check out this anti catholic blog

[TriuneUnity]

I know this can be a bit difficult, but this is a bad first paragraph, but looking better in the second. You pretty much provided possibilities and theory instead of hard responses. We can work with this, though.

Are you trying to say that Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient? The materially sufficient scriptures are infallible, but need an infallible interpreter to render them correctly so that they are not twisted, but are rendered with the meaning(s) intended.

It is materially sufficient in as much that it must be taught and obviously doesn’t preach itself nor are we to hand them to people and expect them to figure it out on their own.

Your second statement doesn’t follow, however. Where is it written that Scripture must have an infallible interpreter to be understood? Is this the approach we take with any other written document? Can you interpret anything without an infallible interpreter? Scripture is not coded or written in mystical mumbo jumbo. Most of it is quite plain and those areas that are difficult to understand can be explained with other clearer passages of Scripture.

My question had focused on authority and properly interpreting Scripture. What I was getting at is how do you know the interpretation of Scripture you use, is the same as the inspired author?

Through the means we use to interpret it. Rules of grammar, historical and narrative context, the interpretation of the church down through the ages, etc.

**Is the Lutheran church an infallible interpreter of Scripture? ** **Furthermore, is Lutheran doctrine infallible? **

The Lutheran Confessions are an inerrant interpretation of Scripture. One does not have to be infallible in order to be inerrant.

Can every church provide correct interpretation?

If not, then which church can?

No and ours Though most churches agree on the many of the basics of the faith; those that are in serious error elsewhere have to be taken on a case by case basis.

 

[MDK]

MDK;4097682:

I was hoping you didn’t dodge my question, but you pretty much did. Very disappointed in you. I would appreciate a simple answer, if you would kindly provide such. Does your silence tacitly imply that you see a problem with your interpretation of Paul as you provided?

My interpretation of Paul is that those who are with Christ are physically dead, but are with Christ and so are spiritually alive. I didn’t offer anything different than that. I don’t see how that was a dodge.

I like you, and have enjoyed discussing with you. I know well what your interpretation of Paul was, and that’s not at all the question. What I questioned was that you have continued to avoid rectifying Paul with Matthew, Mark, Luke as I have presented needing rectification. Your interpretation of Paul in this case is not free of conflict with the Gospels.

And that is all I described as well. What verses are you addressing in those three gospels?

Here they are:

I still think there needs to be resolution of your interpretation of Paul with the other inspired authors Matthew, Mark and Luke.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Paul is speaking of the end times, where the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia. So therefore, Paul is speaking of those who have died physically, but will have their body resurrected. Their soul may already be in Heaven, but is certainly alive… as affirmed by Matthew22:32, Mark12:27 and Luke 20:38 which all say that God is the God of the living not the dead.

To expand the context a little, as Jesus was rebutting the Sadducees who said there was no resurrection, Mark 12:26-27: “26 And as concerning the dead that they rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.”

Are the spirits not alive in heaven and aware of what is going on? Let’s please go back to Luke, this time in Luke 15:7-10: “7 **I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance. **8 Or what woman having ten groats; if she lose one groat, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find it? 9 And when she hath found it, call together her friends and neighbours, saying: Rejoice with me, because I have found the groat which I had lost. 10 So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.”

Before the Resurrection, the physical body may be dead, and the spirit is alive. The spirits in heaven are aware of what we do on earth. The living saints on earth and in heaven are quite simply one family in Christ.

They spoke with Him. Besides, we don’t know exactly what happened there. In any event, they didn’t speak with the disciples nor intercede with them so it is not relevant to the topic.

Let’s not be so hasty. We can’t just ignore truth, because the entire case is not laid out in this statement. The truth we desire to keep is that Moses and Elijah are alive spiritually, and were visibly interacting with Christ while Christ was in human form. This can’t be discarded, would you agree?

Scripture never suggests that contact between the living and the dead is possible.

I’m not willing to go with your statement in its present form above, but let’s please not throw out the truth here. We need to appreciate truth, as we work toward greater understanding. We can’t throw out the truthful statements and the expect to have something to build upon.

My statement and question was “I don’t believe God has taught that they are dead to the world until the resurrection. Where has our Lord taught this?”

Would you agree that “God did not teach that they are dead to the world until the resurrection”?

 

[MDK]

It is materially sufficient in as much that it must be taught and obviously doesn’t preach itself nor are we to hand them to people and expect them to figure it out on their own.

