Well, he’s definitely not Catholic!
(CNN)Thrusting himself into the combative 2016 presidential campaign, Pope Francis said Thursday that GOP front-runner Donald Trump “is not Christian” if he calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants and pledges to build a wall between the United States and Mexico.
I have a hard time taking the Pope seriously when he won’t condemn pro-abortion politicians but slams Trump for his stance on immigration policy.
I find it fascinating the Pope is griping about a border wall for security.
If the Pope is serious that security walls are anti-Christian….why is there a WALL AROUND THE VATICAN????
When the Pope tears down the walls around the Vatican, I’ll take his argument a little more seriously.
He may possibly be right about Trump not being Christian, but from a biblical standpoint, he should have approached Trump in private, first, to express his concerns about the direction of his eternal soul…see Matthew Chapter 18.
kev:
So the pope should have addressed trump in private regarding whether trump is or isn’t a christian, yet on numerous occasions on this blog you have called the pope a non-christian. The pope should follow your interpretation of Matthew 18, but you don’t see the need to follow? Isn’t that troubling to your weak and flawed soul?
Baldy,
The Pope deliniates himself from being an average Christian in need of help, who may be lost or strayed, like Trump.
1.) The Pope preaches, openly, a gospel other than Christ crucified.
2.) He believes he is “infalible”. (Or believing he’s perfect, like God.)
3.) He openly claims he is the only intercessor (communicator) between Christians and Christ, which is very contrary to the gospel.
All 3 of those things sets himself up to be a false god. Anyone on earth who claims, in any way, to take the place of Jesus, no matter how small, is not a Christian.
Reformers (Evangelicals) have been warning the office of the papacy since Martin Luther 500 years ago.
Matthew 18 has been followed, it is good and right to openly stand up for the truth to those who have been previously warned about false teaching.
The Pope made no such declaration to Trump in advance. If he follows his Christianity, and was concerned about Trumps direction, in relation to his eternal soul…he should have approach Trump in private first.
Thanks for the comment, you keep me sharp.
Baldy….
besides, you think they would give an articulate Evangelical Christian a private audience with the Pope?
That’s a pretty big wall to scale at the vatican :-)
Don’t waste your time with a known pederast like Old Baldy.
There is a Christian duty to help the less fortunate.
“besides, you think they would give an articulate Evangelical Christian a private audience with the Pope?”
Billy Graham met privately with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican at least twice. This means either:
A. Billy Graham is not articulate.
B. Billy Graham is not an Evangelical Christian.
C. Pope John Paul II was not actually the Pope.
D. Kevin is running his mouth before checking the facts again.
This is an interesting read in Christianity Today.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/september-web-only/evangelicals-flock-to-pope-francis-but-what-for.html
This may have some heads exploding!
http://www.religionnews.com/2016/01/25/catholic-pope-will-visit-lutheran-sweden-reformation-anniversary/
Well melt my dilly bar!
Rome Lutheran Pastor Thinks Pope ‘Opened Door’ to Intercommunion
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/rome-lutheran-pastor-pope-opened-door-to-intercommunion/#ixzz40eBK7QeN
Major and Pat:
Great work ! Keep it up.
seek:
You may have stepped on your self, buddy.
Wisconsin has laws against cyber bullying. Your strong suggestion that I commit suicide is certainly in the realm of a that law. You prepared for court ?
Libel is the print version pf slander. The accusation of me being a pederast certainly falls under a libel definition. Prepared for a civil action?
Mmm. Discovery.
That would be a hoot.
Major,
If Billie Graham addressed my concerns with the Pope, then Baldy has no gripe about addressing his false teaching in private. My guess is: Billie Graham did not bring many of the core issues up.
Pat,
Article #1.) As an Evangelical, I do like some of the demonstration of good works the Pope has done as well. He has provided some good examples of Christian good works. My question is: does he do it as a thank you flowing from his faith…or out of OBLIGATION he feels to earn his salvation apart from Christ? The former is the true Christian in action, the latter is reprehesible to the true gospel message.
Article #2.) If the Pope is serious about erasing the divide….has he denounced the Council of Trent as heresy? That was the Roman Catholic, “doubling down” against the reformers like Martin Luther at the time? To this day, the church embraces Trent. So unless the Pope does that, he is really talking out of the side of his mouth, so to speak. The official Roman Catholic stance is, to this day, all Evangelicals are going to hell. When the Pope reverses that…I’ll believe the puff in this article.
Article #3.) Have no problem with church leaders talking. I think that can be a great thing…as long as Evangelical leaders do not undo what the reformers worked so hard to do…return to the New testament that salvation is by Christ alone, there is no intercessor between Christians and Christ, and that good works are a thank expression of faith and not a requirment for salvation.
Appreciate the articles. They were interesting, even if they were superficial PR relative to acual Roman Catholic dogma.
Yes, it always is.
Kevin,
As to #1: You’d have to ask to Pope. But I believe it’s the former.
As to #2: Why should he? Maybe evangelicals are going to hell.
Losing an argument really has gotten in your head. Probably should get yourself some mental help. At your feeble age, your liable to blow a gasket.
*you’re
But seek mental help.
Pat,
Why should he? I thought the goal of article #2 was to “heal” the divide? The divide is caused by Roman Catholics staying from the true gospel message of salvation through Christ. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent says it is Christ PLUS good works, thereby destroying the gospel message of Christ alone, because it implies one earns salvation by what one does. (“treasury of merit”).
So if Pope is serious, let’s get back to reading the New Testament, rather than Roman Catholic dogma which attempts to re-write the New Testament.
I don’t think Pope is serious because Roman Catholic church positions still demonstrate outward disdain for Evangelicals, who simply want the Roman Catholic church to stop corrupting the gospel message with its erroneous additions and addendums like Trent.
