WHAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES ABOUT SALVATION

Because of the ecumenical movement, a growing number of Roman Catholics are familiar with biblical terminology about salvation, such as born again, and some have been trained to reply affirmatively to the questions, "Are you saved?" or, "Have you been born again?" 

The problem is that they do not mean by this what the Bible means. Rome's doctrine of salvation is not the the true gospel of complete and sure salvation through personal faith in Christ. It is a gospel of works that is sometimes presented under the guise of grace. 

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'S DOCTRINE OF SALVATION CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Rome teaches that Christ, having purchased redemption by His blood and death, delivered it to the Catholic Church to be distributed to men through her sacraments. 

Rome's gospel centers in the Catholic Church, the pope, the priesthood, and the sacraments. While Catholicism teaches that Christ died on the cross to purchase man's salvation, it is not satisfied simply to invite men to receive this salvation by faith directly from the resurrected Christ.  

Consider the following quotes from the Vatican II Council:

"For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, SO THAT THEY MAY DISTRIBUTE IT TO THE FAITHFUL FOR THEIR SALVATION. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect ... are known to add further to this treasury'" (ellipsis are in the original) (Vatican II Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, Chap. 4, 7, p. 80). 

"For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God" (Vatican II Council, Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).

2. Rome's plan of salvation has several steps

The First Step is Baptism. According to Rome, salvation begins with baptism. It can be infant baptism for those born into Catholic homes or adult baptism for those who approach the Roman Church later in life. Either way, the Catholic Church teaches that through baptism a person receives spiritual life. 

"By the sacrament of Baptism, whenever it is properly conferred in the way the Lord determined and received with the proper dispositions of soul, man becomes truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ and is reborn to a sharing of the divine life" (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 3, II, 22, p. 427).

The next steps are the other church sacraments.

After baptism a person is considered to be born again and part of the Church. This new life is said to be nurtured and kept alive through Confirmation, Mass, Penance and the other Catholic sacraments.

"Just as Christ was sent by the Father so also he sent the apostles ... that they might preach the Gospel to every creature and proclaim that the Son of God by his death and resurrection had freed us from the power of Satan and from death, and brought us into the Kingdom of his Father. But he also willed that the work of salvation which they preached SHOULD BE SET IN TRAIN THROUGH THE SACRIFICE AND SACRAMENTS, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).

"THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS ARE THE NECESSARY MEANS ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST THROUGH WHICH HIS REDEEMING, LIFE-GIVING, SANCTIFYING GRACE IS IMPARTED TO INDIVIDUALS' SOULS. You must centre your life upon the sacraments established by Christ if you want to save your soul. means of salvation. ... The sacraments are the source of your real life, the divine life that will unite you with God in this world and in eternity. Let nothing make you think that you can get along without the sacraments. Without them your soul must die. ... IF YOU DON'T RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS AT ALL, YOU DON'T RECEIVE GRACE. If you don't receive them properly, that is, if you receive them seldom and with little devotion, you receive less grace" (L.G. Lovasik, The Eucharist in Catholic Life, pp. 14,15).

Thus we see that the Roman Catholic plan of salvation is faith in Christ PLUS baptism PLUS continuing in the sacraments. 

3. Rome teaches that salvation is by the grace of God through Christ and is received by faith, but it denies that salvation is by grace ALONE and faith ALONE.

The following statement is made by a modern Roman priest well known for his emphasis upon the necessity for personal faith in the exercise of the sacraments, yet he is careful to say that the sacraments are as necessary as faith. 

"In recent years the church has reiterated again and again that we are saved by faith AND the sacraments of faith. BOTH ARE NECESSARY" (J.D. Crichton, Christian Celebration: The Sacraments, p. 65).

The Catholic Church redefines grace.

When a Roman Catholic priest speaks of salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ, he does not mean the unmerited, free grace of Christ whereby a believing sinner is eternally and completely and once-for-all saved from sin. By "grace," the Roman Catholic Church means God's help to live a righteous life. 

Consider the following quote from Vatican II:

"All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged" (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 14, p. 337).

This is a strange kind of grace. It is a grace that does not result in eternal certainty, but only the POSSIBILITY of living up to God's requirements. It is a subtle and unscriptural MIXTURE OF GRACE PLUS WORKS that is condemned in Galatians 1:6-8.

THE BIBLE'S ANSWER TO ROME'S DOCTRINE OF SALVATION 

1. Sacramental salvation is contrary to the examples of salvation in the book of Acts (Acts 10:43: 11:16-18; 14:27; 15:9-11; 16:30-31). The souls that were saved in the early churches were saved once and for all by putting their faith in Jesus Christ. Their salvation was not a process of sacramentalism. 

2. Sacramental salvation is contrary to the teaching of the book of Romans. This book is written expressly to reveal the way of salvation (Romans 1:15-17). 

Consider Romans 3:21-24; 4:4-6; 11:6. Notice in the last reference that God says it is impossible to mix grace and works for salvation. We are saved by grace or we are saved by works; it cannot be a mixture of the two as the Catholic Church teaches!

3. Sacramental salvation is also contrary to the Gospel of John, which was written expressly to lead men to eternal life in Christ (John 20:31). 

The first twelve chapters of John describe Jesus' ministry to the world of lost men. In these chapters, we are shown by unmistakable emphasis that eternal life and salvation are received by faith in Jesus Christ and faith in Christ alone. "Believe" is the key word in these chapters. See John 1:12; 3:16-18, 36; 5:24; 6:28-29; 7:38-39; 8:24; 9:35-38; 11:25-26; 12:36-37. Notice that in all of these verses we are told that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ and there is no hint of sacramentalism.

4. Sacramental salvation is contrary to the summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Here Paul summarizes the gospel that he preached, and it is faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Period. There is no sacramentalism whatsoever. No priests; no church; no works; no sacraments. 

5. Sacramental salvation is contrary to the summary of the gospel in Ephesians 2:8-10. This passage teaches that salvation is a free gift of God's grace and that works follow as the evidence. This puts everything into proper order and perspective. It is God's will that men live holy lives, but holy living is the product of salvation and not the way of salvation. 

6. Sacramental salvation is contrary to the summary of the gospel in Titus 3:4-8. This passage also teaches that salvation is a free gift of God's grace and that works follow as the evidence and product.

This is true Bible salvation. Eternal life, forgiveness of sin, righteousness, and the Holy Spirit are received when an individual acknowledges his sinfulness, repents of his sin and trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is only after this that a person can do any work to please God. Works and ceremonies, such as baptism and the Lord's Supper, in themselves have nothing to do with forgiveness of sin, eternal life, the new birth, or becoming a child of God. Rather, obedience to God follows salvation as naturally as living follows ones natural birth. First we must receive new life through personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Then, having life, the regenerated believer serves his Master. 

QUESTIONS TO ASK A PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO BE A SAVED ROMAN CATHOLIC 

By Alex O. Dunlap

Occasionally, some well-meaning Christian thinks he knows a "saved Roman Catholic." We invite such a person to introduce us to his friend so that we may, in his presence, ask the Roman Catholic these questions. His answers will easily determine that he is not saved in the true, biblical sense. The new "accommodation" approach of the Roman Church in these ecumenical days of apostasy is to use the same expressions as Fundamental Christians. Christian love is not shown by permitting these people to believe they are saved, when they are not. Christian love is shown by making the true Gospel plain and clear so that the "religious but lost" person will realize his unsaved condition and his need of a Saviour. He must receive the true Christ of the Bible, not a counterfeit, as in the Roman, Greek and many other churches. The Apostle Paul said that he was free from the blood of all men because he did not withhold from them all truth. May the same be true of every genuine witness for Jesus Christ! Here are the questions:

1. When were you converted?

2. How were you converted?

3. To what, or to whom, were you converted?

4. What do you believe now that you did not believe before your conversion?

5. What does it mean to be saved?

6. On what scriptural promises do you base your salvation?

7. What does it mean to be born again?

8. Are you sure today that if you die tomorrow, or at any time in the future, you will be in heaven immediately after death?

