Oops didn't mean to ignore these last 2. You assume the catholic church is the only one. I don't. He's certainly protected me and others from that heresy. So I guess he's protected part of His church. You have a serious case of denial. (not the river)
Didn’t figure you would. It would have to be someone after Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Wesley.
Matthew must have been a protestant. He said it. But I doubt he was around in the 17th century.
Matthew was not a Protestant and there is no debate on what he said. It’s the interpretation.
Yes. Because He obviously has. Duh.
So the promise of Christ to protect his church wasn’t to be in effect until after the reformation? I can’t believe that since Christ said he is the way, the truth and the life. It is inconceivable he would allow error to be taught in his church.
You assume the catholic church is the only one. I don't. He's certainly protected me and others from that heresy. So I guess he's protected part of His church.
Beginning when and what church is he protecting? If you can answer this it will provide the answer of who first interpreted Matthew the way you do.
You have a serious case of denial. (not the river)
Yes. I deny your private interpretations.