If Pope wants to truly celebrate the reformation…he should truly embrace the Reformation! 500 years should be long enough, and he clearly acknowledges the Roman catholic church was in error…he just does not go far enough.
seek:
Like I said, I have lost nothing to you. But I have lost any belief in you being an intelligent life form, and I have certainly lost interest in this discussion. So you can have the last word, try to make it legal.
Keep smiling, you never know when kevin will deem you unworthy.
So says the loser who doesn’t understand the law.
Go back to trolling parks and Cub Scout meetings, sicko.
Kevin,
Maybe the Catholic church is right, and evangelicals are wrong.
Kevin….
1.) The Pope preaches, openly, a gospel other than Christ crucified.
Really? Which Gospel is that one?
2.) He believes he is “infalible”. (Or believing he’s perfect, like God.)
Wrong. Especially your parenthetical remark.
3.) He openly claims he is the only intercessor (communicator) between Christians and Christ, which is very contrary to the gospel.
Wrong again. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth, but hardly the only ‘intercessor.’
Pat,
If you believe the Bible is the true, inerrant word of God, the current positions of Roman Catholic Church cannot be right. The only way you can come to this conclusion is that the Bible is amendable by flawed Roman Catholic Pope’s of the past.
Dad29,
It is so rare to run across a Roman Catholic articulate of the Roman Catholic Church teachings….I look forward to this exchange.
Here is an articulate article, with Roman Catholic Church cites, on the Roman Catholic view on justification.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/RCJustification.html
1.) Main point is: RC Church views justification as “legalistic” and that Christ’s grace is not “imputed” in Christ alone. Meaning there is a “works” obligation on our part to earn salvation according to Rome.
If The Council of Trent has been denounced by Rome, where is the Catholic Church proclamation the reformers, led by Martin Luther where correct? We can all hold hands and be one unified church in Christ again.
2.). The Roman Catholic Church no longer teaches the Pope is “infallible”? You will have to point out that new Catholic policy position. I have not read it yet. So that would mean Pope is flawed, imperfect, with error. We can throw out last 2000 years of Pope dogma and Catholics can agree with Evangelical reformers again.
3.). This means you reject Pope Pius IX on this topic. You may want to watch this excellent debate between Father Pacwa and a well known Prodestant on this topic:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=551qvxxFInQ
I found this debate cordial and fascinating piercing right to the heart of the issues.
In summary, I talk with a lot of of Roman Catholics ands 95% have no clue what their church really teaches. Even teenage students taking CYE classes. I am glad many Roman Catholics view Christ as only way to salvation. They will be saved in spite of false teaching from Rome.
My question is: if so many Catholics embrace Evangelical teaching on justification (salvation in Cheist alone) why are you a member of a church that denounces your faith and labels you a heretic by holding that belief?
Kevin,
That’s your position and belief. But that doesn’t make the Pope wrong. It just may be evangelicals have it wrong. Now go ahead and address dad29.
Pat,
Have a detailed post in moderation addressing Dad29 point by point (nicely, of course). I’ll take links out, which may eliminate moderation.
If you believe Christ is the way to salvation….the idea that “being a good person” or “doing good things” earns you a positive afterlife is the common lie to every other false religion around the world. Only Evangelical Christianity teaches salvation by Christ alone and your good works are a thank you for the free gift of salvation flowing from your faith (an outward sign to others whether your faith in Christ is weak or strong) and your good works do not matter on the final scorecard.
Dad29, (for Pat without links)
It is so rare to run across a Roman Catholic articulate of the Roman Catholic Church teachings….I look forward to this exchange.
Here is an articulate article, with Roman Catholic Church cites, on the Roman Catholic view on justification.
1.) Main point is: RC Church views justification as “legalistic” and that Christ’s grace is not “imputed” in Christ alone. Meaning there is a “works” obligation on our part to earn salvation according to Rome.
If The Council of Trent has been denounced by Rome, where is the Catholic Church proclamation the reformers, led by Martin Luther were correct? We can all hold hands and be one unified church in Christ again.
2.). The Roman Catholic Church no longer teaches the Pope is “infallible”? You will have to point out that new Catholic policy position. I have not read it yet. So that would mean Pope is flawed, imperfect, with error. We can throw out last 2000 years of Pope dogma and Catholics can agree with Evangelical reformers again.
3.). This means you reject Pope Pius IX on this topic. You may want to watch this excellent debate between Father Pacwa and a well known Prodestant on this topic:
I found this debate cordial and fascinating piercing right to the heart of the issues.
In summary, I talk with a lot of of Roman Catholics and 95% have no clue what their church really teaches. Even teenage students taking CYE classes. I am glad many Roman Catholics view Christ as only way to salvation. They will be saved in spite of false teaching from Rome.
My question is: if so many Catholics embrace Evangelical teaching on justification (salvation in Christ alone) why are you a member of a church that denounces your faith and labels you a heretic by holding that belief?
Pat, Dad 29,
Link for item #3
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=551qvxxFInQ
Dad 29, Pat,
link for item #1
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/RCJustification.html
Looks like the information you share comes from evangelicals. I’ve already stated that evangelicals may be wrong and the Pope right. Do you have anything else other than from evangelical point of view?
Pat,
It is, but Father Pacwa is a distinguished, learned, Roman Catholic PHD, having the courage to debate Evangelicals on their turf.
Here is same 2 debating justification, it is an outstanding debate about Council of Trent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnYSs89qpnU&ebc=ANyPxKpKUsmjnSg5aQKACpfy4GbeGyDf8WrwONSS8tA2vyBryUFj0h3JrTIq74dPYcZQ1PMtwB0qM-lTl9t8CyQMclJ6XldQEw
After seeing these 2 debates, you have seen the issues. Can you do a better job than Father Pacwa defending Catholic dogma?
I appreciate Father Pacwa helping me to understand what Roman Catholicism really teaches, it is pretty stark he is denying basic New Testament doctrine of justification by Christ alone.
Most Roman Catholics do not have anywhere close to the uinderstannding of Father Pacwa of Roman Catholic dogma. Most Roman Catholics see Christ alone for their salvation, which is a good thing.