Your second statement doesn’t follow, however. Where is it written that Scripture must have an infallible interpreter to be understood? Is this the approach we take with any other written document? Can you interpret anything without an infallible interpreter? Scripture is not coded or written in mystical mumbo jumbo. Most of it is quite plain and those areas that are difficult to understand can be explained with other clearer passages of Scripture.

Triune, you looked so promising on the first paragraph, then contradicted your first paragraph with your second one.

In your second paragraph, you’re acting like the Bible is formally sufficient, in that it reads like any legal brief or newspaper article. This is absolutely not true. What you’re espousing here is formal sufficiency of Scriptures. This is not at all true. Nowhere is it expressly written or even implied that Scripture is easy or formally sufficient.

The Bible can be made clearer with other passages, and I’m trying to get you to do just that with Paul and the three Gospels… let’s work together on this.

God provides an infallible teacher as the Holy Spirit reveals in 1 Tim 3:15.

Through the means we use to interpret it. Rules of grammar, historical and narrative context, the interpretation of the church down through the ages, etc.

That’s not authority, and this is absolutely no guarantee, unless you’re speaking of Catholic oral Tradition, which is a big part of it! Nevertheless, there’s no expressed authority you present. Otherwise, why are there many different Protestant interpretations? Let’s please go to the original question, which is focused on “authority and properly interpreting Scripture. What I was getting at is how do you know the interpretation of Scripture you use, is the same as the inspired author?”

The Lutheran Confessions are an inerrant interpretation of Scripture. One does not have to be infallible in order to be inerrant.

Not true in the first sentence. If it’s not too much trouble, I’d appreciate reading how and why you would claim this.

No and ours Though most churches agree on the many of the basics of the faith; those that are in serious error elsewhere have to be taken on a case by case basis.

I appreciate humor, but let’s please be serious, as this is a serious matter. How do you come around to claim something like this? I can give you multiple reasons why it’s not accurate.

 

[TriuneUnity]

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Paul is speaking of the end times, where the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia. So therefore, Paul is speaking of those who have died physically, but will have their body resurrected. Their soul may already be in Heaven, but is certainly alive… as affirmed by Matthew22:32, Mark12:27 and Luke 20:38 which all say that God is the God of the living not the dead.

No problem here.

To expand the context a little, as Jesus was rebutting the Sadducees who said there was no resurrection, Mark 12:26-27: “26 And as concerning the dead that they rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.”

And the context for this is that their bodies will rise again. Thus, God is the God of the living not of those who will be physically dead for an eternity. Is this speaking of a current state or their future state in glorified bodies?

Are the spirits not alive in heaven and aware of what is going on? Let’s please go back to Luke, this time in Luke 15:7-10: “7 I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance. 8 Or what woman having ten groats; if she lose one groat, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find it? 9 And when she hath found it, call together her friends and neighbours, saying: Rejoice with me, because I have found the groat which I had lost. 10 So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.”

Do we interpret this literalistically and assume that everytime a sinner repents the souls in heaven are watching down through a heavenly window and rejoicing? It may make for a great Rennaisance painting but drawing dogmatic definition on the status of the saints in heaven is a stretch. It could be very easily interpreted to mean the joy of God Himself given it’s in the context of a parable and the prodigal son follows.

Let’s not be so hasty. We can’t just ignore truth, because the entire case is not laid out in this statement. The truth we desire to keep is that Moses and Elijah are alive spiritually, and were visibly interacting with Christ while Christ was in human form. This can’t be discarded, would you agree?

Christ is still in human form and is interacting with the Church Triumphant in a way that we cannot. The passage is meant to show that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Not to teach us about communication with the dead or to let us know what state they are in.

Would you agree that “God did not teach that they are dead to the world until the resurrection”?

Only if a positive statement can be shown to support such an opinion.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune, you looked so promising on the first paragraph, then contradicted your first paragraph with your second one.

In your second paragraph, you’re acting like the Bible is formally sufficient, in that it reads like any legal brief or newspaper article. This is absolutely not true. What you’re espousing here is formal sufficiency of Scriptures. This is not at all true. Nowhere is it expressly written or even implied that Scripture is easy or formally sufficient.

How much of Scripture is absolutely impossible to understand without the assistance of an infallible interpreter? If what you’re positing is true about the Scriptures not being clear enough to understand without infallible interpretation then how has Rome at all helped to do this? How many passages of Scripture has Rome infallibly defined?

The Bible can be made clearer with other passages, and I’m trying to get you to do just that with Paul and the three Gospels… let’s work together on this.