9. What do you believe about Purgatory?

10. What do you believe about the Mass?

11. Do you still participate in the Mass?

12. Do you believe that any sinner can be saved who dies without trusting in Jesus Christ alone for the salvation of his soul and forgiveness of his sins?

13. Do you believe that Mary and Roman Catholic saints can answer your prayers or help you get to heaven?

14. How do you believe that the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ is applied to your soul?

15. Have you told your priest you have been saved?

16. Do you believe you will still go to heaven if you leave the Roman Catholic Church, receive believer's baptism and join a fundamentalist Bible believing, non-Catholic church?

When and where do you plan to do this? As questions such as these are discussed in detail, it will become evident that the person is trusting in his works, merits, baptims, confirmation, sacraments, or something BESIDES OR PLUS, Jesus Christ, and not in Christ and Christ ALONE. He can then be shown the difference between hi sunbiblical form of salvation and the saving faith of the Bible. 

        —DC

FLAT OR SPHERICAL EARTH? Evaluating Astronomical Observations—Part II

Part I of this two-part series appeared in the August issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.


Evaluating First-Hand and Photographic Evidence

In 1961, the Soviet Union shocked the world by sending the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin. This was not only the first manned flight into space, but the first to orbit Earth. Since that time, more than 500 professional astronauts representing 40 countries have traveled into space as pilots, commanders, or crew members of manned spaceflight programs.[1] The three countries from which these astronauts have been launched include the United States, Russia (previously the Soviet Union), and China. It is important to note for those who might consider conspiracy theories that over the years of space travel, the three countries providing the launch abilities have had tentative and even hostile relations. Yet, even though the over 40 countries who have sent astronauts into space disagree on politics, religion, and economics, their recognition of a spherical Earth that is able to be orbited and studied is consistent.

Each of these countries has been fortunate enough to send select men and women to space as first-hand observers and scientists to gather data from above the Earth’s atmosphere. With more than 50 years of time and over 500 first-hand observers from over 40 countries, the view of Earth as a majestic globe has not been refuted or even brought into question by these individuals. While some may claim a Flat-Earth view, their arguments do not include spaceflight testimony from first-hand observers.

Photographic Evidence: Full-Disk Imagery

While there are many amazing and beautiful images of our Earth provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), we want to first focus on the photographic evidence available from numerous international sources. The following collection of photographic evidence only includes imagery from full-planet views of Earth. As you will see, the sources of these images come from a range of satellites, operated by different countries with sometimes different scientific objectives.

Let’s begin with photographic evidence from Japan. The Himawari-8 satellite overseen by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) is currently taking full-disk images of the Earth every 10 minutes, focusing on the region of Japan and its neighbors to the South.[2] Here is a satellite imagery synopsis from the JMA Web site:

The Himawari series of geostationary meteorological satellites provides constant and uniform coverage of the earth from around 35,800 km above the equator with an orbit corresponding to the period of the earth’s rotation. This allows them to perform uninterrupted observation of meteorological phenomena such as typhoons, depressions, and fronts.[3]


Credit: Japan Meteorological Agency Credit: © JAXA

Also the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) captured a full-disk view from the Hayabusa satellite.[4] This satellite’s main mission was to study the comet Itokawa, but was able to image the full-disk of Earth from a distance of over 180,000 miles away.

Photographic evidence also comes from the currently operating ELEKTRO-L series of satellites launched by the Russian space agency, Roscosmos.[5] These geostationary satellites are designed to take meteorological images and monitor weather conditions. The ELEKTRO-L2 satellite is positioned over the Indian Ocean and transmits regular images every 30 minutes.[6]

From India, we have photographic evidence from the INSAT-3D geostationary satellite, managed by the India Meteorological Department.[7] Launched in 2013, this satellite is “designed for enhanced meteorological observations and monitoring of land and ocean surfaces for weather forecasting and disaster warning.”[8] New full-disk images are regularly relayed to Earth approximately every half-hour.


Credit: © Research Center for Earth Operative Monitoring (NTS OMZ) Credit: © India Meteorological Department

From a cooperation of numerous European countries, the Meteosat Second Generation (MSG) satellites take full-disk observations. Operated by the EUMETSAT (European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites), the Meteosat satellites are in geostationary orbits 22,300 miles above Europe, Africa, and the Indian Ocean. New images are taken every 15 minutes in visible and infrared wavelengths.[9]

Launched in 2010, South Korea successfully placed into orbit its first geostationary satellite, COMS (Communication, Ocean and Meteorological Satellite). Managed by the National Meteorological Satellite Center, the COMS satellite takes regular full-disk images with the stated meteorological missions of “continuous monitoring of imagery and extracting of meteorological products, early detection of severe weather phenomena, and monitoring of climate change and atmospheric environment.”[10]


Credit: ©2017 EUMETSAT Credit: © NMSC Credit: © CNSA

From China, we have photographic evidence from the unmanned Chinese lunar explorer Chang’e 5. Thetest module took this photograph on November 9, 2014 at a distance of 336,000 miles above the Earth’s surface.[11] Notice the darker Moon (upper left) is clearly shown in contrast to the bright Earth.

Lastly, we add the photographic evidence taken by the United States. Decades of space travel and many diverse projects have generated a host of full-disk images of our planet. Going back to the early Apollo missions (1961-1972) aimed at traveling to the Moon, NASA astronauts were able to take first-hand photographs on film. While there are many photos, here are four from Apollo 8,10,13, and 17.[12]

Credit: Apollo credit: NASA’s Galileo spacecraft

Later, in 1990, as it began its mission to Jupiter, NASA’s Galileo spacecraft took an image back toward Earth from a distance of about 1.5 million miles.[13]

In 2015, the joint effort of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, and the United States Air Force launched the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR). Located one million miles away, this satellite “will maintain the nation’s real-time solar wind monitoring capabilities” in order to facilitate alerts and forecasts for geomagnetic storms caused by solar flares and coronal mass ejections.[14] Different from geostationary satellites that continually maintain the same view of Earth, the DSCOVR satellite will be able to image all of Earth. Being located between the Sun and Earth, it will be able to watch the fully illuminated Earth rotate, imaging all sides of the spherical Earth.


Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, and the United States Air Force launched the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR). Credit: NOAA GOES-R satellite.