I just remain puzzled why Catholics stay part of a church they do not agree with.
Kevin,
You, as an American, have the right to believe what ever you want. You also have the right to be wrong. God bless America.
Pat,
True. So I take it we don’t want to discuss what the Roman Catholic church actually stands for vs. what the Pope is pretending to say in those articles?
This gets back to Owen’s point…this Pope will not denounce abortion, but call a security border wall “anti-Christian”.
His Vatican has hid behind a border security wall for about 1500 years.
The Pope will pretend to celebrate the reformation with Evangelicals, but not really embrace it.
Just what does this Pope stand for in terms of faith and values?
According to kevin, he is the only one with a direct line to god, and is infallible. So listen up all you sinners, kevin has to ONLY way to salvation at his finger tips. And for a small donation he will send you an autographed copy of “The Book of Made Up Stuff”. Free shipping and handling if you are one of the first 100 to order. Do it now, and be saved by supper time !
Baldy said:
“So listen up all you sinners, kevin has to ONLY way to salvation at his finger tip.”
It’s called the Bible. Feel free to pick it up and read it sometime.
What is the Baldy worldview on eternity?
Would you care to enlighten all of us?
Kev:
My world view on eternity is this: At the end of the day, you, me and everybody else will be in the same place. You know, “ashes to ashes, dust to dust”. If you believe that there is a special place reserved for you, prove it. Use verifiable evidence (like facts and science). Otherwise all you have is opinion backed up by somebody elses opinion ad nauseum going back millenia. Ditto any other religion that claims there is an afterlife.
As Pat said so eloquently, “You, as an American, have the right to believe what ever you want. You also have the right to be wrong”. And so does everybody else.
Baldy,
“All the same place”…meaning nothingness?
That is a very bleak worldview.
I see no difference between the Pope
Making statements about US politicians than US Ministers a priests offering ” voters guides ” in the pews of their churches .
Rather than saying who are bad Christians , the position is that that clergy will tell you
Who are the better Christians which I assume also means better persons
As if the clergy have a clue .
One doesn’t need to exert all this candle power if can we begin with the premise that religion is unprovable magical thinking that says Not only that I talk to God but that God speaks to me and he’s pissed at the way you think
It’s folks right to do so . It would be so much more worthwhile use of their time if even a smidge of it wasn’t man made hooey .
kev:
It’s only bleak if you are afraid of the outcome. I’m not, perhaps you are. If so maybe you can start repenting by being more open minded of other viewpoints, and less “preachy” in your lectures about how only you know the true way to salvation. As my good fishing buddy the Right Reverend Ray Jim ( a Baptist minister in Florida) says, ” If you don’t smoke, spit, swear or drink in my boat you are welcome in my church any day”. I promise I won’t spit in your boat. Don’t spit in mine.
Baldy,
Interesting you don’t have a solid opinion on this topic, which is unusual for you. You say we are all going to same place, implying a blink into nothingness. However, with that last response, you, sort of, indicate that may not be the case.
Mark is at least certain and clear about where he stands.
I never thought you would be too timid to take a solid stand on anything.
kev:
You are making stuff up again. I have a strong opinion and stated it. You purposefully misstate that because you just don’t like the way it contrasts to yours.
Baldy,
You seemed clear that death means a blink into nothingness, but then appeared to back off that position.
I just asked you to clarify.
If you embrace a bleak Nihilist position about life, it is understandable why you are constantly upset at positive people like myself.
kev:
I never backed off my position. More deflection from Kevin’s Book of Excuses.
I am only upset with folks like you when you proclaim that your way is the only way, and that the only way to salvation is to follow your rules. If you can prove that I’ll keep quiet. Until then I may see fit to call you on the BS.
The Roman Catholic Council of Trent says it is Christ PLUS good works, thereby destroying the gospel message of Christ alone,
So the Beatitudes are…what? Potted plants?
Kevin
As a starting point it is helpful to know that both Catholics and Protestants agree that mankind found itself in a state of sin and unrighteousness because of Original Sin. Both agree that mankind needed justification, a restoration that only Jesus Christ could achieve. The issues that divide Catholics and Protestants pertain to how this justification comes about and what are its effects. …
…The following is the teaching of the Council of Trent. “We are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God . . . We are therefore said to be justified gratuitously [that is, not by works], because none of those things that precede justification,
whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification…
…Catechism of the Catholic Church# 161. “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. Since ‘without faith it is impossible
to please [God]’ and to attain the fellowship of his sons, therefore
without faith no one has ever attained justification.”
End Part One
Begin Part Two:
…The Catholic Church also teaches that the works of the law or the works of the flesh justifies no one. Protestants agree. Tragically, many Protestants believe the Catholic Church teaches the opposite – a “works doctrine.” The teaching of the Council of Trent, however, is adamant on this point. “If anyone says that man can be justified before God
by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” This decree is consistent with the revealed word of God (Rom 3:20, 27-28; Eph 2:8-9)….
As to works:
In Ephesians 2:8-9 St. Paul makes the following point. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — not because of works [ergon in Greek], lest any man should boast.” Unfortunately, many Protestants take this verse out of its context and give it a meaning contrary to what St. Paul intended. They interpret it to mean that St. Paul rejects all works
including “good works.” Thus the vital distinction that St. Paul makes between “works of the law” as well as accomplishments based on our natural capabilities and “good works” is ignored. However, the same Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write verses 8 and 9 also inspired verse 10. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for [the Greek word gar introduces a purpose clause: “for the purpose of”]
good works [ergon in Greek], which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” …
End Part Two
Begin Part Three:
St. Paul makes a like distinction in his letter to Titus. “He saved us, not because of deeds [works – ergon in the Greek] done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration [Baptism] and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds [ergon]; these are excellent and profitable to men. . . And let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds [ergon], so as to help cases of urgent need, and not to be unfruitful” (Titus 3:5-8, 14).
