Answering the rebuttals of a Catholic apologist, #11: “Don’t Add to God’s Word”

Today, we continue our series responding to “Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answer 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs” (2019), written by Karlo Broussard. The Catholic apologist ends his five-part section on Scripture and Tradition with this chapter countering Protestants’ arguments against Catholicism’s “Sacred Traditions” by which Protestants refer to the warning of Revelation 22:18-19, “Don’t Add to God’s Word”.


In this chapter, Broussard examines the Bible passage below, which Protestants often use to warn against the elevation of any man-made doctrine or tradition, including Catholicism’s spurious “Sacred Traditions,” to the same level as divinely inspired and authorized Scripture:

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” – Revelation 22:18-19

Broussard argues that the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is intended specifically for the Book of Revelation itself and not for the entire canon of Scripture. He states that if the warning was in fact intended for the entire Biblical canon, then Protestants are guilty of removing the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books from the Bible.

As surprising as it might be to some, I actually agree with Broussard that the passage that’s cited refers specifically to the Book of Revelation. However, along with the warnings in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and Proverbs 30:5-6, there is also a general principle implied in Revelation 22:18-19 that God’s Word is not to be tampered with or subordinated to any other authority.

The status of the seven deuterocanonical/apocryphal books* have been debated for centuries. They are generally thought to have been written between 200 BC and 50 AD and were NEVER considered as Scriptural by Palestinian Rabbinic Judaism. Diasporic Helenistic Judaism (centered in Alexandria and Antioch) syncretically combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture and added the spurious apocryphal books into the Septuagint (Latin – “translation of the seventy interpreters”), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. When Jerome set about translating the Bible into the Latin Vulgate in the early-5th century, he used the Hebrew Bible as his source and rejected the apocryphal books of the Septuagint. Later editions of the Vulgate would include the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books, but the debate continued over their canonicity until the Council of Trent settled the matter for the RCC in 1546. Contrary to the claims of overzealous Catholic apologists, Catholic Bible scholar, priest John Echert, concedes that it cannot be demonstrated that Jesus or His apostles ever quoted directly from any of the apocryphal books.

“The (religious) themes (alluded to in the New Testament as quotes from the Apocrypha by overzealous Catholics) are so prevalent in Judaism that our Lord may not have intended these works (i.e., the Apocrypha) specifically.” – John Echert

Roman Catholics continue to defend the canonicity of the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books. That’s a given. But Broussard has attempted to use that debate as a smokescreen to divert the reader’s attention from the original argument, that the Roman Catholic church has subordinated God’s Word by claiming divine authority for its Magisterium (the teaching office of the pope and his bishops) and for its “Sacred Tradition,” a label it conveniently ascribes to every man-made doctrine it concocts.

Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelation?

What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?

The Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical Books (excellent article from Ligonier Ministries)

The Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical Books

*The Apocrypha includes the seven books of Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, and Wisdom of Solomon, and additions to Esther and Daniel

Next up: Broussard kicks off a new section on the topic of Salvation with the chapter, “We Are Justified All At Once.”

32 thoughts on “Answering the rebuttals of a Catholic apologist, #11: “Don’t Add to God’s Word”

  1. Brother, the canon is something I really love engaging in polemical discourse with Romanists about. As you shall soon see, their claims are all based on a foundation of sand.

    I would like to point out though that the theory of some wider Alexandrian canon has been debunked. Just because the apocryphal books were included doesn’t automatically mean they were regarded as inspired scripture.

    Roger Beckwith: The theory of the wider Alexandrian canon (always vulnerable to the evidence Of Philo and the New Testament) has received detailed refutation from A. C. Sundberg. The theory of the Synod of Jamnia has been thoughtfully sifted by J. P. Lewis, who questions whether it was a synod at all, or merely an academic discussion , and demonstrates that it had only limited influence on later rabbinical opinion. So when one recalls that the standard Christian books on the Old Testament canon (such as Ryle’s book, and the books by F. P. W. Buhl and W. H. Green) were written by the 1890s, before any of these developments had taken place, and that even the standard Jewish books on the subject (such as those by M. L. Margolis and Solomon Zeitlin) were written before most of these developments had occurred, it becomes clear that a re-examination Of the question would be timely. Such a re-examination might well arrive at fresh conclusions. An indication that this could be so was recently given by the incisive and informative monograph of the Jewish scholar S. Z Leiman, where he dates the closing of the canon of the Hagiographa not in the late first century AD but in the mid-second century BC. Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008, Pg 6.