Some of the most recent satellites to take full-disk images are the updated GOES-R series of satellites. These geostationary satellites are managed by NOAA and located to take real-time images of both Eastern and Western Hemispheres of Earth. “The new satellite can deliver vivid images of severe weather as often as every 30 seconds, scanning the Earth five times faster, with four times greater image resolution.”[15]
Historically Recognized As Spherical

Many of us might remember feeling a bit shocked in grade school when our teacher announced, “Many scholars and aristocracy in the 15th century believed that the world was flat and that if you sailed far enough, you’d go right over the edge. And Christopher Columbus set out to prove them wrong.” The problem with this statement is that Christopher Columbus (and most people in the 15th century) did not believe in a flat Earth, but rather understood the world to be spherical. Even as we look back to the B.C. era, the accredited scientists of the day believed and were able to prove that the Earth was spherical. As far back as 500 B.C., most Greek scholars accepted the idea that Earth was spherical. Pythagoras (500 B.C.) believed Earth was round for aesthetic reasons, because the sphere was thought to be the perfect shape. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was one of the first to make application of scientific observations to expected results, given a round Earth: (1) the hull of a ship disappearing over the horizon before the rest of the ship, and (2) Earth’s shadow being round during a lunar eclipse. Through time, ancient scientists would gain a deeper understanding of the physics of our world and begin to be able to explain what they were seeing in nature with mathematical formulas.


Credit: Wikimedia.org (Cmglee) 2016 license CC-by- sa-4.0

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-194 B.C.) was known as one of the greatest scientists of his time and in the year 240 B.C., King Ptolemy III of Alexandria appointed him chief librarian of what was then considered the hub of learning and the world’s greatest library: the Great Library of Alexandria. Probably one of Eratosthenes’ most well-known contributions to science was his calculations of Earth’s circumference. He was also a leading cartographer of his day and was able to map large regions. But to make a complete map he wanted to know the actual size of Earth. One year, on the Summer Solstice, while he was in Syene (today known as Aswan, Egypt) he noted that the Sun shone directly into the bottom of a well at noon, indicating that it was directly overhead. He realized that since the distance between Syene and Alexandria was known (approximately 5,000 stadia), he could extrapolate that data and determine Earth’s circumference. Back in Alexandria, on the following year’s Summer Solstice, Eratosthenes set up a tent pole of known height and measured the shadow cast by the pole at noon. Using trigonometric calculations, he found the angle of the shadow to be about 7°, which correlates to about 1/50 of a complete circle. With this data, he calculated Earth’s circumference to be about 250,000 stadia.[16] There has been some disagreement on what a stadia represented, but it is estimated to be somewhere between 500 and 600 feet. Using these numbers, we see that Eratosthenes’ calculation gives the circumference to between 23,000 miles and 29,000 miles. Modern science gives an equatorial circumference of 24,900 miles.[17]

While Eratosthenes’ method and calculations were somewhat crude, one can see the simplicity and significance that his calculations have provided to the scientific community. It is notable that the belief, investigation, and calculation of Earth’s shape and size predate modern efforts, such as those of NASA, by thousands of years.

Conclusion

In this day and age of readily available information, sometimes just enough “truth” can be given to allow an idea to be plausible and believable in one’s mind. Sometimes an idea is given more credence because a celebrity endorses it. Other times, it might take hold because of a rebellion against the norm and someone wanting to be considered a “free-thinker.” Whatever the reason a person has for believing something, its source needs to have credibility and must be backed by provable, validated data—evidence.

While the origin of the recent interest in Flat-Earth ideas may not be fully known or pinpointed, we can see that a spherical Earth is the one that has the scientific backing. While we did not consider many other evidences of the Earth’s spherical nature, such as Earth’s magnetic poles, GPS triangulation and satellites, the Coriolis effect, time zones, distant horizon curvature, Arctic and Antarctic exploration, and circumnavigation, we were able to evaluate numerous easily accessible observations. From our assessment of the shapes of other celestial bodies, observations of the Sun and Moon, consideration of historical perspectives, and examination of modern, first-hand and photographic evidences, we can see for ourselves that the scientific data supports a spherical Earth.
-----------------------
Endnotes

[1] “List of Astronauts by Name,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name; “Timeline of Space Travel by Nationality,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_travel_by_nationality.

[2] “Satellite Imagery” (2017), Japan Meteorological Agency, Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8122, Japan; Image shown: http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/smallc.html?area=6&element=1&time=201706270300.

[3] “Meteorological Satellites,” Japan Meteorological Agency, http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/satellite/introduction/satobs.html.

[4] “The Earth Pictured by Hayabusa” (2004), Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/snews/2004/0519_new.shtml.

[5] Anatoly Zak (2016), “Russia to Introduce A New Generation of Spacecraft,” http://www.russianspaceweb.com/elektro.html.

[6] “ELEKTRO Geostationary Hydrometeorological Spacecraft (In Operation)” (2011), Research Center for Earth Operative Monitoring, http://eng.ntsomz.ru/ks_dzz/satellites/complex_electro); Image shown: ftp://ftp.ntsomz.ru/ELECTRO_L_2/2017/May/24_05_2017/24052017_10%2030.jpg.

[7] http://satellite.imd.gov.in/insat.htm; Image archive: http://satellite.imd.gov.in/archive/INSAT-3D-IMAGER/3D-FULL-DISK/.

[8] http://www.isro.gov.in/insat-3d/insat-3d-advanced-weather-satellite-completes-two-years-orbit.

[9] https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/Satellites/CurrentSatellites/Meteosat/index.html; Image shown:http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MSGIODC/RGB/NATURALCOLOR/FULLRESOLUTION/.

[10] http://nmsc.kma.go.kr/html/homepage/en/chollian/choll_info.do.

[11] “Earth and the Moon from Chang’e 5 T1” (2017), The Planetary Society, http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/earth/earth-and-the-moon-from-change5t1-2.html.

[12] “Western Hemisphere” (2009), NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/images/apollo_image_26.html; “May 18, 1969 - Apollo 10 View of the Earth” (2017), NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/may-18-1969-apollo-10-view-of-the-earth; “View of Earth from Apollo 13,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/5429hjpg?id=5429; “Blue Marble - Image of the Earth from Apollo 17” (2007), NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/content/blue-marble-image-of-the-earth-from-apollo-17.

[13] “PIA00076: Earth - Full Disk View of Africa” (1996), NASA/JPL, https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00076.

[14] “DSCOVR: Deep Space Climate Observatory,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory; Image shown: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD//view.php?id=86257.

[15] John Leslie and Connie Barclay (2016), “NOAA’s GOES-R Weather Satellite Readies for Historic Launch,” https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/goes-r-l-30-press-release_oct6.pdf.

[16] Alan Chodos, ed. (2006), “June, ca. 240 B.C. Eratosthenes Measures the Earth,” APS News, 15[6]:2, June, https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm. wiki/File:Eratosthenes_measure_of_Earth_circumference.svg.

[17] “Geodesy for the Layman” (1984), Defense Mapping Agency, http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/geolay/TR80003A.html.

A PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE?

Pentecostals and Charismatics often teach that there are two types of tongues described in the New Testament: the "public language tongues" of Pentecost and the "private prayer" tongues of 1 Corinthians 14:4 --"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church". Some call this distinction "ministry tongues" and "devotional tongues".

Early Pentecostal leaders understood that biblical tongues were real earthly languages. They even thought they would be able to go to foreign mission fields and witness through miraculous tongues without having to learn the languages. Those who attempted this, though, returned bitterly disappointed!

"Alfred G. Garr and his wife went to the Far East with the conviction that they could preach the gospel in 'the Indian and Chinese languages.' Lucy Farrow went to Africa and returned after seven months during which she was alleged to have preached to the natives in their own 'Kru language'. The German pastor and analyst Oskar Pfister reported the case of a Pentecostal... 'Simon,' who had planned to go to China using tongues for preaching. Numerous other Pentecostal missionaries went abroad believing they had the miraculous ability to speak in the languages of those to whom they were sent. These Pentecostal claims were well known at the time. S.C. Todd of the Bible Missionary Society investigated eighteen Pentecostals who went to Japan, China, and India 'expecting to preach to the natives in those countries in their own tongue,' and found that by their own admission 'in no single instance have [they] been able to do so'. As these and other missionaries returned in disappointment and failure, Pentecostals were compelled to rethink their original view of speaking in tongues" (Robert Mapes Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism).

