Reformanda Initiative Podcast #5: Time Distinctions Meet Theology Part 1

Before we get started with today’s Reformanda Initiative podcast installment, I wanted to acknowledge that today, October 31st, we celebrate the 505th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. I am eternally grateful to God for raising up men and women who defied Roman Catholicism’s false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit and reclaimed the New Testament Good News! Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Praise God for the Reformers and for those who continue to expose Rome’s false gospel, like the folks at Reformanda Initiative.

Welcome to the fifth installment of our weekly Reformanda Initiative podcast series! I’m excited to present the ministry of Dr. Leonardo De Chirico and his associates at Reformanda Initiative as they examine Roman Catholic theology in order to inform and equip evangelicals.

Season 1, Episode 5: Time Distinctions Meet Theology Part 1

Show Notes

In this episode, we discuss how Roman Catholic theology blurs time distinctions concerning the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This is a result of confusing what God has done in history, with what He is doing. We discuss the implications of this blurring for the biblical gospel.

My Comments

This “blurring of time distinctions” by the RCC, an important factor in Catholicism’s Christ-Church Interconnection construct, might seem daunting, but it will make sense after listening to the Reformand Initiative guys break it down. Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven and currently sits at the right hand of God the Father, but the RCC artificially extends the incarnation by assuming for itself the offices and prerogatives of Jesus Christ: the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. I was going to use the alleged transubstantiation of bread wafers into Jesus and the subsequent sacrifice of the mass as the most blatant example of this blurring of time distinctions, but, looking ahead, I see the RI guys are going to examine this heterodoxy in detail in part 2. Another example would be the Magisterium (the pope in communion with his bishops) defining new dogma for the church and thus appropriating Jesus Christ’s office of Prophet. Another example would be the pope’s alleged jurisdiction over all of the rulers and governments of the world, thus appropriating Jesus Christ’s office of King.

Season 1, Episode 5: Time Distinctions Meet Theology Part 1
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
October 24, 2019 – 38 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/1924928-ep-5-time-distinctions-meet-theology-part-1

Next week: Season 1, Episode 6: Time Distinctions Meet Theology Part 2

Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 10/29/22

• Vatican confirms renewal of contested accord with China

In 2018, pope Francis struck a secret accord with the Chinese communist government in Beijing, which mandated that only quisling stooges affiliated with the puppet Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) could be appointed bishops. Francis pragmatically threw cardinal Zen and all other non-CCPA Catholics under the bus by brokering the deal. The accord was renewed in 2020 and again this month. It’s estimated that there are 12 million Catholics in China; 6 million belong to the CPA and 6 million do not. There’s no genuine Gospel in sight in this religious-political quagmire, but we note the dastardliness of Bergoglio’s sellout.

• Catholic archbishop Chaput: ‘Biden is not in communion with the Catholic faith’

Conservative Catholic prelates were roiled by the election of Joe Biden to the U.S. presidency in 2020. Democrat Biden touts his Catholic “faith,” but is an ardent supporter of pro-abortion genocide legislation. Catholic prelates took sides in the “wafer wars” following the election, with conservative bishops calling for Biden and other pro-abortion politicians to be banned from receiving the Jesus wafer and other sacraments. Progressive pope Francis quelled the debate by publicly endorsing both Biden and Nancy Pelosi, but some conservative prelates like Chaput continue to defy the pope.

• The Catholic “seal of confession” could be latest casualty of sex abuse crisis

Great Britain is slowly moving towards prosecuting Catholic priests who hear the confessions of child abusers and don’t notify law enforcement, in accordance with the Catholic “seal of confession,” i.e., everything admitted to in the confessional stays in the confessional. The Catholic sacrament of reconciliation is from the deepest recesses of the pit of hell. Only God can forgive sins. Catholic priests are trained to ask “probing questions” of their penitents in order to elicit a “good confession.” You can read between the lines, dear reader. Many predator priests initially groomed their young and mostly-male victims in the confessional. The RCC mandates that Catholics must go to confession at least once per year under threat of mortal sin, but church sources report only 26 percent of members comply. Who wants to discuss their sins with a deviant?

