[mgist]

That’s because Romanism and Liberalism both deny that what we receive from God is direct but must come through an human intermediary. Romanism denies that God speaks to us directly through his Word and that it must be reinterpreted through the Roman authority and Liberalism denies we receive our rights directly from God and those rights must be allocated by the governing elite.

Where do you get this stuff?

Because we recieve everything from God, doesn't deny the fact that God gave us many gifts, and people who serve Him.

Do you refuse to read the writings of Joyce Meyers or consider Rick Warren's sermons a "reinterpretation" of the Bible? Are those who seek their insights being disloyal to God? If the answer to the last question is "No", then you are being intellectually dishonest.

[editor-surveyor]

Do you really not understand that we cannot receive salvation from anything but the sinless blood of Christ?

Does propping up a couple of preachers that are as far off the track as the Roman Catholic church do anything to absolve the heresy and blasphemy of Mariolatry?

[the_conscience]

The question isn’t about seeking insight the question is whether God speaking needs to be filtered through a human institution before it’s basic premises can be understood? Placing the Institution’s teaching at a level equal to or greater than God speaking is to put God one level away from mans conscience.

There was a Reformation once upon a time that discussed these very issues.