The language of this passage is quite clear. Paul insists that Christians “be careful to apply themselves to good deeds [works]” because they are meritorious, that is, they are “profitable” so that Christians will not be “unfruitful.” The reverse is implied.
Failure to perform “good deeds” could bring about eternal punishment.
End Part Threee
As to “merit”:
The Catholic Church teaches that we will be either rewarded or punished according to our good works. This connection between good works and reward is called merit. The merit resulting from good works is in reality a reward of God’s grace. Protestants generally reject the idea of merit as a result of good works. Let’s begin by citing official Catholic teaching.
“The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is
due to God, for his good actions precede in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.”…
…The merits of our good works are gifts of thedivine goodness.
Back to works and their connection to merit:
…Matthew 7:21 – “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” This passage is particularly powerful because it is clear that Jesus is referring to Christians. Only believers ever refer to Jesus as “Lord” in Matthew’s gospel. Furthermore, only believers “prophesy,” “cast out demons,” and “do many mighty works” in Christ’s
name (Mt 7:22)….
End Part Three
Infallibility:
Often those who object to the doctrine of infallibility confuse it with
impeccability or personal inerrancy. It is neither. Impeccability means that a person is incapable of sinning. Popes, like other Christians, are sinners. Personal inerrancy means that Popes cannot make mistakes.
Infallibility, on the other hand, refers on to that guidance of the Holy Spirit that guards Popes from officially teaching error in matters of faith and morals. …
And:
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith –
he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . .The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,’ above all in an Ecumenical Council.”
The Church does not teach, nor does Pp Francis believe, that ‘he is perfect, like God.’ In fact, Pp Francis is on the record saying that he ‘is a sinner,’ just like you and me.
As to “intercessor”….
Words mean something. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, which has a meaning more like ‘representative,’ not ‘intercessor.’ In Catholicism, Saints “intercede” for us (on Earth) at the throne of God. Anyone who prays for us is an ‘intercessor,’ for that matter.
“…The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock — the sheep and the lambs alike — in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): “Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron”.
“The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these”? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God’s flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd. …
The formal title of the Pope is “Vicar of Christ.” INformally, he, like lots of others, is an “intercessor.”
Dad29,
You are to be congratulated on being the most articulate Roman Catholic I have conversed with. That is rare. Thanks for your respone. I’M FASCINATED BY SEVERAL ISSUES. Maybe you can clear things up for me.
I think you agree Roman Catholicism has 3 authorities: Scripture, Traditon, and Magesterium. I assume you accept all 3 Roman Catholic authorities. (If you don’t, that is another discussion about why you are a member of a church you don’t agree with.).
JUSTIFICATION
It seems we agree “work righteousness” does not earn salvation. I like that we agree on that. I also don’t reject/misinterpret good works passages, as long as good works flow as a thank you from your faith in Christ (vs. obligation). However, is this, truly, what Roman Catholic church really teaches?
1.) If works are not a required part of justification in Roman Catholicism, why does the Roman Catholic church still talk about the “Treasury of Merit”? If works do not matter, why do good works have to accumulate to get people to heaven, EVEN AFTER THEY ARE DEAD?
2.) Wouldn’t you agree the “Treasury of merit” would have to be denounced as heresy if Roman Catholicism really does not practice a “work righteouness” in relation to justification? If the doctrine of purgatory does not use good works to purge sin, and Catholics believe Jesus could not purge certain sin in purgatoryto get people to heaven, what gets people in purgatory to heaven? (Yes, I believe purgatory to be a false doctrine introduced by Pope in 1418 to make money.)
Psalm 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust a man.
Psalm 146:3 Do not trust in princes, in mortal man,in him there is no salvation.
(Reminder, before we talk about Roman Catholic magesterium trying to sort out conflicting tradition with scripture.)
3.) Pope John Paul II rejected hell as a real place. Why is this magesterium pronouncement exceed the authority of Jesus in scripture about hell? If hell does not exist, why do we even need to be justified?
4.) Pope John Paul II also said Jesus is not neccesary for salvation! “All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ, will enter God’s Kingdom.” (VIS, 12/6/00). Does that sound like a church saying Jesus is the only way to salvation? Is scripture wrong? Or is the Roman Catholic magesterium now advocating universal salvation wrong? Was Pope “fallible” on this point of faith?
Just when do you ignore your “infalible” Roman Catholic leaders when they speak things horrensously contrary to scripture?
5.) The 1414 magesterium pronouncement offering Cathlolics only partial forgiveness from guilt and punishment has been reversed? (which is contrary to gospel).
6.) The 2029 magesterium pronouncement “We can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life”….you reject this basic Roman Catholic doctrine?
7.) The 1129 magesterium pronouncement that Catholics MUST receive the sacraments which are neccesary for eternal life. This is not work righteousness?
God’s grace is unmerited. Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:7, (Paul is saying failure to perform good deeds is an outward sign of lack of faith. Lack of faith is what deserves punishment, not lack of good deeds.)
Unmerited Grace of God is nulllified by human effort. Romans 11:6.
Anyone trying to become righteous by obeying the law, has nullified God’s unmerited grace. Galations 2:21
8.) So in the Roman Catholic pursuit to achieve “merit”, or earn favor with God, how do you explain the conflict with Romans 11:6 and Galations 2:21?
9.) How can anyone earn merit with God when: No one is righteous or can become righteous by obeying the law or doing good works. Romans 3:10-28. Isaiah 64:6 indicates that even our most righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. How does one earn “merit” when all we can present, with our best good deed, is merely filthy rags to God?
I’d like to hit the other 2 issues. Pope infalibilty and pope as intercessor, but lets stick to this one for now.
Thanks.
Baldy said:
“I am only upset with folks like you when you proclaim that your way is the only way, and that the only way to salvation is to follow your rules. If you can prove that I’ll keep quiet. Until then I may see fit to call you on the BS.”