The conclusion was soon reached that their "tongues" were not earthly languages but a"heavenly" or special prayer language; and those are the terms we have heard frequently at large Charismatic conferences, such as those in New Orleans in 1987, Indianapolis in 1990, and St. Louis in 2000. The tongues that I heard in these conferences were not languages of any sort, but merely repetitious mumblings that anyone could imitate. Larry Lea supposedly spoke in tongues in Indianapolis in 1990, and this is a key example of what is being passed off for tongues in the Charismatic movement. It went something like this: "Bubblyida bubblyida hallelujah bubblyida hallabubbly shallabubblyida kolabubblyida glooooory hallelujah bubblyida". I wrote that down as he was saying it and later checked it against the tape. Nancy Kellar, a Roman Catholic nun who was on the executive committee of the St. Louis meeting in 2000, spoke in "tongues" on Thursday evening of the conference. Her tongues went like this: "Shananaa leea, shananaa higha, shananaa nanaa, shananaa leea…" repeated over and over and over.

If you think I'm making fun of these people, you are wrong. This is taken directly from the audiotapes of the messages. If these are languages, they certainly have a simple vocabulary! My children had a more complex language than that when they were still toddlers.

Michael Harper says: "In the short history of the Charismatic Renewal speaking in tongues has become rare in public, but continues to be a vital expression of prayer in private (These Wonderful Gifts, 1989, p. 97). He says this type of "tongues" is "a prayer language: a way of communicating more effectively with God" (p. 92). He claims that this experience "edifies" apart from the understanding: "Modern Western man finds it hard to believe that speaking unknown words to God can possibly be edifying. ... All one can say is 'try it and see'. I can still remember today the moments when I first used this gift, and the immediate awareness I had that I was being edified. This is one of the most important reasons why the gift needs to be used regularly in private prayer" (These Wonderful Gifts, p. 93).

Harper says he is mystically aware of being edified even though he does not know what he is saying. He also says this "gift needs to be used regularly" and is therefore something important for the Christian life.

To prove his point he simply invites the skeptical observer to "try it and see", reminding us that experience is the Charismatic's greatest authority. (The "come and see" approach creates a new problem, though, for the Bible never says to "try tongues" or to seek after tongues and never describes how one could learn how to speak in tongues. In the Bible, speaking in tongues is always a supernatural activity that is sovereignly given by God.)

Even some that do not claim to be Pentecostals or Charismatics have this experience. Jerry Rankin, head of the International Mission Board (Southern Baptist), says he speaks in a "private prayer language" and contrasts this with the practice of "glossolalia".

"I do have a private prayer language, have for more than 30 years. I don't consider myself to have a gift of tongues. I've never been led to practice glossolalia, you know, publicly, and I think the spiritual gifts clearly in the didactic passage of the Scriptures are talking about the public uses, edification and gifts in the church. ... I've never viewed personally my intimacy with the Lord and the way His Spirit guides me in my prayer time as being the same as glossolalia and subjected to that criteria. ... I just want God to have freedom to do everything that He wants to do in my life and I'm going to be obedient to that" ("IMB president speaks plainly with state editors about private prayer language", Baptist Press, Feb. 17, 2006).

It is a wonderful thing to desire to do God's will wherever that leads, but He will never lead contrary to His own Word in the Scriptures. For the following reasons we are convinced that the Bible does not support the doctrine of a"private prayer language".

First, if the tongues-speaking of 1 Corinthians 14 is different from that of Acts 2, the Bible NEVER explains the difference. We leave "tongues" in the book of Acts (the last mention is in Acts 19:6) and we do not see them again until 1 Corinthians 12-14. If the "tongues" in this epistle is a different type of thing than the "tongues" in Acts, why doesn't the Bible say so and plainly explain this matter so that there is no confusion?

Second, Paul said the tongues speaker edifies himself (1 Cor. 14:4). That would not be possible unless the words could be understood, because throughout the fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul says that understanding is absolutely necessary for edification. In verse 3 he says that prophesying edifies because it comforts and exhorts men, obviously referring to things that are understood to the hearer. In verse 4 he says that tongues speaking does not edify unless it is interpreted. In verses 16-17 he says that if someone does not understand something he is not edified. Words could not be plainer. If there is no edification of the church without understanding, how is it possible that the individual believer could be edified without understanding? This is confusion. The word"edify" means to build up in the faith. Webster's 1828 dictionary defined it as "to instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally, and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness". The words "edify", "edification", "edified", and "edifying" are used in 18 verses in the New Testament and always refer to building up in the faith by means of instruction and godly living. For example, in Ephesians 4 the body of Christ is edified through the ministry of God-given preachers (Eph. 4:11-12). Thus, the fact that Paul said the tongues speaker edifies himself (1 Cor. 14:4) is proof that he understands what he is saying.

Third, Paul says that tongues are an earthly language (1 Cor. 14:20-22). If the tongues-speaking in 1 Corinthians 14 were some sort of "private prayer language", why would Paul give this prophetic explanation of it and state dogmatically that it is an earthly language? He does not say that only some"types of tongues" are languages.

Fourth, in 1 Corinthians 14:28 Paul says the tongues speaker speaks both to himself and to God. "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God". This means that he can understand what he is speaking. Otherwise, how could he speak to himself? Does anyone speak to himself in "unknown gibberish"?

Fifth, there is no example in 1 Corinthians 14 of a believer speaking in togues privately and there is no encouragement to do so. What about verse 28? "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God" (1 Cor. 14:27-28). This says nothing about praying in tongues privately. It is talking about the exercise of gifts in a public meeting. Paul says that if there is no interpretation, the individual tongues speaker should keep silent and pray to God, but he says nothing about getting off by oneself and praying privately in tongues. One must read all of that into the verse.

Sixth, if there were a "private prayer language" that edified the Christian's life it would be very important and the Bible would explain it clearly and circumscribe its usage as it does the use of tongues in the church.

Seventh, a "private prayer language" that helped the Christian to be stronger in his walk with Christ would doubtless be mentioned in other places in the New Testament in the context of sanctification and Christian living. In fact, though, it is never mentioned in any such context. The apostles and prophets addressed many situations in the New Testament epistles and gave all things necessary for holy Christian living, but they never taught that the believer needs to speak in a "private prayer language" in order to have spiritual victory or to find God's guidance or to be healed or to be able to fall asleep or any other such thing. If there were such a thing as a "devotional prayer language" that built up the Christian life and made the Christian stronger spiritually, Paul would doubtless have instructed the church at Corinth to spend more time speaking in devotional tongues, but he gives no such counsel.

Eighth, it is not possible that tongues-speaking could be a necessary part of the Christian life, because Paul plainly states that not all speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:29-20). Some will ask, "Why, then, does Paul say, 'I would that ye all spake with tongues'" (1 Cor. 14:5)? The answer is that Paul was not saying that all did speak with tongues or that all could speak with tongues; he was merely expressing a desire that the exercise of spiritual gifts be done and that it be done right. In 1 Cor. 7:7, Paul uses exactly the same expression in the context of celibacy. He said, "For I would that all men were even as I myself..." We do not know of any Pentecostals or Charismatics who take this statement literally by teaching that it is God's will for every believer to remain unmarried, but they take the same expression in 1 Cor. 14:5 as a law. There is a strange inconsistency here.