• A ‘hostile takeover’ of Catholicism?

Conservative Catholics jaundicely view the 2021-2024 RC church-wide Synod on Synodality as an opportunity for pope Francis to introduce additional progressive reforms.

• Reformation Day – Monday, October 31, 2022

This upcoming Monday marks the 505th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Schlosskirche or Castle Church of Wittenberg, Germany, beginning a glorious reclamation of the New Testament Good News! Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Evangelical Christians certainly don’t put Luther on a pedestal. He along with the other Reformers, were sinners saved by God’s grace alone, but the Holy Spirit used these men mightily in the reclamation of the genuine Gospel. Sadly, relatively few evangelical pastors will mention the Reformation in their sermons tomorrow. Roman Catholicism has not changed any of its core doctrines since 1517. The Reformation continues!

• What is the difference between All Saints Day, All Souls Day and Halloween?

On the Catholic liturgical calendar, this coming Tuesday, November 1st is All Saints Day in which all canonized Catholic saints are celebrated. The Catholic notion of “saints” – super-good people who propagated Rome’s false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit in their lifetime and can now be prayed to as heavenly intercessors – is contrary to the Biblical definition of saints as all born-again believers. All Saints Day is a holy day of obligation, meaning all Catholics must attend mass under threat of mortal sin, but relatively few will comply. All Soul’s Day is Wednesday, November 2nd, when Catholics offer up prayers and masses for the early release of loved ones allegedly suffering in Purgatory. In heavily Catholic portions of Europe, many will go to the local cemetery on Wednesday at dusk and light candles on their loved ones’ graves. The notion of Purgatory is pagan in origin and un-Biblical.

Above: A cemetery in Poland is aglow with candlelight on Dzień Zaduszny, “All Souls’ Day.” Hundreds of millions of souls are blinded by the RCC’s false gospel.

• Kanye West stirs controversy with JPII-White Lives Matter shirt and anti-Semitic remarks

Some evangelicals were undiscerningly joyous when popular rapper, Kanye West, announced he was a born-again Christian. However, many telltale aberrations followed, including Kanye’s recent appearance at a fashion show wearing a t-shirt with multiple photos of pope John Paul II with the slogan, Seguiremos Tu Ejemplo (“We will follow your example”) emblazoned on the front and “White Lives Matter” on the back. Kanye also recently made some anti-Semitic remarks that are causing a huge stir. Anti-Semitism is popular among some so-called “evangelical Christians” who are enmeshed in far-right, Christian-nationalist conspiracy theories. I’ve seen examples here at WordPress.

Above: Conservative media pundit,
Candace Owens and Kanye sporting
pope JPII shirts. Owens is married to
convert to RC-ism, George Farmer.

Above: Details of the JP II photos and slogan design
worn by Owens and Kanye

Personal matters 1: The Philadelphia Phillies vanquished the San Diego Padres, 4 games to 1 in the National League Championship Series. I have no desire to publish a separate post to commemorate the Padres’ whooping, but congrats to the Phillies and their fans.

Personal matters 2: After almost 22 months at L3Harris, tomorrow will be my last work day, although my official last day will actually be Monday when I have to come in briefly for my exit interview. After 48 years of working, my retirement begins Tuesday! This is indeed fodder for a future post.

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #22: “The Jerusalem council just confirmed revelation already given to Paul.”

Thanks for joining us today as we continue to examine and respond to Catholic apologist, Karlo Broussard’s book, “Meeting the Protestant Response” (2022). This week, Broussard continues his final chapter on Petrine primacy and papal authority, using Acts 15:7-11 as his proof-text:

⁷ And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. ⁸ And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, ⁹ and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? ¹¹ But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” – Acts 15:7-11

Protestant response #22: “The Jerusalem council just confirmed revelation already given to Paul.”

