Share on
Apologetics for the Masses #343 - An Evangelical Pastor and Mary (Part 4)
Social Media - Please Share This Newsletter On...
Topic
The Sinlessness of Mary - A Debate With an Evangelical Pastor (Part 4)
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Introduction
This newsletter is continuing my debate on the Sinlessness of Mary with Evangelical pastor Greg Smith, and, at the outset, I have to admit that I was wrong in something I said in last week's newsletter - I'm not going to be able to bring this debate back to a few main points...yet.
Which means this will be another newsletter that is a little bit longer than average, but, again, I believe it will be worth taking the time to read. But, because of the length of Pastor Smith's comments, and then the length of my responses, I am going to split this round of the dialogue up into two parts.
So, I will give the first half of his response, with my comments interspersed, and then I will post the 2nd half of his response here, but not respond to it until next week.
I'm allowing this dialogue to spread out as it is, because I want you to see how a typical Catholic/Protestant dialogue generally develops if you don't put restraints on it, and I want you to see the behavior of pretty much every Protestant you will ever dialogue with on matters pertaining to the Catholic faith in Pastor Smith's behavior - the more he talks, the more you get into the word of Greg, and the farther you get from the Word of God. If they answer your questions, the answers become more and more nebulous and the more they contradict themselves. It never ceases to fascinate me.
A little homework assignment (no need to actually turn anything in) will be for you to think about how you would respond to the 2nd half of his comments that I will not be addressing until next week, and see if you and I are on the same wavelength in terms of how we respond.
Oh, and one other thing that I was wrong on - I said Isaiah was taken up to Heaven in a fiery chariot. Well, as all of you who emailed me know (and that was a lot of you), and as probably all the rest of you know, it wasn't Isaiah that was taken up, it was Elijah. For some reason I got the name "Isaiah" stuck in my head, even though I knew it was Elijah that was taken up, and even though I cited the passage about Elijah being taken up, and even though I read the passage about Elijah being taken up right before I typed those comments, I still had Isaiah on my mind for some reason. It's kind of like how, when I was a child, my mom would sometimes call me by one of my brothers' names - she had a name stuck in her head and that was what came out of her mouth, even though she knew I wasn't Frank or Bob. She even once called me George - that was our dog's name.
To see the last round of the debate, so as to refresh your memory on what it is I said that he is responding to, click here:
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Pastor Greg Smith
Thank you for this time we can discuss our faith. I am enjoying our time together and the time to search the Scriptures to provide answers to your many questions.
I noticed all the places where you attempted to point out my errors, but I believe you have missed your errors, some of which are very obvious to any Bible student. I also noticed how few of my questions you answered, especially on apostolic succession. Respectfully, apostolic succession is not a biblical doctrine, so perhaps that is why you did not answer my questions on this subject.
John Martignoni
Error regarding Isaiah/Elijah noted above in "Introduction" section - not a big deal since everyone who read it knew I was talking about Elijah. A mental error, not an interpretation error. However, no interpretative errors in my response - none. Also, silence, to this point, on apostolic succession does not equate to an admission that apostolic succession is not a biblical doctrine. You are simply trying to bait me. My silence on that topic to this point is simply a function of trying to keep these newsletters to a certain length, nothing more.
Pastor Greg Smith
Sin of Mary
In regards to my sins, I would not say (as you incorrectly assumed) that I was saved from committing those sins by Jesus Christ. What I would have said, if you had asked, is that I am saved from the penalty of those sins, which is eternal death in hell, because I have been made righteous (having been justified by faith – Romans 5:1) by Jesus Christ. Yes, I sin. I continually sin, just as the Apostle Paul said that he sinned, doing what he did not want to do (Romans 7:7 – 25). So I reject your premise that Mary was saved from sinning. Obviously, some popes were not saved from sinning. The priests who have committed evil sexual sins against young boys and girls and nuns recently and over the centuries were not saved from sinning either.
When a person becomes a Christian, they are justified, declared righteous, before God. But their sinning does not end. They become sanctified, made holy, and also go on a path of sanctification as they grow in Christ. We are not saved from committing sins until we are glorified. Mary was not glorified while she was on this earth. She sinned and kept sinning. But her faith was in her Savior who forgave her of her sins. This is an important distinction, John.