Why should I trust what you say about Paul and the three verses from the Gospels? Has Rome infallibly defined these passages?

God provides an infallible teacher as the Holy Spirit reveals in 1 Tim 3:15.

Are you saying Rome has infallibly defined 1 Tim. 3:15 to teach that the Church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture? I would say it simply means the Church upholds the Gospel by her preaching, teaching, and sacramental witness to the faith. It says nothing about interpretation.

That’s not authority, and this is absolutely no guarantee, unless you’re speaking of Catholic oral Tradition, which is a big part of it! Nevertheless, there’s no expressed authority you present. Otherwise, why are there many different Protestant interpretations?

I did express the authority of our Confessions as an inerrant authority.

The supposed voluminous amounts of interpretation prove nothing about the character of Scripture. That shows more about the reader. A technical manual may be misinterpreted in any number of points by the reader and still be a perfectly true document.

Let’s please go to the original question, which is focused on “authority and properly interpreting Scripture. What I was getting at is how do you know the interpretation of Scripture you use, is the same as the inspired author?”

With the same confidence that I can have about the methods and ways of interpreting any other document.

I appreciate humor, but let’s please be serious, as this is a serious matter. How do you come around to claim something like this? I can give you multiple reasons why it’s not accurate.

It wasn’t intended to be humorous. Obviously, I feel our church is correct about it’s interpretations of Scripture. Other churches teaches must be taken on a case by case basis.

 

[mercygate]

I guess you are unwilling to ask Catholic Answers to verify that more Catholics leave Rome for Protestant Communities than the other way around. I read that fact in a book about Protestants who become Roman Catholics. I still don’t understand why many Roman Catholics rather go through Mary than Jesus Christ for intecessory prayer. I also notice that many Roman Catholics rather go through a Catholic Saint than through Jesus Christ for intercessory prayer. And you have consistently proclaimed the Roman Catholic institution as compared to Jesus Christ. Please think for a second, why do you consider yourself to be Catholic first, and Christian second? What we are battling over is our religious affections. Why don’t you ever talk about the person and work of Jesus Christ my friend?

Since there are more Catholics than non-Catholic Christians by FAR, it stands to reasons that more leave the Catholic Church than join her. However, as one Protestant pastor quipped to the Catholic Pastor up the road: “How is it that we send you all our cream but you send us all your vinegar?”

 

[mercygate]

adstrinity was joking around. It is dangerous to read everything at its most literal level.

Yeah. But it shows a great example of what fundamentalist biblical literalism can accomplish all by itself.

 

[adstrinity]

Since there are more Catholics than non-Catholic Christians by FAR, it stands to reasons that more leave the Catholic Church than join her. However, as one Protestant pastor quipped to the Catholic Pastor up the road: “How is it that we send you all our cream but you send us all your vinegar?”

It is good you cleared this up for people still interested, but, I think Reformed is long gone from this thread. Hopefully Reformed is still reading it, though.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Since there are more Catholics than non-Catholic Christians by FAR, it stands to reasons that more leave the Catholic Church than join her. However, as one Protestant pastor quipped to the Catholic Pastor up the road: “How is it that we send you all our cream but you send us all your vinegar?”

haha…actually, what I think is interesting is that Rome and neo-evangelicalism are bosom buddies. Rome is great at making its members neo-evangelical bitter ex-Catholics, and neo-evangelicalism is great at making its members Catholic bitter ex-evangelicals.

Come to Wittenberg, ve haf strudle.

 

[PerryJ]

I think this thread about Justin is the most significant thread on this Forum site. There are many throughout redemptive history with the same testimony as Justin. I believe Justin is just trying to share the truth in love, having a heart for Roman Catholic Christians. BTW… you will always see movement with professing Christians moving from Protestant communities to Roman Catholic communities, and Roman Catholics moving to Protestant communities. I’m not sure if Rome will call people leaving Rome for a Protestant community to be false prophets. There are always more Christians leaving Roman Catholic communities for Protestant communities.

Wrong, read the lastest PEW report. Catholicism is very strong and continues to grow.

 

[Reformed]

Wrong, read the lastest PEW report. Catholicism is very strong and continues to grow.

God always has His remnant saved by grace in spite of religious institutions. Please see Romans 11. I believe Justin is one of God’s remnant according to his testimony.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God always has His remnant saved by grace in spite of religious institutions. Please see Romans 11. I believe Justin is one of God’s remnant according to his testimony.

Your response has nothing to do with what PerryJ said.