Broussard writes, “(Norman) Geisler and (Ralph) MacKenzie offer another comeback: ‘The Jerusalem conference was only confirmatory of the revelation Paul had previously received directly from God. There was no new infallible declaration from God…the conference recognized the supernatural confirmation of God on the message of Paul (Acts 15:12), which was the divinely appointed sign that he spoke by revelation from God (2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4).'”

Broussard’s response

Writes Broussard, “There are two problems here. First, it was Peter who received the revelation to receive the Gentiles into the Church before anybody else, even before Paul. Peter was the first!…Second, the Catholic argument for Peter’s authority in Acts 15 doesn’t base itself on the claim that Peter gives new revelation. The claim is that Peter authoritatively confirms for the Church the revelation that the Gentiles can be saved. Even though the revelation had already been given to Peter and Paul, the Church needed to know the truth of the matter. That was the whole point of the gathering…Though the answer had been revealed, not everyone agreed on this issue. This disagreement among the brethren gave rise to the need for a council. The issue had to be settled. There needed to be an authoritative interpretation of the revelation given. And it was Peter who provided it” (pp.78-79).

My response

Broussard argues that Peter was the first apostle given a revelation to receive the Gentiles into the church. Although he doesn’t cite it, I imagine Broussard is referring to Acts 10:1-48; 11:1-18, involving the interaction between Peter and Cornelius, the Roman centurion. But God had revealed that Paul would deliver the Gospel to the Gentiles earlier in Acts 9:15:

“But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.”

Even previous to that, Jesus had charged all of the apostles with delivering the Gospel to the entire world in Acts 1:8:

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

So, although Peter was given specific instructions regarding Cornelius, the claim that he was “the first apostle given a revelation to receive the Gentiles into the church” is contradicted by Acts 9:15 and Acts 1:8.

Even if Peter had been the first apostle to receive revelation regarding the Gentiles, that would still not make him pope. At the end of his response, Broussard claims that Peter provided an authoritative interpretation of the Gentile revelation, which settled the dispute for which the Jerusalem council was called. That claim is fallacious as we shall see next week.

Next week: Protestant response #23: “James was the leader of the council, not Peter.”

Throwback Thursday: Catholic priest dispenses erroneous information about fictitious “Limbo”

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on October 7, 2016 and has been revised.

Yesterday morning, I was listening to the 4/25/14 podcast of the “Calling All Catholics” talk radio show (The Station of the Cross, 101.7 FM, Buffalo, NY) featuring Jesuit priest, Marty Moleski, and moderator, Gina Zanicky-Weiss. A listener, Ken, called in with a question for Moleski regarding the film, “Heaven is for Real.”* According to Ken, the movie implied that infants who were miscarried or aborted ended up in Heaven. But Ken was troubled by that message because he remembered being taught as a young Catholic parochial school student that unbaptized infants and young children who died didn’t go to Heaven, but were consigned to a place called “Limbo” and he asked Moleski for clarification.

Moleski replied that Catholic theologians of years past proposed the existence of Limbo as a place for unbaptized young children. He wrongly stated that Limbo was thought to be a compartment of Heaven, adding the caveat that those who were consigned to Limbo were not able to “participate fully in the beatific vision.” Moleski went on to say the Catholic church never endorsed the theory of Limbo as official dogma. The current Catholic catechism states that the church “hopes” unbaptized young children go to Heaven when they die (CCC 1261).

However, Moleski’s assertion that Catholic theologians taught that Limbo is a part of Heaven is certainly NOT true. Catholic theologians asserted that Limbo was either a part of Hell, on the edge of Hell (limbus means “hem” or “border”), or between Hell and Heaven, but definitely NOT a part of Heaven. See here. Baptism is such an important part of Catholic salvation theology that it was inconceivable to Catholic theologians that any soul could achieve Heaven without it (with the exceptions of martyrs and ernest catechumens who died before baptism).