John Martignoni
Okay, I think we've got a little of what Orwell's 1984 calls "doublespeak" going on here. You were not saved from committing those sins (being a drunkard, a drug addict, or a compulsive gambler) by Jesus, but you were saved from the "penalty of those sins" by Jesus? What does that mean? Are you saying you were indeed a drunkard, a drug addict, or a compulsive gambler? If you are saying something else, then please elucidate as you are not being clear. Because if you were never a drunkard, drug addict, or compulsive gambler, why would you have to be saved from the penalty of sins that you never committed? That makes no sense.
What also makes no sense is that if you never committed one or more of those sins, that you would claim you were not saved from them by Jesus. You, by your own power, were able to avoid those sins? It wasn't by the grace of God? You've never once uttered the statement, "There, but by the grace of God, go I?" So, the sins you have never committed - whether it be drunkenness, drug use, heavy gambling, adultery, idolatry, theft, murder, lying, etc. - those you have been saved from because of things you have done of your own power? Jesus had nothing to do with it? The grace merited for you by Christ's death on the Cross had nothing to do with you not committing certain sins?
If that's what you're saying, I find that to be quite an interesting claim coming from an Evangelical pastor. Another thing I find interesting, is that you seem to be saying, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that a person can be saved without first being sanctified. Don't you have to be made holy in order to be saved? Don't you have to be holy in order to see Jesus?
Pastor Greg Smith
So, where is your biblical proof or precedent that Mary was saved from committing sin? This has happened to no one while they are alive! This is a false doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, and you should stop propagating this error.
On top of this, your justification is completely wrong. You misinterpret Genesis 3:15. It is not the woman (Mary) who will bruise the seed of Satan, it is “He,” the seed of the woman, Jesus Christ, who bruised Satan (by the crucifixion, which defeated Satan once and for all), not Mary. I ask you and the readers of your newsletter to read this verse, of Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
Do you see how you have misinterpreted this verse by not reading it correctly? Your interpretation is false. You are not to believe the word of Greg (as you say) or the word of John. Read and understand the Word of God!
John Martignoni
It would serve you well to pay a little closer attention to what I say. I did not misinterpret Genesis 3:15. The misinterpretation is yours. I did not say it was the woman who will bruise the head of Satan. Let me repeat, verbatim, what I said in the last newsletter:
"In Genesis 3:15, God says He will put enmity between the woman and Satan. What woman? The woman whose seed will bruise the head of Satan. Who is being referenced here as the seed? Jesus Christ. What woman is Jesus Christ the 'seed' of? Mary. God Himself puts enmity between Mary and Satan. If there is divine enmity between Mary and Satan, how would she sin, since sinning puts you and Satan essentially on pretty good speaking terms?"
So, I did not say it was the woman who would bruise the head of Satan, I said it was the seed of the woman, Jesus Christ, Who would do so. How did you so badly misinterpret what I was very plainly saying? And if you can misinterpret the word of man so badly, what does that say in regard to your ability to accurately interpret the Word of God?
Now that we have hopefully cleared up your misunderstanding of my words, please address the point I made: "God Himself puts enmity between Mary and Satan. If there is divine enmity between Mary and Satan, how would she sin, since sinning puts you and Satan essentially on pretty good speaking terms?"
Pastor Greg Smith
With respect to Revelation 12, you again misinterpret Scripture. The woman is not Mary. The woman is Israel.
1. Revelation 12:1. The woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of 12 stars is a direct comparison to Joseph’s dream, of the description of the sun (Jacob), the moon (his wife / wives), and the 12 stars (the children of Jacob). See Genesis 37:9 – 11. This represents Israel.
2. Revelation 12:5. The woman (Israel) bore Christ, her child was caught up, then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God that they should feed her there for 1260 days. What is your interpretation of this if it applies to Mary? And where is the Scripture to verify it? If it applies to Israel, which it does, then it describes the future time when Israel flees Jerusalem, when the Antichrist comes into Jerusalem and in obedience to Christ, those Jewish believers flee into the wilderness (see Jesus’ interpretation in Matthew 24:15 – 28, Mark 13:14 – 23). And then Christ comes and saves Israel, not Mary (who has already died and is safe in heaven) (Zechariah 13:8 – 9, Romans 11:25 – 29). I notice that you do not make your arguments from Scripture. Where is your support from Scripture? Use the principle of the Bereans to search the Scriptures to see if these things are true. And if you want to stay with the Old Testament, it too will verify it.
