Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[OzSpen]

The irony is that as a Reformed Christian from an actual Reformed denomination I find your identity politics insulting to my sensibilities.

Could that be because your historical theology does not include Reformed Arminians among Reformed denominations? I have knowledge of some Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa that have Reformed Arminian beliefs among them. My PhD is from the University of Pretoria.

Coming from 'an actual Reformed denomination' sounds elitist to me when I'm attempting to deal with Reformed teachings, both Arminian and Calvinistic.

I do know what I'm talking about when I speak of the teaching of Reformed Arminians. Others label these groups/denominations as Classical Arminians.

That's information from historical theology and not something I've made up.

Stephen Ashby explains this historical and theological perspective in A Reformed Arminian View.

Protestations do not cover up the genuine Reformation doctrine of Reformed Arminianism, which embraces much of the theology of Jacobus Arminius. I'm a 'leaky' Reformed Arminian because I do not accept infant baptism.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

For the dead believer, between death and resurrection is what I'm talking about. ZERO consciousness during this period.

For the unbeliever, zero consciousness ever again. No second chances. No unbeliever will ever be resurrected. No unbeliever will ever stand in a judgment, Ps 1:5

No hell. No separate part of man called a soul. Both 100% non-Biblical pagan beliefs.

acts 28,

Are you promoting:

1. soul sleep for believers;
2. annihilation of unbelievers;
3. refusal to accept the Bema Seat of Christ's Judgment of works of believers;
4. No hell and eternal punishment.
5. Human beings don't have a soul, even though Scripture states: 'And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?' (Mk 8:36 NLT)?

What do you believe about the nature of God? Is he Trinitarian or Unitarian?

Does He have complete foreknowledge or limited knowledge?

Is God an eternal being or will his existence come to an end?

Oz

 

[JosephT]

That's your opinion, & may be a valid one, altho having grown up Catholic, I haven't seen this to be the case in as strong of terms as you seem to think. Also, your, "Nothing on the website is "right,"" is a gross exaggeration don't ya think?

I don't think its exaggeration at all. If you start from their premise that "Catholicism is a false religion and all faith is built on "bible alone" then everything they postulate is built from those two axioms. In short the pillars of their faith are straw and stubble, not to mention being two legged, unstable.

That being said, instead of attacking the source, how about discussing the material provided? If what I had pasted is absolutely false, as you seem to say, please state your argument re what is stated, not who the source is ...... bc that doesn't matter if what is stated is true .... right?

The source does indeed matter. Were do you want to start, shall we start with the statement:

"Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion" since it is their pillar of their faith.

First, Catholicism does not diverge from Sacred Scripture, rather it the Church that give both authenticity and credibility to Sacred Scripture. Christ did not come to write a book, there is no evidence, though we are free to assume, that Christ could write.

Second, Sacred Scripture is the product of the Church and Scripture cannot be rightly understood outside the confines of the teachings of the Church. Sacred Scripture written by the Apostles for the authority of the Church to teach a divine Word divinely.

Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church [CCC 113]​

Third, there are those who diverge from the Truth to support a god of their own making. Hence, they must always be in contention with Catholicism else, their subjective truth is revealed not to be reality. That is to say religions formed on this bases, such as Protestantism, reformism and Evangelicalism are all based on schism, a sin and a self delusional lie. Hence, they must find Catholicism to be false, else their schism is false. Reading Scripture in this way becomes unfruitful, the emotional juices might run deep but the pulp offer no nourishment to reason.

Fourth, it becomes evident to those who search truth that there is only on of such a thing, there cannot be a truth for the Baptist, another for the Methodist, Lutherans or any other "denomination" (a word derived from currency used to describe your faith). If it is true for the Baptist it must be true for the Methodist, Lutherans, and others, as well the Catholics. But, its not is it? In a comparison of any two only one can be true. If not then all are in error or only one is true and the others are false. Else, God is in error, which we know can't be true.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ---Against Heresies III,1 ​

​

​

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. ---Against Heresies III,2​

Since we find that Sacred Scripture is the product of the Church, not the Church the product of a Book we are forced to concede Her supremacy in matters of doctrine and faith. The Holy Spirit guides her and her alone. And the Holy Spirit guides those outside the Church to truths residing in her treasury of faith and truth.