Ninth, all of the new testament's instruction about prayer take for granted that prayer is a conscious, willful, understandable act on the believer and that he is speaking to God in understandable terms. We see this in Jesus' instructions about prayer. "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" (Matt. 6:5-13). This is a conscious, understandable prayer. We see the same thing in Paul's instructions about prayer (e.g., Rom. 15:30-32; Eph. 6:18-20; Col. 4:2-3; Heb. 13:18-19). There is not one example of a prayer recorded in Scripture that is anything other than an individual speaking to God in conscious, understandable terms. In fact, Christ forbade the repetitious type of"prayers" that are commonly heard among those that practice a"private prayer language". "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking" (Mat. 6:7). Yet I have oftentimes heard"prayer tongues" that sound like this:"Shalalama, balalama, shalalama, balalama, bubalama, shalalama, bugalala, shalalama..." Whatever that is, it is not New Testament"tongues" and it is not New Testament prayer.

Tenth, even if we were to agree that 1 Corinthians 14 refers to a "private prayer language", it would not be something that could be learned or imitated. Whatever is described in 1 Corinthians 14 is a divine miracle, but this is contrary to the Pentecostal-Charismatic practice whereby people are taught to speak in a "prayer language."

Eleventh, to use the gift of tongues as a "private prayer language" would be to destroy its chief purpose, which is a sign to unbelieving Israel. Former Pentecostal Fernand Legrand wisely observes: "By using this sign in private, some think they can profit from ONE of its aspects, while ignoring the others, but you cannot dismantle a gift and retain only one of its components. A car is a complex mechanical object that is driven as an entity or is not driven at all. You cannot take the wheels for a run and leave the body and the engine in the garage. When a car is running it is the whole car that moves. In the same way, TONGUES WERE NOT TO BE SLICED UP LIKE A SAUSAGE. They were to edify the speaker AND the others AND be a sign for the Jewish unbelievers AND be understandable or be so rendered by interpretation. They had to be all that at the same time. The gift was inseparable from its one and only unchanging purpose: to be a sign for non-believing Jews of the universal offer of salvation (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 14:20-22)" (All about Speaking in Tongues, p. 67).

Twelfth, though I have heard many examples of "devotional tongues" over the past 33 years, I have never heard anything but gibberish. What I have heard is not languages of any sort but mere repetitious mutterings that anyone could imitate. Larry Lea's "tongues" at Indianapolis 1990 went like this: "Bubblyida bubblyida hallelujah bubblyida hallabubbly shallabubblyida kolabubblyida glooooory hallelujah bubblyida." I wrote that down as he was saying it and later checked it against the tape. Nancy Kellar, a Roman Catholic nun who was on the executive committee of St. Louis 2000, spoke in "tongues" on Thursday evening of the conference. Her tongues were a repetition of"shananaa leea, shananaa higha, shananaa nanaa, shananaa leea…" This is taken directly from the audiotapes of the messages. If these are languages, they certainly have a simple vocabulary!

Thirteenth, the practice of learning how to speak in tomgues that is popular among pentecostal and charismatic is unscriptural and dangerous. If we were to agree that there is such a thing as a"private prayer language" and that it would help us live a better Christian life and if we were to accept the Charismatic's challenge to  "try it and see", the next question is, "How do I begin to speak in this 'prayer language'?" A chapter in the book These Wonderful Gifts (by Michael Harper) is entitled"Letting Go and Letting God," in which the believer is instructed to stop analyzing experiences so carefully and strictly, to stop "setting up alarm systems" and "squatting nervously behind protective walls". He says the believer should step out from behind his "walls and infallible systems" and just open up to God. That is a necessary but unscriptural and exceedingly dangerous step toward receiving the Charismatic experiences. Having stopped analyzing everything with Scripture, the standard method of experiencing the "gift of tongues" or a "private prayer language" is to open one's mouth and to start speaking words but not words that one understands and allegedly "God will take control". Dennis Bennett says: "Open your mouth and show that you believe the Lord has baptized you in the Spirit by beginning to speak. Don't speak English, or any other language you know, for God can't guide you to speak in tongues if you are speaking in a language known to you... Just like a child learning to talk for the first time, open your mouth and speak out the first syllables and expressions that come to your lips. ... You may begin to speak, but only get out a few halting sounds. That's wonderful! You've broken the 'sound barrier'! Keep in with those sounds. Offer them to God. Tell Jesus you love Him in those 'joyful noises'! In a very real sense, any sound you make, offering your tongue to God in simple faith, may be the beginning of speaking in tongues" (The Holy Spirit and You, pp. 76, 77, 79).

This is so grossly unscriptural and nonsensical it would seem unnecessary to refute it. There is absolutely nothing like this in the New Testament. To ignore the Bible and to seek something that the Bible never says seek in ways the Bible does not support and to open oneself uncritically to religious experiences like this puts oneself in danger of receiving "another spirit" (2 Cor. 11:4).

Fourteenth, the fact is that Biblical tongues were real earthly languages, and this is a foundational truth. Any doctrine of tongues that reduces this practice to mere gibberish of any sort that is not a real language is unscriptural.

Question: If tongues can be understood by the speaker, why does Paul say, "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful" (1 Cor. 14:14)?

Answer: The Pentecostal-Charismatic movements find justification in this verse for their doctrine that tongues-speaking is some sort of communication that bypasses the intellect and understanding. Pastor Bill Williams of San Jose, California, says that the awareness one has through tongues is "beyond emotion, beyond intellect. It transcends human understanding" ("Speaking in Tongues--Believers Relish the Experience", Los Angeles Times, Sept. 19, 1987, B2). Charles Hunter says, "The reason some of you don't speak [in tongues] fluently is that you tried to think of the sounds. ... You don't even have to think in order to pray in the Spirit" (Hunter,"Receiving the Baptism with the Holy Spirit," Charisma, July 1989, p. 54).

But if 1 Corinthians 14:14 means that the tongues-speaker is speaking "beyond his intellect" or something of that sort, it would be the only place in Scripture where such a doctrine is found. Nowhere else does the Scripture say that man's spirit can operate properly without the understanding or that God operates on man's spirit in such a manner that he does not understand the communication or that there is some sort of spiritual level of communication that bypasses the understanding. In this same epistle, Paul said, "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?" (1 Cor. 2:11). Thus, man's spirit is that part of him that knows and understands. Eph. 4:23 says the believer is to"be renewed in the spirit of your mind." Obviously this involves understanding, because Romans 12:2 says we are "transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God..."

What is Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 14:14, then? Most commentaries say that he is referring to the tongues-speaker's understanding in relation to others rather than to his own understanding.

Barnes: "Produces nothing that will be of advantage to them. It is like a barren tree; a tree that bears nothing that can be of benefit to others. They cannot understand what I say, and, of course, they cannot be profited by what I utter."

Adam Clarke: "... my understanding is unfruitful to all others, because they do not understand my prayers, and I either do not or cannot interpret them."

The Family Bible Notes: "...according to another and preferable view, it bears no fruit to others, since it communicates nothing to them in an intelligible way."

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown: "'understanding', the active instrument of thought and reasoning; which in this case must be 'unfruitful' in edifying others, since the vehicle of expression is unintelligible to them".

John Wesley: "'My spirit prayeth'--By the power of the Spirit I understand the words myself. 'But my understanding is unfruitful'--The knowledge I have is no benefit to others".