3. In fact, in Old Testament imagery, the woman symbolizes Israel, not Mary (Isaiah 54:1 – 6; Jeremiah 3:20; Ezekiel 10:8 – 14; Hosea 2:19 – 20; Isaiah 26:17 – 18, 66:7 – 9; Jeremiah 4:31, 13:21; Micah 4:10, 5:3).
John Martignoni
Sorry, but your interpretation of Revelation 12:1 is a rather limited one. The lack of depth in your theology places severe limitations on your ability to properly interpret what Scripture is saying and to understand the full scope and breadth of any given passage of scripture. Now, regarding your interpretation, and please note, it is YOUR interpretation you are giving me - the word of Greg - and you have already admitted that your interpretations are not infallible, which means it could be wrong, right?
Regarding your fallible interpretation, here's the thing: you are indeed correct, to a degree. The woman does indeed represent Israel, at one level of interpretation. After all, Christ is a son of Israel. However, the woman, at another level of interpretation, also represents the Church. It is the Church that brings Christ to the world - that gives birth to Christ, if you will - in all nations and among all peoples.
Neither of those interpretations, though, are the fundamental interpretation. You see, there is the parallel to Genesis 3:15 that I have previously mentioned. In Gen 3:15, God was talking to, and about, real persons - Jesus, Satan, and the woman. The woman in Gen 3:15 is a real person. Jesus is her seed. The only place that I can think of in the Bible where it mentions the "seed" of the woman. "Seed" is normally associated with a man. But, in the case of Mary, and the Virgin Birth, it is appropriate to speak of the seed of the woman. The woman in Gen 3:15 is not, at a fundamental level, Israel, because God puts enmity between the woman and Satan and can you say there has always been divine enmity between Satan and Israel? Not according to all the times Israel fell away and worshipped false gods. That's not enmity between Israel and Satan, that is adultery between Israel and Satan.
Then, in Revelation 12:1-9, we have the parallel with Jesus - the child Who will rule all nations with a rod of iron. Real person. We have Satan - the great red dragon. Real person. And we have the woman. Symbol. Really?! We also have God the Father. Real, or symbolic? Real. We have St. Michael the archangel. Real, or symbolic? Real. So, we have real, real, symbolic, real, real. Really?! That's how you want to interpret it?
If the woman is Israel, and only Israel, then why does verse 17 say that her offspring are "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus"? Do the Jews bear testimony to Jesus? Also, Jesus addresses Mary as "woman" at the beginning of His ministry (John 2), and at the end of His ministry (John 19). And, speaking of Old Testament connections here, in the Song of Solomon, chapter 6, it states: "My dove, my perfect one, is only one...Who is this that looks forth like the dawn, fair as the moon, bright as the sun..." (verses 9-10). Moon, sun, woman. The KJV renders verse 9 as, "My dove, my undefiled is but one..."
"Perfect"? "Undefiled"? Does that describe Israel? I don't think so. It does, however, describe the sinless and perpetually Virgin Mary. Furthermore, Revelation 11:19 - 12:1 points to this woman as being the new Ark of the Covenant. And that description fits Mary much better than it does Israel. What did the Ark carry in the Old Testament? The Word of God, in stone. The staff of the high priest. The bread that came down from heaven (the manna). What did the new Ark, Mary, carry? The Word of God, in the flesh. The High Priest Himself. The true bread that came down from Heaven. And, should you have any doubts, look at these parallels between Luke 1 and 2 Sam 6:
2 Sam 6:2 “And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale Judah [which was a city in Judah] to bring up from there the ark of God.” Lk 1:39, “In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah…”
2 Sam 6:9, “…and David said, ‘How can the ark of the Lord come to me?’” Lk 1:43, “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
2 Sam 6:10, “…but David took [the ark] aside to the house of Obededom the Gittite.” Lk 1:40, “and she entered the house of Zechariah…”
2 Sam 6:11, “And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months...” Lk 1:56, “And Mary remained with [Elizabeth] about three months…”
2 Sam 6:12, “So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obededom to the city of David with rejoicing…” Lk 1:47, “…and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior…”
2 Sam 6:15, “So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting..” Lk 1:42, “…and [Elizabeth] exclaimed with a loud cry…”
2 Sam 6:16, “As the ark of the Lord came into the city of David…King David [was] leaping and dancing before the Lord…” Lk 1:41, “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb…”
Hmmm.