Also, while the RCC may have never “officially” decreed the doctrine of Limbo for unbaptized infants, the teaching was widespread throughout Catholicism and appears in my 1991 copy of the Baltimore Catechism (“Limbo: The place where unbaptized infants go.” – from The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, 1991 edition, p. 248 with the imprimatur of Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York). The concept of Limbo was taught century after century by the church and was propagated by notable and revered “saints” and “doctors of the church,” including Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine. However, Limbo was officially disavowed as a doctrine by pope Benedict XVI in 2007.

If the doctrine was incorrect, as the church now admits, why didn’t one of the many “infallible” popes of the 1500 years previous to Benedict intervene and correct the error? And if the church now hopes all unbaptized infants go directly to Heaven if they die, why are the staff at Catholic hospitals still instructed to baptize infants who are in danger of dying?

Evangelicals believe from God’s Word that young children and others who are mentally incapable of accepting Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone will go to Heaven if they die.

“Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 19:13-14

---

Got Questions – Do babies and children go to heaven when they die?
https://www.gotquestions.org/do-babies-go-to-heaven.html

*Endnote: I have never seen “Heaven is for Real” and I don’t endorse it.

The Byrds’ Photo Opus: Strictly for the Byrds Nyrds

Today, we’re taking a break from theological discussions with some 1960’s frivolity.

The Byrds: 1964-1967
By Roger McGuinn, Chris Hillman, David Crosby, and Scott Bomar
BMG Books, 2022, 396 pp.

When most people think of the Byrds, they generally think about those two great #1 hit singles from 1965, “Mr. Tambourine Man” and “Turn! Turn! Turn!,” but the band had a nine-year, twelve-album run in which they pioneered folk-rock, jazz-rock, raga-rock, psychedelic-rock, and country-rock. Fifty-seven years later, rock ‘n’ roll historians and musicologists are still discussing the Byrds and their influential legacy.

BMG Publishing had amassed a large collection of Byrds photographs for ex-Byrd, Chris Hillman’s 2020 autobiography (see my review here). Someone at BMG got the bright idea of compiling the unused photos for this much-anticipated, massive, nine-pound, 13″x11,” 400-page, coffee table, photo-history, primarily of the band’s early years, 1964-1967.

Jim (later Roger) McGuinn (lead guitar), Gene Clark, and David Crosby (rhythm guitar) were folk singers and musicians who enviably observed the meteoric rise of the Beatles in 1964 and banded together to form their own rock ‘n’ roll band, also adding Chris Hillman (bass) and Michael Clarke (drums). But their folk sensibilities couldn’t be entirely suppressed and a syncretization of folk and rock ‘n’ roll was born. Both the Beatles and Dylan took notice and changed their styles (see “Rubber Soul” and “Like a Rolling Stone”) and a multitude of copy-cat bands jumped on the folk-rock bandwagon.

There’s 500 photos in this behemoth publication, mostly taken during the band’s early years, 1964-1967, as the title indicates, along with some pics at the end documenting the ill-fated 1973 reunion album sessions, the 1990 Roy Orbison Tribute and recording sessions for the first Byrds box set, and the band’s induction into the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame in 1991. Interspersed among all of the photos is limited commentary from surviving members McGuinn, Hillman, and Crosby.*

I’ve been a Byrds fan for fifty years and most of the photos were new to me. As I journeyed through this photo-tribute, I noticed how the members’ demeanors noticeably changed from initial happiness and exuberance to frustration, drudgery, and weariness. As the years passed, these guys liked each other less and less. Clark quit in early-1966. Crosby was fired in October of 1967, with Clarke departing a few weeks after him. Hillman quit in 1968, leaving McGuinn as the only founding member until he folded the band in 1973.

Some photos are great, others are “meh” (including a few that are out-of-focus), but this monster is a must-have for Byrds nyrds. Casual fans, save your money. You’ll be bored after a few pages.

Some observations:

• I would have included the band’s pivotal “Sweetheart of the Rodeo” (1968) period as part of this photo collection, with the introduction of Gram Parsons and the band’s total immersion into country-rock. That said, the publisher did well by avoiding the 1969-1973 McGuinn-White ersatz Byrds altogether.

