largesse toward undeserving people.

Yet I am also one who tempers the admiration some people hold for this man with the memory of things he did that truly were grim. The honorable moderator Elwin R granted me the love of Christ even where we might agree to disagree. Calvin, had I lived in Geneva, would have put me to death without batting an eye. I know this because he did it several times to people who did not dot their i or cross their t.

I accept the Nicene Creed and hold the Bible to be the measure both of faith and of practice. While I may interpret it a bit differently, it is not in an attempt to have an a-la-carte Christianity or to make it compatible with another religion or philosophy of my choosing. I am not trying to make Christianity too simple or too easy. And lest people think that I am stumbling about in the darkness because I didn't read Book X, Chapter Y, Verse Z, I point out my refraining from picking at New Testament references that trouble Calvinists. I do not do so because winning this arguement (vs. contributing to this discussion) is not my desire.

Behind every denominational movement are legitimate grievances. Many schisms in the history of the Church might have been avoided had either latitude been granted or a fuller attempt to address grievances been made. I'm not asking you to be Methodist, but neither am I asking you to see the Methodist movement as some sort of disease of the body of Christ. Denominations are what people do when the established authorities do not listen. That is why I listen to you and appreciate it when you listen to me, not as a patient who needs treetment but as a fellow believer.

That being said, I'm retiring from this thread to handle some writing issues. I've said my piece and will answer any PMs you send me that are not couched in the form of a doctor performing a diagnosis. The love, grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you and among you.

John

Calvin, had I lived in Geneva, would have put me to death without batting an eye. I know this because he did it several times to people who did not dot their i or cross their t.

Actually, this is a huge historical error. During Calvin's time in Geneva there was only one--that's right, one--execution for a religious crime: Michael Servetus. Calvin himself actually had little to do with it. He was called as an expert witness by the prosecution and petitioned with other church leaders for a more humane execution than the stake.

The fact is, that any other city in Europe would have executed Servetus as well. The council of Geneva actually consulted with other states and received a unanimous approval of the action before burning Servetus. We cannot hold Calvin alone responsible for the simple reason that his involvement was small (in fact, he wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at the time).

I disagree. What is the seat of the passions? The heart. It directs what we choose with our eyes and ears, what we long for. But I learned recently that the will directs the heart, if that makes sense.

It doesn't make sense. The will is that which decides things--if your decision is rational, and therefore responsible, it means that you have decided based on rational criteria (I'm using rational loosely here).

For example, I cannot simply will myself to like certain foods or to desire certain things. Why would I do so? There is no answer to that questions.

Here is the dilemma--either our willful actions are preconditioned by our desires, or they are not rational.

TBG

Just another quote tangentially related to the topic.

...many adopted with readiness a distinction of human ability into natural and moral. By the first they understood merely the possession of physical powers and opportunities; by the latter, a mind rightly disposed. In accordance with this distinction, it was taught that every man possessed a natural ability to do all that God required of him; but that every sinner laboured under a moral inability to obey God, which, however, could not be pleaded in excuse for his disobedience, as it consisted in corrupt dispositions of the heart, for which every man was responsible. Now this view of the subject is substantially correct, and the distinction has always been made by every person, in his judgments of his own conduct and that of others. It is recognized in all courts of justice, and in all family government, and is by no means a modern discovery. And yet it is remarkable that it is a distinction so seldom referred to, or brought distinctly into view, by old Calvinistic authors. The first writer among English theologians that we have observed using this distinction explicitly, is the celebrated Dr. Twisse, the prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and the able opposer of Arminianism, and advocate of the Supralapsarian doctrine of divine decrees. It was also resorted to by the celebrated Mr. Howe, and long afterwards used freely by Dr. Isaac Watts, the popularity of whose evangelical writings probably had much influence in giving it currency. It is also found in the theological writings of Dr. Witherspoon, and many others, whose orthodoxy was never disputed. But in this country no man has had so great an influence in fixing the language of theology, as Jonathan Edwards, president of New Jersey College. In his work on "The Freedom of the Will," this distinction holds a prominent place, and is very important to the argument which this profound writer has so ably discussed in that treatise. The general use of the distinction between natural and moral ability may, therefore, be ascribed to the writings of President Edwards, both in Europe and America. No distinguished writer on theology has made more use of it than Dr. Andrew Fuller; and it is well known that he imbibed nearly all his views of theology from an acquaintance with the writings of President Edwards. And it may be said truly, that Jonathan Edwards has done more to give complexion to the theological system of Calvinists in America, than all other persons together. This is more especially true of New England; but it is also true to a great extent in regard to a large number of the present ministers of the Presbyterian church. Those, indeed, wo were accustomed either ot the Scotch or Dutch writers, did not adopt this distinction, but were jealous of it as an innovation, and as tending to diminish, in their view, the miserable and sinful state of man, and as derogatory to the grace of God. But we have remarked, that in almost all cases where the distinction has been opposed as false, or as tending to the introduction of false doctrine, it has been misrepresented. The true ground of the distinction has not been clearly apprehended; and those who deny it have been found making it themselves in other words; for that an inability depending on physical defect, should be distinguished from that which arises from a wicked disposition, or perverseness of will, is a thing which no one can deny who attends to the clear dictates of his own mind; for it is a self-evident truth, which even children recognize in all their apologies for their conduct.