    Article by Albert Sundberg is here:

    There was no standard septuagint and Jerome was a witness to three different versions of the LXX during his day.

    “This internal evidence, then, confirms the generally accepted attribution of the Commentary to Diodore. There is also the fact that the commentator is clearly reading as his biblical text the Greek version in use in Antioch, a version made by—or, more likely, revised by—Lucian,18 and hence often referred to as Lucianic. We know of its existence from Jerome, who speaks of three forms of the Septuagint current in his time, including a version adopted in Antioch-Constantinople “which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea and all the Greek commentators call the popular text, and which by most is called the Lucianic text.”19 Though this term is not acceptable to all scholars,20 the individual features of the Antioch text have been documented by the editions emanating from the Göttingen project,21 a text coming to light from the commentaries of the Antiochene Fathers—Diodore and his successors Chrysostom, Theodore, and Theodoret22—and hopefully rendering unacceptable the use of “Septuagint” as a univocal term.23 Diodore of Tarsus: Commentary on Psalms 1–51, Society of Biblical Literature 2005, Writings from the Greco-Roman World, Number 9, Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Robert C. Hill”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. When discussing the canon, one shouldn’t leave out the various Orthodox churches. As you can see, they have more books in their Bible, than the Romanists, such as 3/4 Macc, Psalm 151, the Prayer of Mannasseh etc. The Ethiopians and Eritreans even have 1 Enoch and a bunch of other books in their Bible.

    Even then, there is no consensus among the various Orthodox churches and they have an open canon. However, when establishing doctrine, they stick to the Hebrew canon. This position is no different from Luther and the reformers.

    John Meyendorff: The Christian East took a longer time than the West in settling on an agreed canon of Scripture. The principal hesitations concerned the books of the Old Testament which are not contained in the Hebrew canon (“shorter” canon) and the Book of the Revelation in the New Testament. Fourth-century conciliar and patristic authorities in the East differ in their attitude concerning the exact authority of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Athanasius in his famous Paschal Letter 39 excludes them from Scripture proper, but considers them useful for catechumens, an opinion which he shares with Cyril of Jerusalem. Canon 60 of the council of Laodicea—whether authentic or not—also reflects the tradition of a “shorter” canon. But the Quinisext Council (692) endorses the authority of the Apostolic Canon 85, which admits some books of the “longer” canon, including even 3 Maccabees, but omits Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as “admirable,” yet fails to include them in the canon. Therefore, in spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exclusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text, and that parts of the “longer” canon—especially Wisdom—are of frequent liturgical use, Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a “Hebrew” criterion for Old Testament literature, which excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consistent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between “canonical” and “deuterocanonical” literature of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the “shorter” canon. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 7.

    John Meyendorff: This system of internal priorities within the canon of Scriptures is further shown in two facts in the history of the scriptural canon in the Eastern half of the Christian world. The first fact is that the final settlement of the canon did not take place until 692, and that uncertainty as to the boundaries of written revelation was not, for many centuries, considered a major problem in doing theology. The second fact is that, when the settlement took place, a measure of uncertainty remained as to the exact status of the “longer canon” of the Old Testament; books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus—which were not a part of the Hebrew canon, but only of the Septuagint, and which are called Apocrypha in the West—were still recognized by some in the eighth century as “admissible,” though they were not included in the canon. Even today, Orthodox theologians refer to them as deuterocanonical books. They are considered part of Scripture and are read in church liturgically, but occupy something of a marginal place in the canon.
    This rather detached Orthodox attitude toward the problem of the scriptural canon shows clearly that for them the Christian faith and experience can in no way be compatible with the notion of Scriptura sola. See his chapter “Doing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective” in Daniel B. Clendenin, ed., Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), p. 82.

    Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.: There are many lists of canonical Old Testament books from various church fathers and councils. The lists from the Eastern churches tend to support a restricted canon very much like that of the Hebrew tradition. “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today” in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 198.

    Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.: Further Christian evidence for the twenty-two book canon appears in the writings of Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzus, and Epiphanius. While several of these writers recommended the reading of the apocrypha, their Old Testament lists reflect the tradition, first glimpsed in Josephus, that the number of biblical books equals the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today” in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 199.

    Bishop Kallistos Ware: The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’. [In the West, the Deutero-Canonical Books are commonly termed ‘The Apocrypha’. The works in question are 1 (alias 3) Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1 , 2 and 3 Maccabees; The Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus (alias Sirach); Baruch; the Letter of Jeremias. Some Orthodox editions of the Bible also contain 4 Maccabees .These works can all be found in English translation in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. Expanded Edition: Revised Standard Version, ed. Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger (New York 1977).] These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture;’ most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament. The Orthodox Church, Penguin Adult, 1993, Pg 200

    Raymond Brown S.S.: The Reformers influenced some OT canonical approaches in the Eastern churches. In 1627 Zacharios Greganos, a Greek who had studied at Wittenburg, rejected the deuterocanonical books. Although similar views were held by a few others, the Gk and Slavic branches of the Byzantine church continued to maintain those books. The Synod of Jerusalem, convened at Bethlehem in 1672 by the patriarch Dositheus to repudiate tendencies toward Calvinism, specifically decreed that Tob, Jdt, Sir, Wis, 1-2 Macc, and the additions to Dan are to be considered canonical. At that time the decrees of the synod were intended to be representative of Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole. Within the Gk church, despite occasional demurrals by theologians, the longer OT canon has been accepted, including 2 Esdr and 3 Macc. Since the 19th cent., however, Russian Orthodox theologians generally have not accepted the deuterocanonical books. Yet a Moscow-published Bible of 1956 contains them. A draft statement for the proposed Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Towards the Great Council [London, 1972] 3-4) opts for the shorter canon, as does the negotiation between the Orthodox and the Old Catholics (Beckwith, OT Canon 14).” Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990, Pg. 1043

    Demetrios J. Constantelos: The early church as a whole did not take a definite position for or against the Deuterocanonicals .Church leaders and ecclesiastical writers of both the Greek east and Latin west were not in full agreement. Some preferred the Hebrew canon, while others accepted the longer canon that included the Deuterocanonicals. The ambivalence of ecumenical and local synods (Nicea, 325 CE; Rome, 382; Laodicea, 365; Hippo, 393) was resolved by the Trullan Synod (692). It adopted deliberations of councils that had favored the shorter list, and decisions of other synods that had advocated the longer list. See his article “Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 174.

    Demetrios J. Constantelos: The canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books is still a disputed topic in Orthodox biblical theology. See his article “Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 175.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. At the Council of Trent, they didn’t even pass the decree with a plurality.
    Bruce Metzger: The disrupting influences of opinions about the Scriptures expressed by such figures as Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus, not to speak of German, Swiss, and French Reformers, prompted Pope Paul III to convene a council at Trent in order to consider what, if any, moral and administrative reforms needed to be made within the Roman Catholic Church. The Council, which held its first session on 13 December 1545, gave preliminary consideration to the subject of holy Scripture and Tradition on 12 February 1546. Considerable debate ensued on whether a distinction should be made between two classes of books (Canonical and Apocryphal) or whether three classes should be identified (Acknowledged Books; the Disputed Books of the New Testament, later generally received; and the Apocrypha of the Old Testament). Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstensions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema. The Canon of the New Testament, Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1989, Pg 246

    Gregory the Great rejected 1 Macc. Their best scholars like Erasmus, (Cardinals) Cajetan, Ximenes, Seripando et al rejected the apocrypha, following Jerome.

    Pope Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome (c. 590-604): With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

    Cardinal Cajetan: Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed among the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned canonical. For the words as well as of councils and of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clear through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.Taken from his comments on the final chapter of Esther, in Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament; cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: University Press, 1849), 48. Cf. John Cosin, A Scholastical History of the Canon (Oxford: Parker, 1849),111:257-58, and B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1889), 475.

    Hubert Jedin: Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages. Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

    Francis Gigot S.S.: In point of fact, during the second part of the fifteenth century, that is, after the close of the Council of Florence, some ecclesiastical writers, such as Alphonsus Tostat, Bishop of Avila (1455), St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence(1459), and Dionysius the Carthusian (1471), continued to hold the views of St. Jerome against the deutero-canonical books.