He was saying the pewreport shows the Catholic Church is strong and continues to grow, which I assume was in response to your evidence of, find and ask a CAF official who told you otherwise.

There are many posts, in this thread alone, you fail to respond too.

 

[PerryJ]

My interpretation of Paul is that those who are with Christ are physically dead, but are with Christ and so are spiritually alive. I didn’t offer anything different than that. I don’t see how that was a dodge.

And that is all I described as well. What verses are you addressing in those three gospels?

They spoke with Him. Besides, we don’t know exactly what happened there. In any event, they didn’t speak with the disciples nor intercede with them so it is not relevant to the topic.

Scripture never suggests that contact between the living and the dead is possible.

These verses show that the dead are active in our life.

Shows that angels and saints are witnesses to our individual activities Luke 15: 7 “I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.”

Shows that the saint and angel are witnesses and are cheering us forward. Heb 12:1 “And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us”

Death does not separate the family of God Rom 8: 38, 39 “For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”

 

[Reformed]

Your response has nothing to do with what PerryJ said.

He was saying the pewreport shows the Catholic Church is strong and continues to grow, which I assume was in response to your evidence of, find and ask a CAF official who told you otherwise.

There are many posts, in this thread alone, you fail to respond too.

My response has everything to do with what Perry wrote. You may not understand it though.

 

[MrS]

Originally Posted by Reformed forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I think this thread about Justin is the most significant thread on this Forum site. There are many throughout redemptive history with the same testimony as Justin. I believe Justin is just trying to share the truth in love, having a heart for Roman Catholic Christians. BTW… you will always see movement with professing Christians moving from Protestant communities to Roman Catholic communities, and Roman Catholics moving to Protestant communities. I’m not sure if Rome will call people leaving Rome for a Protestant community to be false prophets. There are always more Christians leaving Roman Catholic communities for Protestant communities.

Originally Posted by Reformed forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The windl blows… and so does the Spirit of God (John 3). I am not anti-Catholic but pro Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is sufficient and superior. The unsearchable riches are found in Christ alone.

Reformed…

You cannot be both pro-Jesus, and anti-His Church.

You cannot be both pro-Jesus, and reject John 6 in favor of any symbolism.

You cannot be both pro-Jesus, and deny infant baptism, the sacraments, the teaching authority of His Church,… etc etc etc.

Get off your high horse, and start answering some of the rather direct and simple questions that you avoid.

and what do you mean… unsearchable??

.

 

[PerryJ]

My response has everything to do with what Perry wrote. You may not understand it though.

I believe you stated in the last line that more people were leaving the Catholic Faith to become Protestant. That is inaccurate.

I do not mind people charging the Catholic Faith in areas of weakness as we have many. I am surprised that people feel it is necessary to attack our faith without anything more than a personal opinion not based upon facts. The RCC continues to grow and is the leading religious faith in the world. It is also the faith that does more charitible work than any other. Many such as the Lutherans are to be commended and are leaders in this area; however, none exceed the Catholics or come even close. Put the questions that you put to Catholics to your own religious faith. Do not take the accomplishemnt of all Protestant groups. Take your faiths individual accomplishments. Pope Pius saved hundreds of thousand of Jews during World War II. How many did your faith save? We created the first orphanges. How many orphanges do you now run to save peoples lives? How many people have you treated for aids last year? It is easy to attack a faith on myths. Compare your accomplishments to the Catholic Church. Yours will not be close. Now charge us with what you want; but, ask your faith the same questions we are asked. Also charge us with truths. People within our Church do fail; however, most of the attacks on this forum are based upon myths. Have you given the Lord self sacrifing love? That is what we believe. We sacrifice for our Lord not because he demands it. It is because we love him enough to do it. We sacrifice for others.

 

[Reformed]

Originally Posted by Reformed forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I think this thread about Justin is the most significant thread on this Forum site. There are many throughout redemptive history with the same testimony as Justin. I believe Justin is just trying to share the truth in love, having a heart for Roman Catholic Christians. BTW… you will always see movement with professing Christians moving from Protestant communities to Roman Catholic communities, and Roman Catholics moving to Protestant communities. I’m not sure if Rome will call people leaving Rome for a Protestant community to be false prophets. There are always more Christians leaving Roman Catholic communities for Protestant communities.

Originally Posted by Reformed forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The windl blows… and so does the Spirit of God (John 3). I am not anti-Catholic but pro Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is sufficient and superior. The unsearchable riches are found in Christ alone.