• Chris Hillman repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly complains about having to straighten his naturally kinky hair to emulate the Beatles’ Prince Valiant mop-top look. One comment would have been more than enough. Where was the editor???

• I would have liked to have seen a few photos acknowledging the ill-fated 1979-1980 McGuinn, Clark, and Hillman project.

• The boys generally avoid taking cheap shots at each other, although there are a few slights tucked in here and there.

• There are no photographs of the members with their former-girlfriends or ex-wives, no doubt a pragmatic concession to current marital practicalities (McGuinn, Hillman, and Crosby collectively selected/curated which photos would be included).

• It would have been nice if BMG had used the Byrds’ paisley logo from their “Fifth Dimension” and “Younger Than Yesterday” albums for the book’s cover instead of the non-descript, “THE BYRDS.”

• On page 327, Hillman states the band fired their manager, Jim Dickson, following their appearance at the Monterey Pop Festival on June 17, 1967. That had me confused because McGuinn has repeatedly claimed the band fired Dickson shortly before or during the “Younger Than Yesterday” sessions in late-1966. See here. McGuinn alleges he was driving along La Cienaga Boulevard in Los Angeles and, while stopped at a traffic light, ex-manager Dickson pulled up alongside and suggested the band cover Dylan’s “My Back Pages.” The band actually did record that song in studio on December 5–8, 1966. I did some googling and subsequently found an article in which Dickson confirmed he was in fact fired following Monterey in June of 1967.

*The Byrds’ surviving founding members, Roger McGuinn, Chris Hillman, and David Crosby, did not reunite in 2015 for the band’s 50th anniversary as many fans had hoped for. McGuinn and Hillman could not be persuaded to perform again with the irascible Crosby.

L to R: Jim McGuinn, Chris Hillman, Gene Clark, David Crosby, and Michael Clarke posing for a photographer in 1965.

Above: That’s me doing some very heavy lifting. Byrds Nyrds Unite!

Truth from Arkansas! Sunday Sermon Series, #159

Today, in our ongoing “Truth from Arkansas” series, we’re featuring a new sermon from one of the brethren down under.

We have Pastor Roger Copeland of Northern Hills Baptist Church in Texarkana, preaching from the Book of Job on “Where is God in our suffering?”

This sermon was delivered on Sunday, October 9th.

Pastor Roger Copeland – Where is God in our suffering? – Sermon begins at 17:15 mark

Reformanda Initiative Podcast #4: The Christ-Church Interconnection

Welcome to the fourth installment of our weekly Reformanda Initiative podcast series! I’m excited to present the ministry of Dr. Leonardo De Chirico and his associates at Reformanda Initiative as they examine Roman Catholic theology in order to inform and equip evangelicals.

Season 1, Episode 4: The Christ-Church Interconnection

Show Notes

The second pillar/cog of the Roman Catholic church is called the Christ-Church Interconnection. What is it and what does it mean? Simply put, it refers to the Roman Catholicism’s understanding of itself as the continuation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ on earth. In this episode, we will discuss how the Christ-Church Interconnection is related to the previously discussed pillar, the Nature-Grace Interdependence, while describing some clear theological implications of this pillar. We also identify specific theological doctrines and practices in which the outworking of this pillar can be seen.

My Comments

Last week, the Reformanda Initiative guys looked at the first of the two basic constructs undergirding RC theology, the Nature-Grace Interdependence. This week, they examine the second construct, the Christ-Church Interconnection. This might seem like theological gobbledygook at first take, but it’s succinctly descriptive and accurate. The RCC presents itself as THE mediator between Nature and Grace, between man and God. It presumes to stand in the place of Jesus Christ in redeeming its followers through its priests and sacraments. The RCC doesn’t say it’s just another denomination, but claims itself to be the ONLY legitimate and authorized church. By presuming the offices and prerogatives of Christ, it presents itself as the ipso facto prolongation of the incarnation.

These two constructs drive the Catholic theological engine. All secondary doctrines derive from these two basic constructs. Grasp these two concepts and it’s easy to understand RC-ism as a system. Excellent discussion and insights from the Reformanda Initiative team.