1.) Many times you are the one who asks, or chalenges me on the issue. I do not shrink from the hope I have in Christ simply because you do not lik it.
2.) Did you ever stop to think you are just as “preachy” with your Nihilist worldview? If your position/opinion flows from a hopelessnes in this life, that can be very offputting as well.
kev:
dad29 ate your lunch, so why not have a little humble pie for a while?
Like I have said MANY times before, I don’t care what you believe in just don’t accuse others of being wrong. Nobody can prove any of this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you feel in your heart that the pope isn’t a christian, fine. But to claim/proclaim that you have the only right and true road to salvation trips my BS meter. That is why you get called on it.
Remember; this is the USA. You have the right to believe anything you want, and the right to be wrong. (credit to Pat).
Baldy,
Did you read my response? I think it’s the opposite on lunch eating. Dad29 was eloquent, but his position is not the Roman Catholic church position on many fronts.
When you say, “…I don’t care what you believe in just don’t accuse others of being wrong.”
Are you saying you never accuse others of being wrong?
It’s much too early in the AM for me to be laughing so hard.
Thanks for adding humor to my day.
kev:
“Nobody can prove any of this beyond a reasonable doubt”. If you can, prove it with facts and science and I’ll keep quiet. So here is your big chance: Prove it.
Baldy,
1.) You accuse me of being a “hypocrite” even when I may not be.
2.) You commonly say other people are wrong.
I have no problem with you saying, or doing, either one, (sometimes I really do enjoy it) but it should not be verboten for a Christian to expose the view, openly, that Jesus is only way to heaven and all other teaching is false.
Is that absolute truth a special issue for you, because deep down, you know its really true?
kev:
1.) “Jesus is only way to heaven and all other teaching is false.” Prove it.
2.) “absolute truth”. Prove it.
If heaven is only open to narrow-minded prophets like you, maybe it isn’t such an appealing place. The teaching of the CotFSM seem more embracing of folks with different personal beliefs. And they make just as much or more sense than yours.
Stop engaging Baldy, Kevin. He thinks you’re a 12-year old boy.
Thanks, Kevin. But I am not all that articulate. I simply know where to go for answers. Much of the text of my response(s) was drawn from here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm There’s a “search” box in the upper right-hand corner.
So yah, I cheat, sorta.
If works are not a required part of justification in Roman Catholicism, why does the Roman Catholic church still talk about the “Treasury of Merit”?
Works ARE required (except in the usual cases, very young/very old/infirm, etc. But works ALONE are not sufficient. Grace–that is, the merits won by Christ’s death–must precede works for the works to be efficacious toward salvation. That’s what Paul was talking about in his letter to Titus cited above.
If the doctrine of purgatory does not use good works to purge sin, and Catholics believe Jesus could not purge certain sin in purgatory to get people to heaven, what gets people in purgatory to heaven?
Revelation 21:27 tells us that nothing impure will enter into Heaven; but a soul bearing any sin at all is not pure. Hebrews 12:29 and
Deuteronomy 4:24 remind us that God is a consuming fire [his love is a fiery love (the highest rank of angels, the ones closest to God’s fiery love, is called Seraphim which is Hebrew for “the burning ones”)].
How does the impure become pure? Through the fire of judgment; the refining fire of God’s love. This refining process is described in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 wherein the wood, hay and stubble (impure works, stains upon the soul) are burned away and only the gold, silver and precious stones (works of merit) remain and after suffering this loss, man is saved. There is no detailed explanation of Purgatory in Holy Scripture because it was not a point of contention. Research into Jewish tradition/beliefs at the time of Jesus shows that sheol
was divided into more than the two parts most commonly considered today (Hell and Paradise) and in fact the Hell of the eternally damned is not called “sheol” but “gehenna” in the Bible. The Hebrew word “sheol” is translated as “hades” in Greek and “purgatorio” in Latin
Pope John Paul II rejected hell as a real place.
You’ll have to provide a cite for that. JPII had a close friend who was a theologian, and that guy (Von Balthasar) did not believe Hell existed. But JPII did not teach that.
“All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ, will enter God’s Kingdom.”
True dat. This is called “baptism of desire.” There are two approaches to this saying. Recall that Christ self-identified Himself as “Truth”–so those who seek truth (Truth) with a sincere…(etc.) Now we will agree that such people are few, perhaps. But in line with that, we have the second approach, which was the Transfiguration, when Christ appeared, glorified, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, NONE of whom “knew Christ” in the ordinary sense of the term. Clearly, they resided in Heaven, having been purged by the crucifixion. It is fair to say that this is a mystery, but recall that “….My way is not your way…”
5, 6, 7 All the questions are answered “No.” For example, “all the sacraments required….” consist of Baptism, Confession (assuming one is aware of sin (and we can agree that not NEARLY enough people are aware of their own sins these days)) and the Eucharist. Other sacraments are ‘helping’ sacraments, e.g., Confirmation and Matrimony, or in the case of Orders, a ‘directed’ sacrament required for priests.
Paul is saying failure to perform good deeds is an outward sign of lack of faith. Lack of faith is what deserves punishment, not lack of good deeds.
Not exactly: they are one and the same. If one has faith, one will do (good) works–or (as Paul said) will not be saved.
Anyone trying to become righteous by obeying the law
The key word there is “law.” That was Paul’s way of referring to the Old Law of the Old Testament. This does not allow us, however, to condemn all the Jews who are FULLY faithful to the Old Covenant, which was never revoked.
No one is righteous or can become righteous by obeying the law or doing good works. Romans 3:10-28. Isaiah 64:6 indicates that even our most righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. How does one earn “merit” when all we can present, with our best good deed, is merely filthy rags to God?
Again, the grace of Redemption precedes all ‘works leading to righteousness.’ Works alone are not sufficient, as mentioned in my first set of responses above.
One more thing, Kevin: the Church’s Magisterium (teaching) is based on Scripture and Tradition. That’s a different formulation than the one you used (above) and the difference is significant.