Matthew Henry: "but his understanding would be unfruitful (1 Cor. 14:14), that is, the sense and meaning of his words would be unfruitful, he would not be understood, nor therefore would others join with him in his devotions".

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge: "That is, 'not productive of any benefit to others'".

The context of 1 Cor. 14:14 supports this interpretation:

"Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified" (1 Cor. 14:13-17).

Paul says the tongues-speaker should pray both with the spirit and with the understanding, and it is obvious that he is talking about the understanding of those who are listening, because he says, "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" In 1 Corinthians 14:13-17 Paul is saying that the tongues-speaker should give an interpretation of his tongue so that he is not the only one that understands what is being said, because if he prays in a tongue that is not interpreted those who are listening cannot understand and cannot therefore be edified. 
          
— By DC

FLAT OR SPHERICAL EARTH? Evaluating Astronomical Observations

While the idea of a flat Earth is not a new one, it

has been recently resurrected into mainstream pop culture. For a variety of reasons, many have adopted this view, or have begun looking toward it as a viable option. For some, the arguments contrasting a spherical versus a flat Earth are confusing and have caused frustration. This frustration has then led to a sense of doubt towards many previously accepted beliefs and facts. Such doubt towards authority has even caused some Christians to question their faith in God’s Word.

So what about humanity’s understanding for the shape of the Earth? Is the Earth spherical or flat? The best way to work through this discussion is to consider the observational evidences. One of the most definitive ways to directly see the spherical nature of Earth is through the images taken from space by various space agencies. However, because many people who hold to a flat Earth have also expressed concern about government conspiracy theories, we wish to present the space-based observations after we discuss some simple backyard-type observations. When considering new ideas, a bit of healthy caution is good, but can become unhealthy when conspiracy and paranoia consume the conversation over the facts and observations. Using the laws of nature and physics that God set in place, let’s investigate how we can know the Earth is, in fact, spherical.

EVALUATING OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUN AND MOON

Between Flat-Earth and Globe models, the Sun and the Moon have drastic differences in physical characteristics and scale dimensions. The Sun’s generally accepted location places it toward the center of Earth’s orbit at a distance of approximately 93 million miles, with a physical diameter of 864,600 miles. In contrast, Flat-Earth models describe the Sun as being 32 miles in diameter and orbiting above the surface of the Earth at a height of approximately 3,000 miles.[1] Since by observation the Sun and Moon have equivalent angular sizes,[2] Flat-Earth models must also place the Moon in an orbit coinciding with the Sun’s orbit at a distance of 3,000 miles and having the same 32-mile diameter.[3] Such scales for the Moon are vastly different than the Moon’s generally accepted location in space, where it orbits the Earth at a distance of 238,900 miles and has a physical diameter of 2,160 miles. We should also note that between these two views there is a vast contrast in distance between the positions of the Sun and Moon. In the Flat-Earth model the two objects share similar planes of orbit, circling above Earth parallel to the ground. Therefore, their physical distances from each other would fluctuate substantially depending on where in their orbits they were. At least once during every month’s cycle the two would be physically very near to each other. By contrast, the standard heliocentric and spherical context describes the Moon’s position in orbit around the Earth, where its distance from the Sun would keep approximately the same 93-million-mile-physical-distance as Earth.

With such vast differences in scale these models must also describe vastly different physical characteristics for the Sun and Moon and, in fact, they do. Flat-Earth models describe the Sun and Moon in terms similar to spotlights moving above the Earth’s surface, illuminating in such a way as to produce periods of day and night. Resulting from this description, Flat-Earth models hold that the Moon is not reflecting the Sun’s light, but must instead be producing its own light. The physical characteristics of the Moon are therefore vastly different from the solid, rocky body and sunlight-reflecting surface usually discussed.

Eclipses

One means of testing these contrasting parameters is by evaluating eclipse events, where the Sun, Moon, and Earth experience well-defined and observable changes. First, the most obvious type of eclipse is a solar eclipse. In this type of eclipse the observed effect is for the New Moon to pass in front of the Sun eclipsing some or all of our view of the solar body. Due to the Sun and Moon having similar apparent sizes in the sky, a total solar eclipse can occur when the Moon’s path precisely crosses the Sun. A total solar eclipse causes a daytime period of dramatic darkening, allowing the less bright outer regions of the Sun’s atmosphere, including the chromosphere and corona, to become visible to observers. While these portions of the Sun’s atmosphere are always producing light, their levels of emission are much less than the extremely bright photosphere. Solar eclipses do not usually result in the total eclipse orientation, but rather will occur more often as partial eclipses where only part of the Sun is obscured by the Moon. What information do eclipse observations provide? Eclipses demonstrate several important facts, which we will expand on below, including: (1) the apparent sizes of the Sun and Moon are approximately equal, (2) the distances from Earth to the Sun and Earth to the Moon are not equal, and (3) the spherical shape of Earth.

Eclipses provide for us an important understanding about the positioning of the Sun, Moon, and Earth. We see from the fact that the Moon passes in front of the Sun that the two bodies must be at different distances. During a solar eclipse when the Moon obscures the Sun, the Moon’s distance is closer to Earth than the Sun’s. When we couple this with the first important fact mentioned, that the apparent sizes are approximately equal, then we are able to also understand that the Sun and Moon must be different in their true physical sizes. If two objects were the same true physical size, then placing one of them farther from you would cause it to appear smaller. Thus, since the Sun and Moon appear the same size, then the Sun (which is farther away) would have to be larger than the Moon (which is closer) in order to appear equal in size. As we consider a difference in distance between the more distant Sun and less distant Moon to be greater and greater, the necessary size of the Sun must be larger and larger to result in an observed equivalent, apparent size.

Now that we have established they are not at the

same distance, we can also explore how solar eclipses also help provide evidence for the distance factors of the Sun and Moon. A total solar eclipse occurs when the observer is located within the shadow cast by the Moon blocking the Sun’s light. Consider the shadow cast on a wall by placing an object in front of a light source. What happens to the shadow as the distance between the object and light source is decreased? The shadowed area becomes larger, and a viewer within the shadowed region would have to move farther to leave the shadowed area and lose this precise alignment. If the distance between the light source and object becomes larger, then the shadow that is cast on the wall will become smaller and subsequently the observer’s location in the shadow for an eclipse alignment must become more precise (i.e., since the shadow is smaller, there is less area located within the eclipse shadow region).

Total solar eclipses are very rare events to see on Earth, which tells us that the alignment of such an event requires certain precision. It first requires precision for the orbits and locations of the three bodies to be exactly aligned. Second, it requires that an observer be located within the area of the Moon’s shadow cast on Earth. This second requirement increases the rarity of seeing a total solar eclipse, because the area of the Moon’s shadow resulting in totality is small, at most only about 165 miles in diameter.[4] The casting of a small shadow means there must be a significant distance between the Sun and Moon. In addition, the path of totality, which is the track that the Moon’s shadow takes as it moves across the Earth’s surface, is a very narrow strip. When seeking to see a total solar eclipse event, the location where you go to observe must be very precisely chosen within the track. 