Season 1, Episode 4: The Christ-Church Interconnection
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
October 12, 2019 – 39 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/1855255-ep-4-the-christ-church-interconnection

Next week: Season 1, Episode 5: Time Distinctions Meet Theology, Part 1

Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 10/22/22

• Pope Francis announces decision to extend Synod on Synodality to 2024
• Is Pope Francis’ synodal extension a plan, or a punt?

In 2021, Pope Francis’ launched a two-year, church-wide synod on synodality. The idea was to involve the laity in discussions regarding the future path of the RCC. I imagine Francis was fishing for consensus/support regarding future progressive reforms, although not as radical as the German Catholic church’s Der Synodale Weg. Up to this point, the initiative has largely been met with indifference, so Francis is extending it to 2024. There’s no genuine Gospel in sight with any of these initiatives.

• Eucharistic Revival team releases playbook on how to ‘enkindle a relationship with Jesus’

In response to a 2019 Pew Survey, which revealed that only 31% of U.S. Catholics believe that the eucharist bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, the U.S. Catholic bishops initiated a two-year, nationwide “eucharistic revival” in order to foster proper worship of the “blessed sacrament” Jesus wafer. The revival kicked off on June 19, 2022 (the feast of Corpus Christi – the body of Christ) and will end with a National Eucharistic Congress in Lucas Oil Stadium in downtown Indianapolis in July of 2024. The eucharistic revival guidebook used by parish leaders speaks about “enkindling a living relationship with Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.” Because of RC-ism’s grievous misinterpretation of John 6, Catholics are attempting to have a “relationship” with a bread wafer instead of trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone.

• Why is St. Luke the patron saint of butchers? Here’s a clue

Saint worship is not what it used to be compared to when I was a Roman Catholic parochial school student growing up in the 1960s, but there are still pockets of ardent devotion wherein conservative Catholics take their “patron saint” business very seriously. Catholic patron saints have a direct correlation to the pantheon of patron gods of pagan Rome. See my relevant post here.

• Was G.K. Chesterton Antisemitic?

Some evangelicals are enamoured with the showy intellect and dry wit of British-Catholic writer, G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936). However, not only did Chesterton espouse his church’s false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit, he was also an anti-Semitic British falangist. This ecumenical apologist attempts to make G.K. Chesterton’s anti-Semitism palatable, but even saint-making pope Francis knows Chesterton is uncanonizable.

• Catholics block archbishop’s house to protest change in Mass
• ‘Ad Orientem’: Back to the Liturgical Future

It’s amazing how some conservative Catholics are whipped into a frenzy in the debate over whether priests face the altar (ad orientem) or the congregation (versus populum) during mass. The Second Vatican Council decreed that priests switch their posture from ad orientem to versus populum and conservatives have been wringing their hands ever since. Priests and sacrificial altars were done away with by Jesus Christ and His once-for-all-time sacrifice on Calvary.

• Mom blasts school board for promoting ‘family-friendly’ Halloween drag show

Society is descending into the deep, dark depths with public school boards sanctioning “family-friendly” drag queen shows for young students. Watch one mother’s righteous indignation here. The Gospel and “social morality” aren’t the same thing, but this is an indication of how bad things are getting.

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #21: “Peter didn’t convene the council. It was a voluntary inquiry into the issue.”

Thanks for joining us today as we continue to examine and respond to Catholic apologist, Karlo Broussard’s book, “Meeting the Protestant Response” (2022). This week, Broussard continues his final chapter on Petrine primacy and papal authority, using Acts 15:7-11 as his proof-text:

⁷ And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. ⁸ And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, ⁹ and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? ¹¹ But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” – Acts 15:7-11

Protestant response #21: “Peter didn’t convene the council. It was a voluntary inquiry into the issue.”