JosephT

 

[stovebolts]

OzSpen , acts 28 , williamt and wondering

I see that all of you are in a heated conversation. Please know this.

Iron sharpens iron. When it gets forged into hammers, that's an abusevof the talent God has given you.

This is not a debate forum. If debate is your desire, you will be sadly disappointed as you join the ranks of those that curse me.

Please feel free to continue your conversation. I actually encourage it. But when it turns into a slug fest, thats where I draw the line. No more calling each other a heritic and pitting against one another.

Please pause a moment and reflect on your motive. Are you seeking to reconcile your differences through meaningful discussion or are you seeking to use your sword as a weapon against your brother?

The purpose of this site is to give glory to God by showing the world that unity does not mean uniformity. The World will know we are His by the live we have for one another. We live that out by being patient with one another, we hope the best for one another and we seek reconciliation, even in our differences.

 

[WIP]

Are you suggesting that the standard of authority over interpretation is not the Catholic church or are you stating that you're unaware that the Catholic church rejects Sola Scriptura?

Furthermore, you can simply refer to 1 Corinthians 11:19 as to why there are divisions among the universal catholic church:

1 Cor 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

All denominations agree to central or essential truths of the faith as for example stated in the Nicene Creed. The issue surfaces when bodies redefine the essentials of the faith. For example, Ozspen wants to redefine "reformed" liberally or broadly. Thus liberal denominations actually reject the Nicene essentials and are actually outside denominational definition and fall into sect or cult. Of course this is outrageous in today's identity politics championed by the left.

Moderator request.
Please, do not presume to put words in others' mouths. Let them speak for themselves. Also, when you reference another poster, please tag their name so they know you have done so. It is rude not to. You do this by placing the @ and then typing their name with no spaces like this williamt. Just trying to offer some helpful advice.

 

[JosephT]

Hi JT,
Welcome to the forum...it's nice to have you here.

Thank you

A doctrine is the teaching of any particular church.
What you're explaining above is a dogma. I'm sure you know the difference....A dogma MUST be accepted by the faithful and if they don't accept it they have to pray about it.

Maybe outside the Church it may be viewed this way but in the Church doctrine are necessary for the faithful and are comprised of dogma implicitly or explicitly revealed to the Church by God. Doctrine relies on the authority of the Church to be believed. This was given to only one authority, the Church (His disciples) through Christ "he that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." [Luke 10:16]. It's a simple concept that has been around for 2,000 or so years.

A doctrine SHOULD be accepted, but there's some lee-way for doubt. This is according to the catholic church, BTW.

Yes a doctrine "should" be accepted - certainly there is lee-way but for understanding, never doubt.

Different churches could believe different doctrine. For instance, some churches do teach OSAS.

OSAS is not in Scripture. It cannot be proven within the confines of its doctrine of Scripture Alone. Hence, in the inference that different Churches teach different doctrine is false because of OSAS. Logically, if all read from the same BOOK then all should agree on its content. Obviously you and I don't yet you read the book given you by the Catholic Church.

There are some verses that could be taken to mean that salvation cannot be lost..although I agree with you that it can, and this is also what the CC teaches, and many other mainline denominations.

So, you are saying that the Holy Spirit tells you one thing and me another, to whom is He lying?

I'd have to say that if a person is following Christ the best he can, and he sincerely believes in his doctrine, God will be the merciful God He is and will forgive us our ignorance. We want to understand God and like to talk about our beliefs on this forum....but all we know for sure is that God is Almighty, not totally understandable, and that we do need to obey His laws.

You say there is only one truth...this is true. But for some doctrine, it's difficult to know what the truth is. For instance: Purgatory. I can't accept the scripture that is used to prove it exists. Whether it does or not, however, has nothing to do with our salvation.

This is what I believe.