And one more thing, the Bereans you mention, you do realize that they were searching the Scriptures not to prove or disprove doctrine, but to simply see if what Paul was telling them was actually in the Scriptures, right? Furthermore, it is obvious, is it not, that they, on their own, obviously had not come to a proper understanding of the Scriptures, or they would not have needed Paul - an infallible guide - to help them understand, would they?
Pastor Greg Smith
Romans 5:12: Death spread to all men because all sinned
1. I do not have a problem on inconsistency. All men and women (including Mary) sinned. And all men and women died. You need to remember how the Bible defines death. There is . . .
a. Spiritual death – immediately after Adam sinned, he was spiritually separated from God (died spiritually)
b. Physical death – he then began to die physically, the moment he sinned [look at the Hebrew of Genesis 2:17: dying (physically), you will surely die (spiritually)]
c. Eternal death – this is the second death (Revelation 21:8), death that brings separation from God (like spiritual death), but also the eternal torment in hell (not purgatory first – there is no purgatory in Scripture)
As Christians, we should not fear death because we are saved permanently from spiritual and eternal death by the death and resurrection of Christ.
John Martignoni
Well, the Bible says there are two deaths - the 1st is death of the body, and the 2nd death is being tossed into the lake of fire - Hell (Rev 21:8). Two births - born of the flesh and born again of the Spirit - and two deaths. You say there are three deaths. Should I believe the word of Greg, or the Word of God?
And, yes, Purgatory can indeed be found in Scripture. That, however, is for another time.
Pastor Greg Smith
2. You are also completely wrong in thinking that Isaiah never died. Tradition by Manasseh (The Martyrdom of Isaiah 5:1ff) tells us that Isaiah was sawn in two. It was Elijah, not Isaiah, John, that was taken up by a fiery chariot. And it is Elijah who will die physically in Revelation 11:7 (cf. Malachi 4:5 – 6). Will you admit this mistake?
John Martignoni
Admitted, and explained, my error above regarding Isaiah/Elijah in the Introduction. I believe it is quite obvious, given that I quoted 2 Kings about Elijah, and not some passage from Isaiah, that anyone who is being honest would realize it was a simple mental error, not an error of interpretation.
However, I find it quite fascinating that you rely upon "tradition" to know that Isaiah was sawn in two. I thought you went by the Bible alone? Also, I was a bit flabbergasted that you say Elijah will die physically in Revelation 11:7 and you offer Malachi 4:5-6 as your proof text. You are aware, are you not, that Jesus Himself tells us that in John the Baptist we have the return of Elijah (Matt 11:10-14)? This is the the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6.
And, nowhere in the Bible does it say Elijah is one of the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11. That is an hypothesis, a speculation, yet you present it as if it were an infallible teaching of Scripture. You present your own private fallible interpretation, as if it were infallible teaching. You present the word of Greg as if it were the Word of God. Do you not realize how often you do that? And do you not realize that I am under no obligation whatsoever to believe your word over and above the Word of God? I reject your interpretation. Tell me what authority you have over me that you can infallibly declare your interpretation to be valid and mine not to be?
Pastor Greg Smith
3. Note that when Christ returns for His church at the rapture (II Thessalonians 4:16 – 17) that there will be many who also do not die, “we who are alive and remain will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we will always be with the Lord.” All men and women spiritually die, and most will die physically. And the majority of mankind will suffer eternal death. Taking up Enoch, Elijah, or the raptured church does not invalidate this passage of Romans 5:12. All means all. Mary is part of that all who sinned and died. But she was forgiven by God her Savior.