If we focus on the second major type of eclipse, a lunar eclipse, then we see, not only further evidence for distances and orientations matching the heliocentric view, but also evidence for the spherical nature of Earth. Lunar eclipses occur when Earth is positioned between the Sun and Moon, and its shadow is cast across the Moon’s surface causing a darkening of the Moon. While solar eclipses only occur during the New Moon phase, lunar eclipses similarly occur only during the Full Moon phase. The precise alignment of the Sun, Moon, and Earth is emphasized by the fact that while lunar eclipses only occur during Full Moon phases, they do not occur every cycle and are quite rare. In contrast to a solar eclipse that involves one body, the Moon, obscuring the more distant Sun, a lunar eclipse involves the Earth’s shadow progressing across the Moon’s surface until it becomes completely engulfed. The evidence for a spherical Earth comes from the fact that as the lunar eclipse event begins the curvature of the Earth’s shadow can be seen advancing across the Moon’s surface. This provides direct observation for the circular shape of the Earth’s body, as well as the required orbit of the Moon to go around to the opposite side of Earth from the Sun. Both of these observable facts are contrary to Flat-Earth models, some of which postulate Earth as an indefinite plane [5] or as a circular inhabitable region set in a rectangular block.[6]

Observing Objects Outside of Earth

As we consider the shape of our own planet, we can gain perspective by making direct observations of other celestial objects. By comparison of the physical features we observe in other objects, we can make application to the features we observe on Earth. A good starting place is to consider the planets in our own Solar System, objects that are generally the easiest to observe: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Each of these planets is conventionally described as being spherically round, so let’s discuss the observational evidence.

The planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are the four easiest of the planets to observe with simple backyard telescopes or even binoculars. With these tools the casual observer can see that each of these objects has dimensions and shape, showing more than the spot of light seen with the naked eye. In a simple description, the planets are obviously round; but are they three-dimensionally round objects? During short times of observing, we are able to capture short picturesque views of the planets; but what happens as we continue our observations? If we simply make the effort to add repeated observations, we will be able to see the snapshot characteristics begin to show their dynamic and varying nature. With observations over a matter of days and weeks (even better over months), you will see Venus’ phase change, Mars’ apparent size and surface features change, Jupiter’s rotation, and Saturn’s ring orientation change.

Let’s begin making a few specific observations.

Beginning with the planet that has the largest average apparent size, we find Jupiter to be a beautifully banded planet. The roughly horizontal striations of Jupiter have varying colors from white to brownish-red.

Overlapping the middle bands, you might see one of the most well-known features of Jupiter: the “Great Red Spot.” This feature serves as a good landmark and is one of Jupiter’s most fascinating features. Named for its appearance, this giant, oval-shaped region in Jupiter’s atmosphere has existed for several hundred years and is similar to features described by Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini as far back as the 1600s. In fact, Giovanni Cassini used careful observations to track the movement of spot features, seemingly similar to the Great Red Spot, in order to conclude that Jupiter was indeed rotating about its axis. From the measurements, Cassini calculated a rotation speed for Jupiter of approximately 10 hours.[7] Even with Cassini’s very primitive equipment, his calculation matches the currently measured rotation period of 9.925 hours.[8]

The next planet has captivated astronomers’

attention as far back as the telescope: the red planet Mars offers intriguing observations. In a similar fashion to his calculations of Jupiter’s rotation, Giovanni Cassini also calculated the length of Mars’ rotation by measuring how long it took for surface features to make it back around to the same spot. Both Cassini and Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens independently calculated the rotation period of Mars to be similar to Earth’s at just over 24-hours.[9] The similarity between Earth and what we see when observing Mars is much more than just a similar period of rotation. Mars has surface features such as large plains, expansive ravines, and elevated mountains. White regions aligned with its axis of rotation are similar to Earth’s icy polar regions. Mars also has varying atmospheric changes, which most notably include huge dust storms that can obscure large regions. As we consider a round, rotating planet with mountains and canyons, polar ice caps, and an atmosphere that at times is clear and other times is congested with dusty storms, we cannot help but think about days on Earth with beautiful sunny days and about camping excursions in quiet valleys, or maybe cloudy days that often bring sudden storms while hiking in the mountains. If Mars exists as a rotating, spherical planet with diverse landscapes, then so can Earth.

One of the most recognizable planets, the ringed-

world of Saturn, provides an interesting context to consider. With Saturn we find the geometries of both a flat disk for the rings and a spherical body for the planet. Saturn’s ring system is a collection of particles surrounding the planet, individually orbiting Saturn as evidenced from spectroscopic studies showing differential rotation of ring material.[10] Even in commercially available telescopes, Saturn and its beautiful rings can be readily seen. However, as we make repeated observations from year to year, we can watch as the ring orientation changes in its tilt with respect to our perspective from Earth.

In some years, Earth’s view is edge-on with Saturn’s ring plane, causing the rings to be barely visible, while other years, such as late 2017, the rings reach a tilt angle of 27° allowing the outermost A-ring to be visible in its full circumference. The changing tilt-angle of the rings is a regular cycle, oscillating in such a way that both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres of Saturn’s body will be directed towards Earth during the cycle. What this comparison provides is a single view contrasting a spherical versus flat geometry in space. If all of the planets were simply flat circles, then we should see the same type of drastic visual differences from their changing orientations that Saturn’s rings demonstrate, since Saturn’s rings are understood, even in the heliocentric model, to be approximately flat circles. Additionally, the fact that the ring-tilt observations are consistent for every observer on Earth shows that Saturn is a very distant object, so that even observers separated by great distances on Earth will have comparable views.

The more distant planets of Uranus and Neptune are harder to observe with smaller amateur equipment. However, with diligence and larger telescopes, their round bodies can be observed in similar nature as the other planets. The fact that both Uranus and Neptune have their own systems of orbiting moons helps us to understand their relative size and gravitational dominance in their regions of space. The brightest of Uranus’ moons, Titania and Oberon, have been studied for well over 200 years. Titania, the largest and brightest moon, completes an orbit every 8.7 days, while Oberon takes 13.5 days.[11] The largest moon of Neptune, Triton, has been observed for over 150 years and has an orbital period of 5.9 days.[12] Thus, when we compare our observations of Uranus and Neptune to those of Jupiter and Saturn, we see many similarities and, by extension, can understand Uranus and Neptune as large spherical bodies.

Simple observations of the Moon and Sun in the sky clearly show a circular body. Couple this simple observational fact with a few additional observations and we can understand them as three-dimensionally round, as well. For instance, in similar fashion to some of the planets, the Sun can easily be monitored over several days tracking visible photosphere features called sunspots, progressing across its surface. Sunspots are dark areas in the brightly visible layer of the Sun, called the photosphere. As we track a sunspot feature across the Sun’s apparent surface, we find that shape and orientation of their entire context shows its movement to be caused by the Sun’s overall rotation and not large atmospheric motion. Even small backyard telescopes with proper solar filters can be used to monitor the presence and movement of sunspots.

For the second brightest object in the sky, the Moon, our regular observations can be done even easier than trying to safely view the Sun. The most obvious observation of the Moon is that it progresses through a regular cycle of phases each month. As this cycle occurs, there is an obvious curvature seen in the visibly bright portion of the Moon. The shape of the Moon’s phase, defined by the dark and light regions, is not caused by any shadowing from Earth. Instead, the obvious curved shapes of a Gibbous or Crescent Moon are due to the overall spherical curvature of the Moon itself.

As the Moon’s position relative to the Sun’s location changes, our view of the Moon’s sunlit portion changes, and we see the side of the Moon facing away from the Sun. The direct relationship between lunar phases and the Sun can be seen by how each phase corresponds with the Sun’s position, noting also that the phase of the Moon is approximately the same for every observer—evidence for the Moon having a large distance from Earth. Flat-Earth models have the Moon located quite close, and as such, the Moon’s phase would be dramatically different based on where the observer is located. Instead, a Full Moon is always found opposite the Sun in the sky for every observer. When the Sun is setting below the horizon, the Full Moon is rising above the horizon, and when the Full Moon is setting, the Sun will be rising. Conversely, when the lunar phase is a New Moon, both the Sun and Moon will be seen in the same direction. The sunlit portions and the oppositely shadowed regions of the Moon are the visible results of the spherical shape of the Moon. 