We know that God and Truth are convertible; St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ [Summa Theologica Prima Q, 15 a5] Consequently we can say that there is an absolute infallible truth. If we hold that Truth is absolute then there can be only ONE absolute TRUTH.

Consequently, we cannot simply hold what ‘feels’ good, or what supports our life style, as truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths; in any two competing faiths, one must be is True and the other must be false or both must be wrong. The reason should be obvious; truth resides in God, and what resides in God has definitive meaning. Since the Sacred Scriptures are inspired by God then for each individual there can be only One Truth, One Word and only One meaning. It’s an obscenity to believe Sacred Scripture can have ‘different meaning for different folks’. The Holy Spirit inspires men to One True faith.

​

O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many disingenuous and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2​

​

Therefore, to have a ‘Standard’ of competing faiths with which to measure the same Truth, the same Revelation, is self-contradictory. Pope Benedict XVI spoke directly to this issue in Truth and Tolerance, and specifically to the multiplicity of 'faith':​

​

​

The dominant impression of most people today is that all religions, with a varied multiplicity of forms and manifestations, in the end are and mean one and the same thing; which is something everyone can see, except for them. The man of today will for the most part scarcely respond with an abrupt No to a particular religion's claim to be true; he will simply relativize that claim by saying "There are many religions." And behind his response will probably be the opinion, in some form or another, that beneath varying forms they are in essence all the same; each person has his own. [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, Christian Belief and World Religions, p 22]​

​

A society of like religions is tolerance expressed as 'orthopraxy' (correct action), In architecture this would be akin to a structure where function follows the form [the true art is where form follows function]. The outcome of acts looks toward our desired outcome instead of the 'good'. We experience self-serving acts in our technocratic socialist societies that replace a redemptive utopia found in Christ with the science of socialism. Ideologies of socialism replace faith with an enlightenment [hint, think French revolution which was a blood bath visited on Catholics], hope with progress, and charity with entitlements. God becomes an uber-Santa Claus, a good dude with a long white beard who finds pleasure in answering our prayers. Herein lies one of the sins of secularism, and naturalism, God simply becomes irrelevant.​

​

Thus it is no surprise to hear the Pope say,​

​

​

"The notion that all religions are ultimately equivalent appears as a commandment of tolerance and respect for others; if that is so, then one must respect the decision of another person who decides to change religions, but it is not permissible to call this conversion: that would assign a higher status to the Christian faith and thus contradict the idea of equality. But the Christian certainly does believe that in Christ the living God calls us in a unique way, which demands obedience and conversion. This presupposes that the question of truth plays a part in the relations between religions and that truth is a gift for everyone and alienates no one."[Ibid]​

​

My experience is that some believe they have absolute sovereignty and independence of God and His authority; one religion is as good as another, i.e. relativism. Looking inward for authority, each rationalist holds the necessary individual authority to establish basic cosmic truths. This seems to transform into complete independence from any social morality not otherwise originating from the interior. This degradation continues with the implied right to judge moral and civil law. The argument extended is to say that God’s laws are relative; “what’s true for you, may not be true for me”. Polls and consensus becomes the important indicator for right and wrong; rather than God’s immutable truth. In the extreme relativism requires absolute freedom of thought in matters of morality and religion.​

​

Morality requires a standard or a guide for our actions that is subordinated to an ultimate purpose. In the case of the most basic fundamental rules, all actions are subject to an omnipotent ruler (God). Reasoning in the light of His ultimate purpose is moral order, to govern in the light of His fundamental moral rules produces law and order-or social stability.​

​

Catholic find God and Truth are convertible, leading us to one and only one outcome, as we observe in God:​

​

God exists (see Summa Theologica Prima Q,2,3). Truth exists.​

​

God is Immutable (see Summa Theologica Prima Q,9, 1). Truth is immutable.​

​

God is Eternal. “Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own essence, so He is His own eternity.” (see Summa Theologica Prima Q,10 2). Truth is eternal.​

​

God is Spiritual (see Summa Theologica Prima Q,3,3 & 6). “…it follows that there is no accident in God.” Truth is spiritual.​