TBG and persp: I'm still working on the "will" [when I'm not working on other things]. But thanks for the quote, persp.

The conversation in this thread over the past few months made me think of these quotes. Your thoughts?

The Bible is right and everybody else is wrong.

God has not revealed his truth in a system: the Bible has no system as such. Lay aside system and flee to the Bible. . . . Be Bible Christians and not system Christians.

What is the context of the quote? Taken alone, it's quite dangerous. What qualifies as a "system"? Language, culture, and logic are all systems. When we read the Bible we have to try and understand it in order to apply it--which involves doing hermeneutics.

All that a "system" here is, really, is an attempt to provide a framework for understanding what the Bible means.

TBG

TBG: I have no problems with systematic theology. But I prefer the biblical kind, i.e. what the Bible says about X doctrine or concept, not what others say. I'm not interested in Bible criticism/commentary so much. I start by reading a Bible passage, then see what others say about it. So I thought Simeon meant by "system" the practice of following a specific writer, preacher, doctrine, or denomination -- to the detriment of learning what others in those categories say about _ [fill in the blank], or even what God says. We must start with what God says in His Word. We must not start with what man says about God's Word.

Well, those are my thoughts.

The only difficulty that you run into when looking at Scripture is the interpretaton as you noted. I could give a Bible to 20 different people and they would come up with many interpretations. Now they would probably have a great deal in common, but they couldn't all be compatible. How are we to know who is right when everyone is arguing from Scripture?

This is why when looking at Scripture you need an authoritative interpreter...the Church "...which is the pillar and foundation of truth."

JBC

Agreed, JBC.

To continue on that subject, the Church can interpret the Bible because the Bible is not the authority, but a source of truth which can be misconstrued without guidance.

If the Bible is the only authority for faith, why didn't Jesus command everyone to learn how to read?
On a more serious note, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found nowhere in the Bible. However, there are several passages to suggest that Scripture is not the only source of faith.
1 Cor 11:2- Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
^ Tradition is the other source.

Plus, how do you know which contents of the Bible were inspired and which were not? The Catholic Church drew up the original canon, which every other church has largely inherited.

I have no problems with systematic theology. But I prefer the biblical kind, i.e. what the Bible says about X doctrine or concept, not what others say. I'm not interested in Bible criticism/commentary so much. I start by reading a Bible passage, then see what others say about it. So I thought Simeon meant by "system" the practice of following a specific writer, preacher, doctrine, or denomination -- to the detriment of learning what others in those categories say about _ [fill in the blank], or even what God says. We must start with what God says in His Word. We must not start with what man says about God's Word.

I think this came up earlier, but whether it did or not, in these conversations someone will, sooner or later, appeal to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. "The Holy Spirit is what keeps me from error!" they crow. "I don't need denominations or teachers!" (Not saying this is what you're doing.)

Well, aside from the fact that the Bible tells us some will be teachers, I guess that'd be fine. And going back to the word of God is certainly good. But we should be careful not to denigrate denominations just for the sake of it. There's nothing wrong with systematic theology or reading and seriously contemplating the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Aquinas, Gregory Palamas, or your aunt Sue. Not everyone is guided by the Holy Spirit 100% infallibly. The Holy Spirit does not (as far as I know) regularly teach people to understand Greek and Hebrew. Perhaps the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth more subtly? Anyway, some great men have teased some great truths out of Scripture, and we do ourselves a disservice by ignoring them completely. Now, can people lean too much on a church or a specific teacher? Absolutely. And that does happen. But I think, especially in America, the opposite error is more likely. Radical individualism abounds.

The only difficulty that you run into when looking at Scripture is the interpretaton as you noted. I could give a Bible to 20 different people and they would come up with many interpretations. Now they would probably have a great deal in common, but they couldn't all be compatible. How are we to know who is right when everyone is arguing from Scripture?

Wow. This feels so strangely familiar...

A fair argument, but a non-unique one. The same applies to your own (presumably Roman Catholic?) viewpoint. There is no way to infallibly know which Church is the true Church; for that matter, there is no way to infallibly know that any Church is true. One must rely on ones own discernment and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

This is why when looking at Scripture you need an authoritative interpreter...the Church "...which is the pillar and foundation of truth."

Well, at the risk of straining a metaphor, a pillar does not interpret or arbitrate or clarify anything. A pillar holds things up. The Church presents the truth, but it is not the Church's job to interpret it.

To continue on that subject, the Church can interpret the Bible because the Bible is not the authority, but a source of truth which can be misconstrued without guidance.

If the Bible is the only authority for faith, why didn't Jesus command everyone to learn how to read?

As you point out later in this post, they did not have any infallible canon of Scripture to rely on, and in any case no one argues that the Person of Christ is less important than the Scriptures. There is no need to appeal to the story when you're seeing it unspool before your eyes.

On a more serious note, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found nowhere in the Bible. However, there are several passages to suggest that Scripture is not the only source of faith.
1 Cor 11:2- Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
^ Tradition is the other source.

I would agree that St. Paul is pretty trustworthy, but it is a leap from there to the infallibility of the Church, or the necessity of tradition, or whatever.

Note also context:

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head