Sorry I missed that!
Dad29,
Thanks for your response.
I think we both agree Roman Catholic doctrine is not “works alone”. But you indicate it is Christ’s grace AND works. So I guess I was wondering why you took issue when I said Christ PLUS works in explaining Council of Trent, when that is where we essentially are on Roman Catholic teaching?
So Roman Catholic church believes Christ’s grace is NOT unmerited?…one has to “merit”, Christ’s unmerited grace?
Does not attempting to do that cancel the gospel message of unmerited grace?
“Baptism of desire”…going to have to read up on that topic…never heard of that one, very interesting.
“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?… So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!…Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” –James 2:14, 17, 19, 21-26″
Baldy said:
“kev:
1.) “Jesus is only way to heaven and all other teaching is false.” Prove it.
2.) “absolute truth”. Prove it.
If heaven is only open to narrow-minded prophets like you, maybe it isn’t such an appealing place.”
_______________________________________________
1.) PROVE IT ISN’T. (or prove death is a blink into nothingness, and soul does not exist.)
2.) PROVE IT ISN’T. (or prove that moving moral relativism is absolute truth).
Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
“Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”
We would like to believe universal salvation is the way, but that is a human desire, not the divine truth. If a true Christian rejects these words of Jesus, how would they not be on wide road of destruction?
The way to salvation is narrow, that is the point.
Pat,
Book of James: One of my favorites sections of New Testament.
You left out the best part
James 2:18
“But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
Good Works are sign of healthy, striving, thriving, true saving faith in Christ. Lack of good works a are a sign of a weak, declining, faith.
Works are not a “scorecard” for earning salvation or “merit”.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
The Roman Catholic church wants to “keep score”, so it can boast an accumulation of good works/merit, so it can “boast”.
That is the crux of the debate lies.
“That is WHERE the crux of the debate lies between accepting scripture alone as sole authority OR accepting Roman Cathlic tradition and Magesterium adding and amending scripture.”
“That is WHERE the crux of the debate lies between accepting scripture alone as sole authority OR accepting Roman Cathlic tradition and Magesterium adding and amending scripture.”
Or is it believing in scripture as Martin Luther dictated?
Pat,
Martin Luther was only one of the reformers. “Dictated” is a harsh term. It was a returning to what the New Testament actually says in teaching.
You have to remember, the Roman Catholic church was openly, overtly, corrupt in Luther’s time, literally selling “indulgences” for the forgiveness of sins for the greed of the church leaders of the time. A big deal, given the fact that the church was attaching an economic hurdle to Christ’s free and unmerited grace when it came to forgiveness.
Had the reformers not existed, can you imagine what the Roman Catholic would be doing today in this context? (beyond the existing doctrinal challenges and hiding sin issues). It makes me shutter just thinking about it.
kev:
You must have been sleeping in Logic 101; uou can’t prove a negative.
How does quoting works of fiction prove anything ?
Baldy,
I gave you the positive alternative. Prove the blink into nothingness, or moral relativism as truth.
“Martin Luther was only one of the reformers. “Dictated” is a harsh term. It was a returning to what the New Testament actually says in teaching.”
According to who’s interpretation of the New Testament?
Jesus.
What came first, the church or the bible?
kev:
Do you even read what you post? Try again.
There are hundreds of different interpretations of the bible. Which one did Jesus interpret?
Pat,
Is the bible the true, inerrant, word of God?
That is what your question comes down to.
My answer is “Yes”.
Those that don’t believe the bible is inerrant, subscribe to the idea that the Bible is “ever changing” and are essentially denying it is the true, inerrant, word of God, which creates the hundreds of interpretations.
kev:
50 years ago in my small town in northern WI there were German Lutheran, Danish Lutheran, Zion Lutheran (mostly Prussian and Pomeranian German), American Lutheran and Wisconsin Lutheran churches. Which one was the real church and taught the correct way to salvation?? And which is the correct version of the bible?
Kevin,
You didn’t answer my question.
Pat,
Your answer to my question, makes a difference how I answer your question.
Baldy,
If the Lutheran church body accepts this as baseline:
The Bible and Lutherans teach that the Bible is the true word of God. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit. This means that God breathed into the writers the exact thoughts and words they were to write. As a result every statement in the Bible is the truth. One part of the Bible explains another part. It is the only guideline for the faith and life of Christians. We are to read and study it diligently. It clearly teaches all we need to know in order to obtain our eternal salvation.
2 Peter 1:21; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 3:15; Luke 11:28; John 5:39
If church body rejects this simple truth, then that church body may be off the “narrow path” to Christ.
Hope that answers your question.
Kevin,
I didn’t think you were asking me a question. But if you were asking me if the bible is the true, inerrant, word of God, my answer would be that it is according to each version a person is reading and practicing their faith according to.
So, do you believe that the Latin Vulgate Bible is the true, inerrant, word of God. Or are you more in mind of believing that the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which is currently being revised and retranslated, is the true, inerrant, word of God.
kev:
You didn’t answer my questions either.
Pat,
The best answer is: Called workers trained to look back at original Hebrew and Greek, and in some cases, the Latin, to test the English translation for its faithfulness to original language. (Pastors are required to read and translate the bible in original language in seminary in my church body…that is not a requirment in most church bodies.)
In today’s terms, that would be NIV 84, and the English Standard version are the best english traslations.
King James Version is also good, but it is almost like a different language these days.
This is not to mean other translations should be thrown out. The New Living Translation is least faithful, widely used translation, to the SOURCE language, but does have good TARGET language for beginning Christian, but NLT should be treated as a primer, not a deep study text of a translation true to original text.
Most Catholics intepret their salavation is by faith in Christ’s grace alone, and recognize they cannot merit Christ’s unmerited grace. So even in most areas of Catholicism that basic of justification permeates the “Roman Catholic bible”.
There are hundreds on interpretations because man wanrts to make the bible errant, and changing….including the Roman Catholic church.