Writes Broussard, “Some Protestants think that if Peter had been the first pope, he would have convened the assembly in Jerusalem. Since he doesn’t, or at least there is no evidence that he did, he must not have been the first pope. (Norman) Geisler and (Ralph) MacKenzie seem to make this argument when, attempting to undermine Peter’s authority here in Acts 15, they write, ‘The inquiry into the issue was a voluntary one, coming from the church in Antioch (Acts 15:2-3).’ (Steve) Hays concurs: ‘Peter didn’t convene the council.'”

Broussard’s response

Replies Broussard, “The problem with this argument is the assumption that if Peter were the first pope, he would have had to convene the Jerusalem council. For Catholics don’t believe a pope must be the one to convene a council. A pope can still be a pope and not convene a council. Some ecumenical councils in history were not called by popes, though they had to be confirmed by popes in order to have ecumenical authority. Therefore, Peter can still be pope and not have convened the Jerusalem council. The pope’s role at a council is to approve whatever teachings come from it. Peter definitely approves of the council’s teaching concerning circumcision and salvation because he’s the one who gave it, declaring on behalf of the whole Christian community that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised in order to be saved.”

My response

The Roman Catholic church recognizes that the first eight church councils (from the 4th to the 9th century) were convoked by the Roman Emperor, so any argument which states that Peter could not have been pope because he did not convoke the Jerusalem council/assembly is untenable. It’s not altogether clear from the quote provided that Geisler and MacKenzie were making that argument as Broussard accuses them of doing. However, an objective reading of the Jerusalem council proceedings in Acts 15:1-35 reveals Peter did not authoritatively preside over council, but rather presented his appeal to the council, as did Paul and Barnabas. We will examine this more extensively in Protestant response #23: “James was the leader of the council, not Peter.”

Next week: Protestant response #22: “The Jerusalem council just confirmed revelation already given to Paul.”

Throwback Thursday: Is our goal “religious unity” or fidelity to Jesus Christ and the genuine Gospel?

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on October 26, 2016 and has been revised.

Yesterday, I was listening to the 10/11/16 podcast of the “Calling All Catholics” talk radio show  (Station of the Cross, 101.7 FM, Buffalo, NY) featuring Catholic priest, Rick Poblocki, and moderator, Steve Quebral. A Catholic listener called in with concerns about advancing secular liberalism, especially in regards to the expected outcome of the presidential election, and priest Rick responded with the following:

“Catholics, evangelicals, we need each other. Catholics, other Christians of other traditions that feel and see the same way, we’ve got to unite. We’ve got to put behind us the doctrinal differences and stuff because what’s going to happen is that Christ will forge a one church. He prays that they all may be one. It will be forged by a conflagration and a battle; an apocalyptic battle. John Paul II already says, we are in a battle between good and evil and we’re caught between it. What side are we going to take?”

In the quote above, priest Rick urges evangelicals to drop their doctrinal distinctives. He’s implying that evangelicals must abandon their own doctrines and return to Rome. Rick is simply toeing the party line. For Catholicism, ecumenism and unity have always meant returning to Rome. I agree with Rick that there is a battle going on, but it’s not a battle between religious morality and secular immorality. No, the battle is for men’s souls. The Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone is on one side and everything else – false religion (including Catholicism with its gospel of sacramental grace and merit), secularism, atheism, etc. are on the other side. Our goal is not religious unity and social morality, but to lead souls to Christ.

Some evangelical pastors and para-church leaders have succumb to Rome’s plea to unite in battle against secularism and are betraying the Gospel and leading the sheep astray.

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help
and rely on horses,
who trust in chariots because they are many
and in horsemen because they are very strong,
but do not look to the Holy One of Israel
or consult the Lord!
And yet he is wise and brings disaster;
he does not call back his words,
but will arise against the house of the evildoers
and against the helpers of those who work iniquity.
The Egyptians are man, and not God,
and their horses are flesh, and not spirit.
When the Lord stretches out his hand,
the helper will stumble, and he who is helped will fall,
and they will all perish together. – Isaiah 31:1-3

Got Questions: s ecumenism biblical? Should a Christian be involved in the ecumenical movement?