​

God is not contained in space, time or matter. (See Summa Theologica Prima Q,3,1). Truth is not constrained by time, location, or the matter.​

​

God’s law (Divine law) is superior to man’s law. (see Summa Theologica Prima Secundae Partis Q,91,4) Truth is superior to man’s law.​

​

We can unequivocally conclude; God=Truth and such Truth is absolute and Divine.​

​

As there is but one and only one faith that can be representative of God’s absolute truth – the one faith that He formed - it can be shown that there is one and only one truth of the meaningof that truth in Sacred Scripture and it resides only in apostolic tradition as it came from this Tradition through Christ. Sacred Scripture born out of God’s will, witnessed and validated through the lives of Holy men, and penned by the Tradition of the very same Church Christ commemorated, the Catholic Church which was made divine to teach a divine Word of God divinely​

​

TRUTH EXISTS in her.​

​

Consider my question about to whom the Holy Spirit lies - to whom is He reality?​

​

JosephT​

 

[WIP]

OSAS is not in Scripture. It cannot be proven within the confines of its doctrine of Scripture Alone. Hence, in the inference that different Churches teach different doctrine is false because of OSAS. Logically, if all read from the same BOOK then all should agree on its content. Obviously you and I don't yet you read the book given you by the Catholic Church.

I have to disagree with your final statement above. The book that I believe you are referring to is the Bible and I hold that the Bible was given to us by God Himself by inspiration.

 

[WIP]

So, you are saying that the Holy Spirit tells you one thing and me another, to whom is He lying?

Obviously, the Holy Spirit is not lying. But perhaps one of you or us is not hearing Him.

I remember when I was in middle school and one day the teacher whispered something into the ear of one student and then asked that student to whisper it to the next and so on around the room. By the time it reached the last student in our class of about 17, the statement had changed into something totally unrelated to what the teacher had told the first student. So was somebody lying or did they not pay attention to what was told them?

 

[WIP]

Consequently, we cannot simply hold what ‘feels’ good, or what supports our life style, as truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths; in any two competing faiths, one must be is True and the other must be false or both must be wrong. The reason should be obvious; truth resides in God, and what resides in God has definitive meaning. Since the Sacred Scriptures are inspired by God then for each individual there can be only One Truth, One Word and only One meaning. It’s an obscenity to believe Sacred Scripture can have ‘different meaning for different folks’. The Holy Spirit inspires men to One True faith.

 

[WIP]

As there is but one and only one faith that can be representative of God’s absolute truth – the one faith that He formed - it can be shown that there is one and only one truth of the meaningof that truth in Sacred Scripture and it resides only in apostolic tradition as it came from this Tradition through Christ. Sacred Scripture born out of God’s will, witnessed and validated through the lives of Holy men, and penned by the Tradition of the very same Church Christ commemorated, the Catholic Church which was made divine to teach a divine Word of God divinely

I agree with much of your post but this paragraph I am having some struggles. I thought you were doing so well until you brought up tradition. Maybe I misunderstand but what I'm hearing is that the traditions you speak of are on a higher level than the word of God found in the Holy Scriptures. I believe it was the tradition of men that Jesus refuted when He addressed the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes in Matthew 23.

 

[JosephT]

I have to disagree with your final statement above. The book that I believe you are referring to is the Bible and I hold that the Bible was given to us by God Himself by inspiration.

I would imagine you would disagree. Does being in disagreement make your assertions correct?

Yes, Sacred Scripture was inspired by God, through men who lived in Jesus Christ. You can resolve your own question by finding where in Scripture it says that Scripture is the sole and infallible rule of faith? Can you define the meaning of Scripture alone using Scripture alone?

Catholics hold that the deposit of faith is the Church, and that her, together with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the sole and infallible rule of faith. But we do find an interesting verses given only to the disciples of Christ, representing His Church, Matthew 18:18 Luke 10:16. Both verses bind you to a Church, the Apostles of Jesus Christ to "hear" the Word of God.

JosephT

 

[WIP]

Are you suggesting that the standard of authority over interpretation is not the Catholic church or are you stating that you're unaware that the Catholic church rejects Sola Scriptura?