    I. Beginning of the Sixteenth Century. As in the latter part of the preceding century, so in the beginning of the sixteenth century, do we find some Catholic scholars opposed to the books which were not contained in the Hebrew Text. The first among these is the illustrious Spaniard, Cardinal Ximenes (1517). In the preface to his magnificent edition of the Bible in several languages called the Polyglot of Ximenes, he reproduces the passages of St. Jerome against the deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament. ” The books,” he writes, ” which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of ecclesiastical doctrines are given only in Greek, but in a double translation.” ‘ Another opponent of the deutero-canonical books during this period is the celebrated humanist, Erasmus (1536). He does not indeed declare himself openly against them, but his manner of referring to their rejection by the ancients, and of speaking of his own uncertainty as to the real mind of the Church regarding the whole matter, etc., shows beyond doubt that his vague expressions are due exclusively to his desire not to compromise himself in the eyes of his ecclesiastical superiors. Far less guarded are the words of his contemporary, the Dominican Thomas de Vio, better known under the name of Cardinal Cajetan (1534). At the end of his commentary on the book of Esther, the outspoken cardinal writes : ” In this place, we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament, for the remaining books (Judith, Tobias, I and II Machabees) are reckoned by St. Jerome without the canonical books and placed among the Apocrypha together with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. . . . Nor must you be disturbed by the strangeness of the fact, if you shall anywhere find these books reckoned among the canonical books, either in the sacred Councils or in the holy Doctors. For the language of Councils and Doctors must alike be revised by the judgment of Jerome ; and according to his opinion those books and any others there may be like them in the Canon of the Bible, are not canonical in the sense of establishing points of faith ; yet they can be called canonical for the edification of the faithful, inasmuch as they are received in the Canon of the Bible for this purpose, and treated with respect. For with this distinction, you will be able to understand the words of Augustine, and what was written in the Florentine Council under Eugenius IV, and what was written in the provincial councils of Carthage and Laodicea, and by Popes Innocent and Gregory.” Rev. Francis E. Gigot S.S., General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, New York : Benziger, 1903, Pg 71-73

    Liked by 1 person

  4. What does the NT tell us about the OT? The Jews already had an agreed set of scriptures for the Bereans could search the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). The OT revelations were entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:2). The OT had a threefold division (Luke 24:44) like what we see today.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. 2 Macc 12???

        39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

        Verse 40 says these people were struck down for idolatry , so they should be in hell, not purgatory. I’ve never heard a good explanation for this.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: Verse 40 says these people were struck down for idolatry , so they should be in hell, not purgatory. I’ve never heard a good explanation for this.

        Thanks, SB. Yes, I have pointed out that contradiction many times, but obviously Catholics don’t want to deal with it.


    1. Thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention! I would like to feature this in a separate post. I’m so grateful that J. Mac isn’t afraid to “tell it like it is” when it comes to the RCC.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Good counter-rebuttals. I enjoyed how you also brought in the conversation both Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and Proverbs 30:5-6 and how there’s a general principle of not adding to the Word of God. Good post.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, brother! I appreciate the encouragement! I’ll be tackling next Friday’s rebuttal tomorrow AM. My wife should be sleeping-in longer giving me lots of time to work on it.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Valuable information Tom. I often wondered about these books. I had heard different ideas and opinions regarding their authenticity as inspired text.
    I will keep your post as a reference point .
    Thank you brother .
    Have a blessed weekend

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Fascinating, I never thought of Rev 22 pertaining solely to Rev, I can see that interpretation, thank you! My last phd class was NT backgrounds and we had to read the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Great for learning history but it is clear they are not canonical based on date, location and content. When sola scriptura isn’t vital, why would it matter what is included or not since tradition reigns supreme? What isn’t included would be covered by tradition and what doesn’t fit biblically would be metaphorical or hyperbole. This author was way more smug in this chapter so I need a break before reading works based salvation!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The RCC is especially favorable towards 2 Maccabees because 2 Mac 12:39-45 supports the doctrine of purgatory.

      RE: Why would it matter what is included (in Scripture)?

      Excellent question. And taking it even farther, modern Catholic popes and prelates grant that all religionists and even atheists may also merit Heaven if they sincerely follow their religion (or conscience) and are “good,” so why does Broussard even bother?

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s