Reformed…

You cannot be both pro-Jesus, and anti-His Church.

You cannot be both pro-Jesus, and reject John 6 in favor of any symbolism.

You cannot be both pro-Jesus, and deny infant baptism, the sacraments, the teaching authority of His Church,… etc etc etc.

Get off your high horse, and start answering some of the rather direct and simple questions that you avoid.

and what do you mean… unsearchable??

.

Jesus is the head, and regenerate Christians are His body. I am not ant-church because His church consists of all regenerate Christians that are in vital union with Him. The true church of Jesus Christ has been chosen before the foundation of the world and has nothing to do with denominations such as Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. The unserchable riches of Christ is how the Apostle Paul describes the benefits of being united to Christ. I am not point to myself, but rather I am pointing everyone to the biblical Jesus Christ! I believe Justin is doing the exact same thing. Justin is not anti-catholic, but rather pro Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 3:8

To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,

 

[Reformed]

I believe you stated in the last line that more people were leaving the Catholic Faith to become Protestant. That is inaccurate.

I do not mind people charging the Catholic Faith in areas of weakness as we have many. I am surprised that people feel it is necessary to attack our faith without anything more than a personal opinion not based upon facts. The RCC continues to grow and is the leading religious faith in the world. It is also the faith that does more charitible work than any other. Many such as the Lutherans are to be commended and are leaders in this area; however, none exceed the Catholics or come even close. Put the questions that you put to Catholics to your own religious faith. Do not take the accomplishemnt of all Protestant groups. Take your faiths individual accomplishments. Pope Pius saved hundreds of thousand of Jews during World War II. How many did your faith save? We created the first orphanges. How many orphanges do you now run to save peoples lives? How many people have you treated for aids last year? It is easy to attack a faith on myths. Compare your accomplishments to the Catholic Church. Yours will not be close. Now charge us with what you want; but, ask your faith the same questions we are asked. Also charge us with truths. People within our Church do fail; however, most of the attacks on this forum are based upon myths. Have you given the Lord self sacrifing love? That is what we believe. We sacrifice for our Lord not because he demands it. It is because we love him enough to do it. We sacrifice for others.

Put no confidence in the flesh my friend according to the Apostle Paul. There is no boasting before God. If we are to boast, boast that you know Him. There is only one body of Christ and one true church. That reality of being united to Christ has nothing to do with our religious institutions that we corporately worship at. The Roman Catholic Church is not the savior, nor can the Reformed Faith save me. Your religious acts and self-sacrifice cannot save you either. Consider the following verse at what is considered the light:

The Light of the Gospel

4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, [1] we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants [2] for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Cor 4

 

[PerryJ]

Put no confidence in the flesh. There is no boasting before God. If we are to boast, boast that you know Him. There is only one body of Christ and one true church. That reality of being united to Christ has nothing to do with our religious institutions that we corporately worship at. The Roman Catholic Church is not the savior, nor can the Reformed Faith save me. Your religious acts and self-sacrifice cannot save you either. Consider the following verse at what is considered the light:

The Light of the Gospel
4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, [1] we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants [2] for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Cor 4

You misunderstand self scarifice. As I stated the Lord does not require self sacrifice to be saved. If one truly loves Christ though one will act as Christ did. Christ died on the Cross for us. We in turn feel that we should sacrifice just as Christ did. How do you read the gospel and not understand that we should model our life after his. Are you stating that you refuse to model your life after Christ and self sacrifice. Quote all the verses you want, do you or do not you not live as Christ lived? Do you sacrifice for your fellow man as Christ did?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Put no confidence in the flesh my friend according to the Apostle Paul. There is no boasting before God. If we are to boast, boast that you know Him. There is only one body of Christ and one true church. That reality of being united to Christ has nothing to do with our religious institutions that we corporately worship at. The Roman Catholic Church is not the savior, nor can the Reformed Faith save me. Your religious acts and self-sacrifice cannot save you either. Consider the following verse at what is considered the light:

I believe it was your boasting of more Catholics becoming Protestant than Protestants becoming Catholic.

I understand very well, though I think you might be having some misinterpretation difficulties of what posters are saying to you. This might reflect on our belief of private interpretations of scriptures is fallible.

Please provide evidence that anyone here has said the Church is the savior and not Christ Himself. You keep affirming this like someone is stating it. You have even falsely stated that I said the Church was above Christ in another thread. A false statement is serious in the eyes of God.

How do you reconcile thousands of denominations with different doctrines as the ONE body of Christ?