John Martignoni
Please explain to me how it is that, "All men and women spiritually die?" And, where does it say that in Scripture? I ask because, in order to die, you have to first be alive, right? So, in order to die spiritually, you have to first be alive spiritually. Makes sense, doesn't it? But, that presents a problem for you. Babies. Babies cannot commit a sin - they do not have the moral capacity to do so. So, if a baby dies physically before it reaches the age of reason - the age when he or she could sin - then when exactly did that baby die spiritually?
If you say the baby was born into sin, that doesn't work. Because even though the baby was physically alive, he/she was never alive spiritually. And, if the baby was never alive spiritually, then the baby could not die spiritually. But, if you say a baby is born alive physically and also alive spiritually, and the baby dies before he/she ever commits a sin, then when exactly does that baby die spiritually? The answer: never.
Your words do not stand up to the test of logic or to the test of Scripture. Besides, you believe in once saved always saved, don't you? So, if a person is born into sin - they are physically alive but spiritually dead, from the moment of their conception - then they do not become spiritually alive until they are born again by accepting Jesus into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior, right? Which means, since they were never alive spiritually before they accepted Christ, then they never died spiritually before they accepted Christ. And if they are truly born again, if they are truly come alive in Christ, then, by your theology, they can never die spiritually after they accept Christ. So, for you to say that, "All men and women die spiritually," is to contradict your belief in eternal security, not to mention to contradict the Bible. So, your "All men and women die spiritually," statement, along with your 3 deaths theology, is dead on arrival.
I will close this portion of my comments with a question: The "rapture" you speak of, is that a pre-millenial rapture or what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{Below are the rest of Pastor Smith's comments. I will reply to them in next week's newsletter. Think about how you might reply to them...}
Pastor Greg Smith
Romans 5:18 – 19
"Through one man’s transgression, there resulted in condemnation to all
and through one act of righteousness, there resulted justification of life to all men.
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners,
even so through the One the many will be made righteous."
John, you were quick to point out in verse 18 that all includes all people and asked me if I believed in universalism because justification resulted to all men. Did you not continue reading one more verse for context? Did you not notice the parallelism in verse 19? I have included it here for you.
These verses are not teaching universalism, as is obvious when you read the whole book of Romans and see Paul’s arguments (see 1:16 – 17; 3:22 – 28; 4:5, 13). So, let’s see what Paul means here. It is teaching that salvation only comes to those who have faith in Jesus Christ. Paul mirrors the thought of verse 18 but now applies it to many individuals. The all who become saved are all those who put their faith and trust in Christ. Note that it will not be all, only many.
Commission
John, who are you to judge that “the laying on of hands” that I received when I graduated from seminary was just some formality that I indulged in, and that nothing significant was passed on to me through the laying on of hands. I find your uninformed conclusion judgmental and insulting, especially since you were not even there, nor do you understand. As I mentioned above, godly men laid hands upon me and prayed as a commission going forward. In addition, I am using my spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit to pastor and lead the church, obeying God’s command to preach, as commissioned by the elders of my church. At our church we are seeing God’s blessing in the growth of individual lives in a stronger relationship with the Lord. Can we trace my commission back to Peter? No. But maybe that is a problem with the Roman Catholic church in the way it is commissioning its priests and the falling into sexual sin that so many have fallen into.
You brag about the numbers of followers to your newsletter in justifying your role. God is never interested in quantity, but quality, in seeing lives changed, in people growing in their relationship to Christ, or even in coming to salvation in the Lord. If God has given you 5 talents and me 2, do not be prideful about your 5 talents becoming 10 and mine growing to 4.
You ask if you can start your own church? Has the Lord laid on your heart the call to preach, to be a priest? Probably not because you are doing something else that you enjoy. If God wanted you to preach and be a priest, He would provide the opportunity, opening, and especially the training. Keep praying about it if this is truly the call God has laid on your heart. I do not know if you are married or not. I have never understood why priests have not been allowed to marry. The restriction is not in the Scriptures. In fact, since you take Peter to be your first pope, do you not realize that Peter had a wife? Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law. If your first pope was allowed to marry, why are not popes and priests today allowed to marry, following the example of your greatest pope? Perhaps if they did, there would not be all the sexual sin that is in the Roman Catholic leadership.
Apostolic Succession
I will wait for your answer to my many questions before I try to answer your trap.