Can we go back to that whole original sin idea for a second ?
The Big Guy / Girl has send their son to a barbaric , torturous death 98,000 years after man appeared to save everyone who came before and after because they sinned
When ?
It’s sorta convenient – being born to sin because?
Folks can beleive what they want but the leaps in logic to make the old and new stories work are , well, made up to fit the gaps in a series of heavily repeated fables .
When I was kid Sister Fidelis told us that anything we didn’t understand about our faith was axiomatic .
The discussion above convinces me that it’s
Probably not .
Maybe it’s just folklore presented as revealed truth to folks who really don’t want to beleive that when you die, you fade to black
Again, folks can believe what they want to
PS
I thought it was great that babies quit having to go to limbo if they were Un baptized
But as an Irishman , I am still pretty ticked off over the whole St Patrick really did not exist expose
And I thought it was Jesus that interpreted the bible. It is just man interpreting what man wrote.
What came first, the church or the bible?
kev:
“workers”. You mean like scholars and historians ? And no experts in Aramaic, the language of Jesus?
Pat,
Pastors and teachers are called by the Holy Spirit.
The bible also says one should not blindly accept what pastors and teachers say. We should “test” whether they are from God.
Romans 12:2:
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
2 Corinthians 2:9
For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
1 John 4:1
[ Test the Spirits ] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
When any church leader indicates we need to “merit”, by our good works, Christ’s unmerited grace of salvation, that is a big failure that the teacher is not of the Holy Spirit, but of man.
Kev,
If you start from the premise that all of religion is of man, the whole picture comes into focus much quicker .
Mark,
You would be disagreeing with some of the most important scientific minds in history:
Sir Isaac Newton:
“There is a being who made all things, who holds all things in his power, and is therefore to be feared.”
Lord Kelvin:
“With regard to origin of life, science…positively affirms creative power.”
Johann Kepler:
” The chief aim of all investigation of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God.”
Arthur Compton:
“Science is the glimpse of God’s purpose in nature.”
Joeseph Lister: (responsible for probably saving more human lives in the history of mankind than anyone)
“I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.”
Blaise Pascal: (my favorite)
“How can anyone lose who chooses to be a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing–in fact, has been happier in life than his non-believing friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and a hell, then he has gained heaven, and his skeptical friend have lost everything in hell!”
Sire Fredrick Herschel:
“The undevout astronomer must be mad!”
I just grabbed a few. Why will you not open yourself up to the diversity of some of the greatest scientific minds in history? Must science, and life, be a narrow, godless exercise of bleak reality with no hope?
Why not live in hope in Christ as some of the great and blessed scientific minds in history did?
Just some passing thoughts.
kev:
You are mixing up their scientific achievements with their religious beliefs. None of them, and no one since has proven there is an after life. Pascal even had doubts (see above).
Baldy,
You and Mark want to constantly divorce science and religion, when some of the greatest scientists were Christians.
I would not interpret Pascal as having doubt just pointing to the flaw in the logic of the godless.
kev:
And probably more weren’t christian. You failed to mention the likes of Salk and Sabin, or Einstein who were all Jewish. Or Euclide and Archimides, on whose shoulders Newton stood. Or Galileo and Copernicus who were a threat to christian leadership and persecuted. Being religious is not a requirement to be a great scientist, it is a choice some of them made. And like you, none of them, religious or not, has ever proven there is an afterlife
Baldy,
Of course some scientists are not christian. My main point is: You and Mark show a dripping disdain for Christianity and imply Christians reject “science” by being Christian. Christians only accept good science. Many of the great scientists in history were great scientists. Science that affirms and discovers the creators divine majesty. When science attempts to reject that: it is always bad science.
Many times science backs up the science in the bible 2000 years later.
Galileo was Christian despite persecution by Catholic church. Galileo was affirming earth’s spherical nature confirmed in Genesis. His persecution was yet another heresy of Roman Catholic church corrupting the bible.
Early Greeks and Romans knew that there was a Supreme Being; they did not know how to name Him. Other biblically-mentioned tribes also had a supreme being. Whether ‘intellectuals’ or not, tens of millions of people believed in a Supreme Being, including Hindus, Moslems, and Jews.
Christians have Christ, Who is that Supreme Being in person. Now Christ self-identified as “Truth.” If one accepts that ad arguendam, then seeking truth will lead to Christ.
The Big Lie was from Satan, who told Adam and Eve that they ‘would be like God’ if they disobeyed His command. Atheists and agnostics believe that lie.
So if the non-believers are philosophically consistent, they are ‘like God’ and need not change their lives (metanoia). But if they are indeed ‘like God,’ they, too, can create something out of nothing.
We’ll wait. Show us!
kev:
I have no “dripping disdain” for anybody or anything. But it does sound like some communicable diseases seen in SE Asia back in the good old days. A good dose of antibiotics should cure you.
You will have to explain how “Christians only accept good science”. What is good science by your definition? Evolution and climate change are good or bad science? How about the polio vaccine? Or are you just CYA once again by being selective in what you preach?
“Science that affirms and discovers the creators divine majesty. When science attempts to reject that: it is always bad science.” OK, Mr. Wizard, use common scientific method to prove that statement. And as always, show your work.
“Many times science backs up the science in the bible 2000 years later.” Give a provable example.
“Galileo was Christian despite persecution by Catholic church. Galileo was affirming earth’s spherical nature confirmed in Genesis.” Here is a great teachable moment. Galileo (1564-1642) was persecuted by the church for promoting heliocentrism (or Copernicanism), the proof that the the earth orbits the sun. More from Kevins Book of Made Up Stuff.
Another teachable moment: Sailors, and smart folks all over the world knew that the earth wasn’t flat thousands of years before Galileo was born. Remember, sailors like Columbus, Vikings, Polynesians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Chinese had been sailing all over the place long before Galileo.
So once again you draw on your tenuous grasp of history and facts to make yet another provably false claim. You can do better.