Even further, as we gaze at the Full Moon, itsvarying surface features are obvious by the contrasting light and dark regions. Employ binoculars or a small telescope and you will have immediate access to a wealth of topographic variation: rough and smooth areas, large and small craters, elevated peaks and depressions. Focusing on the surface features, we find that the shadowing effect that the phases provide enhances our understanding of the three-dimensional aspect of the Moon. The boundary line produced by the curved shadow across the Moon’s surface (during the Gibbous or Crescent phase) is called the terminator. You will find as you observe the Moon that the terminator is a region of excellent viewing. “Why?,” you might ask. There is a subtle decrease in the brightness of this region, allowing it to be somewhat easier on the eyes. The brightness difference is caused by the fact that the shadows of visible features along the terminator become lengthened as the terminator line approaches them. First, this is one piece of evidence toward the Moon not producing its own light, as some Flat-Earth proponents suggest,[13] but rather reflecting light from an outside source (the Sun). Second, the shadows become extended when features are near the terminator, showing to a greater degree a contrast in height above the lunar surface. Here we can begin to identify the differences between elevated and depressed features by where their shadow is cast. The Moon is a distant, three-dimensional body with a variety of topographic landscapes.

Evaluating Observations of the Constellations

As we view the night sky and trace out familiar patterns in the stars, we can begin to map out the constellations. It is these consistent arrangements of stars that allow us to map and chart the heavens. We can use the positions of constellations relative to other stars and constellations to help us determine, not only where lesser-known and less-obvious celestial objects are located, but to help us on Earth to navigate our own geography.

Similar to how Earth’s geography has been mapped through history to provide our current knowledge of how the major landforms are oriented, the entire sky has likewise been mapped to give us a relation for how each constellation is oriented and located relative to the others. Following the same process for how Earth’s maps were compiled, requiring not only exploration but a combining of knowledge from many diverse groups across the world, the constellation map of the sky has been compiled from astronomical observers from different regions of the Earth over long periods of time. This process of combination was not only a good arrangement but was necessary for a complete map, since the available view of the sky is dependent on your location on Earth. Observers in different locations will have different views, not only for similar times of night or seasons, but also may have access to view constellations not available to other regions.

First, the view of a single observer varies seasonally. The visible constellations follow a regular cycle throughout the period of a year, and then repeat the same exact cycle the next year, and every year after that. What this seasonal cycle illustrates is that for any single location, there will be constellations that can be viewed during the winter months but that are not visible during the summer months, and vice-versa. This variation means that the Sun’s position in the sky is independent of the star and constellation positions, and thus there must be two motions in process to account for the Sun’s position and the constellation positions. The fact that there are seasonal variations seen in the East to West changing of visible constellation positions supports the spherical curvature of Earth and its rotational axis motion that impacts the star’s positions.

Second, there are constellation variations based not only on seasonal changes but on the geographical locations of observers. If we consider different observers located in the midwest United States, in central Africa, and in Australia, we find that each will have dramatically different observations. The set of constellations visible will be very different for locations with large North-to-South separations, where many constellations will not be visible from the opposite location. Constellations that may be visible from two locations with smaller North-to-South separations will still have very different apparent positions in the sky. Thus the stars and constellations visible at a particular location correspond directly to an observer’s latitude, where observers located at dramatically different latitudes will have unique views. These variations show us that there is a North-to-South curvature of Earth, which is aligned with a preferred axis of East-to-West rotation. A Flat-Earth model is not able to describe these observations, where a spherical Earth provides a simple description for how they occur.

These observable facts make clear sense for a spherical Earth, as the relative positions on the globe would determine your outward facing view of the sky. Other regions of the sky are obscured by the curved body of Earth. The reason that some constellations may be completely unique based on your location, results from Earth’s globe having a rotating motion about its axis. Where an observer is located on the surface, relative to the axis of rotation, will define what regions of the sky may or may not be visible and which stars are circumpolar (meaning they circle the celestial pole and are continuously above the horizon). The nearer you are to one of Earth’s poles (North or South), the less of the total sky you are able to see. A person South of the Equator will never see the North Star, Polaris (located at the North Celestial Pole). A person North of the equator at latitudes greater than about 26 degrees will never see the Southern Cross (near the South Celestial Pole).[14] This location-dependent view is why Australia and New Zealand have this prominent group of stars on their nation’s flags, but Northern Hemisphere nations do not.

Flat-Earth models have huge complications when trying to describe how the visibility of constellations varies based only on an observer’s latitude. Problems are further compounded when addressing the observations of completely different constellations visible to those located at far Northern and far Southern latitudes, and that there are not one but two celestial poles around which stars rotate.

(to be continued)
------------------------
Endnotes

[1] Eric Dubay (2014), The Flat–Earth Conspiracy (Self-published), p. 89; See the phrase “under 4,000 miles” in Samuel Rowbotham (“Parallax”) (1865), Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! (Bath: S. Hayward), p. 74.

[2] Both the Sun and Moon have an angular size of 0.5 degrees. “Angular size” measures how large in angular units, such as degrees, an object appears. Angular size is not a measure of the true physical size, but rather an apparent size based on the object’s distance.

[3] See “The Moon” at the Flat Earth Society Web site: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Moon.

[4] http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html. The August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse will only be about 70 miles in diameter, as measured from the NASA map projections. See https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/interactive_map/index.html.

[5] “The Flat Earth Society, along with previous notable flatists such as Samuel Shenton and S. Rowbotham, believe there is no end to the Earth and that it continues indefinitely. The only edge to the earth is the one you are standing on.” Seehttps://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/faq#173818.

[6] See the flat Earth map on the cover of this issue of R&R created by Orlando Ferguson in 1893. Also at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map.jpg.

[7] Thomas Hockey (1999), Galileo’s Planet: Observing Jupiter Before Photography (Bristol, PA: IOP Publishing), pp. 31-32; C.A. Young (1886), “Rotation Time of the Red Spot on Jupiter,” The Sidereal Messenger, 5:289-293, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1886SidM....5..289.

[8] C.A. Higgins, T.D. Carr, and F. Reyes (1996), “A New Determination of Jupiter’s Radio Rotation Period,” Geophysical Research Letters, 23:2653-2656.

[9] “All About Mars” (no date), NASA, https://mars.nasa.gov/allaboutmars/mystique/history/1600/; Jim Plaxco (1999), Mars Timeline of Discovery: 1570 BC thru 1799, http://www.astrodigital.org/mars/timeline1.html.

[10] Helen Sawyer Hogg (1963), “Out of Old Books: James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 57:269, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963JRASC..57..269S.

[11] David Williams (2016), “Uranian Satellite Fact Sheet” (Greenbelt, MD: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uraniansatfact.html.

[12] David Williams (2016), “Neptunian Satellite Fact Sheet” (Greenbelt, MD: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptuniansatfact.html.

[13] Dubay, pp. 78-81.

[14] Bruce McClure (2017), “Northerners’ Guide to Southern Cross,” EarthSky, http://earthsky.org/favorite-star-patterns/the-southern-cross-signpost-of-southern-skies.