I am suggesting that the only true authority over interpretation is the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church (capital C is intentional) is the body of followers of Christ and the Holy Spirit will teach us all things.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, John 14:26 NKJV

 

[WIP]

I would imagine you would disagree. Does being in disagreement make your assertions correct?

No.

 

[WIP]

Yes, Sacred Scripture was inspired by God, through men who lived in Jesus Christ. You can resolve your own question by finding where in Scripture it says that Scripture is the sole and infallible rule of faith?

I believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 are clear enough.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV

And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:19-21 NKJV

 

[WIP]

I would imagine you would disagree. Does being in disagreement make your assertions correct?

Yes, Sacred Scripture was inspired by God, through men who lived in Jesus Christ. You can resolve your own question by finding where in Scripture it says that Scripture is the sole and infallible rule of faith? Can you define the meaning of Scripture alone using Scripture alone?

Catholics hold that the deposit of faith is the Church, and that her, together with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the sole and infallible rule of faith. But we do find an interesting verses given only to the disciples of Christ, representing His Church, Matthew 18:18 Luke 10:16. Both verses bind you to a Church, the Apostles of Jesus Christ to "hear" the Word of God.

JosephT

I think our real disagreement lies in our use of the phrase Catholic church vs Catholic Church. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe your use of the phrase is in reference to the Roman Catholic church whereas my use of the phrase is in reference to the Catholic Church (i.e., the Body of Christ).

 

[JosephT]

I think our real disagreement lies in our use of the phrase Catholic church vs Catholic Church. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe your use of the phrase is in reference to the Roman Catholic church whereas my use of the phrase is in reference to the Catholic Church (i.e., the Body of Christ).

I mean the Catholic Church, the Roman Rite is but one of several Rites. It is true that you would call her the Roman Catholic Church, she however refers to herself as the "Catholic Church" It includes all the Rites in communion with the Holy See.

JosephT

 

[WIP]

For the dead believer, between death and resurrection is what I'm talking about. ZERO consciousness during this period.

For the unbeliever, zero consciousness ever again. No second chances. No unbeliever will ever be resurrected. No unbeliever will ever stand in a judgment, Ps 1:5

No hell. No separate part of man called a soul. Both 100% non-Biblical pagan beliefs.

We must take the whole of Scripture into consideration. With that in mind, can you please explain how you balance what you wrote above in light of the following.

“At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt."
Daniel 12:1-2 NKJV

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matthew 25:31-46 NKJV

But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
Acts 24:14-16 NKJV

 

[WIP]

I mean the Catholic Church, the Roman Rite is but one of several Rites. It is true that you would call her the Roman Catholic Church, she however refers to herself as the "Catholic Church" It includes all the Rites in communion with the Holy See.

JosephT

Thank you, Joseph. I must take time to digest, meditate, and pray about what we've discussed. I appreciate a civil exchange. Thanks again.

 

[JosephT]

I am suggesting that the only true authority over interpretation is the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church (capital C is intentional) is the body of followers of Christ and the Holy Spirit will teach us all things.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, John 14:26 NKJV

I never said there was an interpreter over the Holy Spirit. Though He will teach you in John 14:26 the Paraclete is promised to the Church, i.e. the Catholic Church the persons of the Apostles.

I'd suggest a little introspection, has this spirit taught you that Baptism is water and Holy Spirit? Does He teach you that the sacrament of confession is necessary and to attend communion with the saints? Does He teach you that there is a sacramental priest? etc. etc. If not you better have this spirit checked out.

JosephT

 

[JosephT]

I believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 are clear enough.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV

And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:19-21 NKJV

2 Timothy 3:16 makes Scripture "profitable" but profitable is not totally sufficient. Furthermore, in both cases Scripture being referred to here is the Old Testament. Are you saying the Old Testament is sufficient for the salvation and justification of any man or woman? And 2Peter 1:19 shows plainly that interpretation of Scripture is not to be based on private judgement. So, are you working with me?

JosephT