Good science discovers what is true. Any 3rd grader knows that.
Baldy,
Examples of science in bible:
1.) Psalm 8:8 written about 800 bc speaks of “paths of the sea”.
Matthew Maury, the Father of modern Oceanography, dedicated his life to discovering that secret of divine creation in 1800s. “If God said there are paths in the sea, I’m going to find them.” (And he did find the 2000 years later.). His texts on warm and cold sea currents are still used by universities. Even all Gore uses this good science to prop up his bad science.
2.) 2nd law of thermodynamics was in bible thousands of years before science discovered it.
The law of increasing Entropy in creation was well addressed by Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 102: 25,26, and Hebrews 1:11.
Just 2 examples of many.
How can the biblical writers understand these 2 important concepts thousands of years before they were “discovered” as “science” unless the creator gave the writers the divine “hint”?
(Thanks for your cynical history lesson. I suppose my bad on letting my auto correct taking “orbit” out on spherical when I missed the space. )
kev:
Any sailor or fisherman in 800 BC and before knew of ocean currents. You have proven nothing.
You didn’t provide any second “proof”.
Including the word orbit in the sentence wouldn’t have made a difference.
Grow a pair, kev. You shot first, aimed later.
Baldy said,
“Any sailor or fisherman in 800 BC and before knew of ocean currents. ”
Prove it!
The lengths you will go through to reject God, even when it’s obvious, is interesting.
The writer of this psalm was a shepherd, not a sailor.
You did not even touch the 2nd example? How can the Bible get the second law of Thermodynamics so correct thousands of year before science discovered it? (Hint: the creator knows what entropy does to creation, and put the blueprint in the bible for us to understand.)
kev:
Read up on Phoenician and Greek trade in the Mediterranean. I realize research is difficult for you so try Nat Geo It would be a great source for a layman such as yourself..
The rest is nonsense by a desperate man.
Baldy,
We were talking ocean currents.
Last I checked, the Mediterranean was not an ocean. Even you disavowed the science using word “ocean”.
But I’ll humor you and we will talk about your non-ocean.
What is your source that sea currents were documented and studied before 1 BC?
Matthew Maury is no longer credited with discovering ocean currents?
That wil be news to scientific community on the subject.
This proves you will reject science when you do not like the result.
kev:
OK, I agree. And you were talking sea currents, “paths of the sea”. So I was correct in using the Greek and Phoenician sailor rational, but you were only interested in ocean currents. So follow carefully: Portuguese and Viking sailors fished for cod on the Grand Banks in the northern Atlantic OCEAN long before they had any exposure to whatever the bible may have said. They knew about OCEAN currents and the prevailing winds that associated with them.
And how would you describe the currents at Gibraltar? Sea currents or ocean currents?
Maury didn’t “discover” ocean currents(or sea currents, whichever you choose) no more than the first human discovered the sun, but he was one of the first westerners to describe them using science as proof.
Once again science and history fail you.
Baldy,
Then point to your source where these cultures knew about this science before 800 BC.
Just one source.
If you have that source, you would then be disbuting Matthew Maury as the Father of Oceanography.
No one in scientific community is doing that.
I am so shocked you reject the scientific consensus on who the Father of Oceanography is.
kev:
Take a look at Maurys work. Or is anything of a technical nature beyond your grasp. Maury no more “discovered” ocean/sea (which do you prefer?) currents than did the first human to shade their eyes in the bright sunlight “discover” the sun. The currents were always there, he was one of the first to describe them in a scientific manner, and made predictions as what further research would reveal.
Any yahoo in 800BC that lived along a sea/ocean coast could throw a stick in the water on a calm day and note that there was a current. They didn’t need a book of fiction to tell them that.
So you are denying the scientific consensus he is the father of Oceanography?
Gravity was always there, does that diminish the person who studied it, as science?
I find your tossing of the scientific method in this case fascinating.
kev:
I said nothing even remotely similar to that. You are desperate to be “right”. So you again resort to the infamous “Kevin’s Book of Made Up Stuff”.
Your position is claiming the science of sea currents were discovered by someone other than Maury.
You have to take this anti-science position because you are desperate to make sure the bible is not correct about this 2600 years prior.
kev:
No that is not what I said. You are making stuff up again. To paraphrase, you are lying. And no one discovered the science of sea currents. That is a nonsense statement. I have tried to explain it to you with words that may be in your limited vocabulary, but I guess I’ll have to dumb it down for you even more. But not at this time.
Why do you continue to make such juvenile and feeble attempts to put words in the mouths of others? You could spend a similar amount of time and learn the basics of scientific method. It would be time well spent. But then science and facts seem to cause you problems.
Baldy,
Were you not taking the position that sea currents were discovered by “Greek and Phoenician sailor[s]…Portuguese and Viking sailors fished for cod on the Grand Banks in the northern Atlantic OCEAN long before they had any exposure to whatever the bible may have said. They knew about OCEAN currents and the prevailing winds that associated with them.”?
You used this point to discredit the bible (or imply someone else worte it from this group who discovered sea currents before Maury).
Is Maury the Father of Modern Oceanography, or not?
If he is, he credited the Bible (and the Creator for the blueprint) directly for his discovery.
It is funny the lengths you will go through to discredit this noble and honorable scientist’s discoveries, who happened to be Christian.
kev:
No, I did not take that position. Read the quote you used, “They knew about OCEAN currents and the prevailing winds that associated with them”. No where does it say they “discovered” the currents. You are once again exhibiting your pathological refusal to be wrong. And your poor reading comprehension. I’m sure the local Tech Collage can help you with a remidial reading class.
Sure, Maury is the “father’ of the science of modern oceanography. But that does not mean or imply that he discovered currents.If you want to give the bible credit for predicting something that has existed since the oceans existed, go right ahead. But that doesn’t mean it is true.
I have said nothing to discredit Maurys work. That is all on you and your continued fabrications.