Teaching of the Scriptures
If you want to mimic me and add things that I did not say by your so-called “Translation: . . .,” that is fine. I stand by what I wrote. I guess you would prefer that when I write to you, I only quote Scripture. And that would be fine. The problem is, as I have shown above in multiple places, you misinterpret and do not even read the Scriptures. Again, for example, you mixed up and did not understand that Revelation 12 was speaking about Israel and not Mary. You did not realize that it was Elijah who was taken up in a fiery chariot. So, when I respond back to your misinterpretations, I give you the Scripture and try to explain it to you. You rely upon the traditions and misinterpretations of the church, instead of realizing that this is in error. Again, I say to you, and this is my conclusion, not from Scripture, that all spiritual commands that we must obey come from God through the Scriptures alone.
Let me try to go further into understanding the truth. I have told you that Scripture is our only true source of knowing the truth from God. We are not under obligation to obeying the traditions of the Roman Catholic church, only the Scriptures. This does not mean that there is no value in church history. We have volumes of writings from the early church fathers, godly men, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Tertullian, Athanasius, and so many others. There is great value in reading and studying these writings from godly men. I am preaching through the book of Daniel now, and there is great value in the Apocryphal books of Maccabees. There is great value in the writings of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. There is great value in listening to the preaching of Billy Graham or John MacArthur. There is great value in the early church councils of men who studied the sources and the books of the New Testament and declared them to be authoritative. Please understand this John, that all these sources fall under the final authority of Scripture. I am sorry if I did not explain that clearly before. Now, we do not follow everything Polycarp or Calvin wrote. Why? They were fallible. They made mistakes, though not as big of mistakes as popes who promoted indulgences. How do we know that these men made mistakes? We compare what they wrote with what the Scripture says. Scripture is the final and only complete authority.
Evangelical Protestants compare Scripture with the edicts and traditions of the Roman Catholic church. There are certain doctrines that do not agree with Scripture, and when they do not agree, they are wrong. Scripture is the final authority, not the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church has misused their religious authority numerous times. Why did Luther finally break away from the Roman Catholic church? The roots of why, found in his 95 Theses, are the sale of indulgences, among many others. This was a Roman Catholic church doctrine authorized by sinful popes, NOT FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES. Do you agree John? Is it wrong to be able to buy someone’s salvation by giving money to the Roman Catholic church? Of course it is.
I told you about my call to be a pastor. Is that authoritative? No. And you point out the obvious that Scripture does not call my name out. Thank you John for explaining the obvious. But my call is compared to the final authority of Scripture. For example, do I meet the requirements of a pastor as found in I Timothy 3, Titus 1, and I Peter 5? Do I have the spiritual gifts of pastoring and teaching? All of this is compared under the final authority of Scripture.
And John, let’s not get ridiculous before your audience of 40,000 subscribers. I said that all spiritual commands fall under the Scriptures. Do you really think that mathematical and scientific truths, such as 2 + 2 = 4 or Ohm’s Law, fall under the heading of a spiritual truth? Let’s not be dramatic! And by the way, when science conflicts with the Scriptures, as evolution does, then evolution is thrown out. Evolution is a lie from Satan and propagated by Pope Francis when he says that evolution and creation are not at odds (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/28/pope-francis-comments-on-evolution-and-the-catholic-church). He is wrong. I guess the Roman Catholic church believes this because it discourages taking the Bible for what it says (https://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201508/do-catholics-believe-evolution-30288 ) found in Genesis and other passages of the Scriptures (Exodus 20). If you discourage accepting the Bible for what it says here and there, no wonder you follow the traditions of the church when they disagree with Scripture. The Bible says in Genesis chapter 1 that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. This is confirmed in Exodus 20:11, that man is to work six 24-hour days and rest on the seventh, just as God worked in six days and rested on the seventh – a direct comparison. Do you believe this John? Are you a creationist or are you an evolutionist?
In conclusion, John, please do not just read over what I have written. Please pray about it. Please study it. Look especially at the cross references from Scripture that I have provided. I hope your audience will at least see that my intent is to show that the Bible is our final authority, and that everything else must be examined to what the Word of God says!
Greg
Closing Comments
I hope you have enjoyed this and I pray that all of you have a wonderful week!
Donations
The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Social Media - Please Share This Newsletter On...
Share this newsletter on:
