Reformanda Initiative Podcast #33*: Faith and Reason

Welcome to this week’s installment of our 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.

Episode #33: Faith and Reason

Show Notes

In this episode we discuss Dr. De Chirico’s next Vatican File, #185, which will provide an evangelical analysis of the late Pope John Paul II’s important encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) and help evangelicals better understand how to think through the relationship between faith and reason.

My Comments

What is the relationship between faith and reason? Many have pondered this question. Roman Catholicism teaches that the natural man’s reasoning is only impaired or “wounded” rather than being completely depraved by sin and that he has the ability to ascertain the ways of God. In 1998 his encyclical letter, “Faith and Reason,” pope John Paul II affirmed this misguidedly optimistic and erroneous view.

Men and women can understand the truths of God’s Word only after they have been saved and after the Holy Spirit has illuminated Scripture to them.

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” – 1 Corinthians 2:14

I appreciate that Dr. De Chirico critiques some evangelicals’ infatuation with “Thomism,” Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas’ unscriptural elevation of nature. Such recognizable names as Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, and R.C. Sproul were proud “Thomists,” misguided admirers of Aquinas.

Episode #33: Faith and Reason
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
February 26, 2021 – 44 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/8034570-33-faith-and-reason-vatican-file-185

For the YouTube video version of this particular podcast, see here.

Next week: Episode #34: From Bondage to Freedom. An interview with former nun, Amanda Scopilliti

*Note: While preparing this post, I discovered the Reformanda Initiative guys changed the numbering of the podcast episodes from a S#.E# format to a comprehensive # format.

We Don’t Speak Ill of the Dead?

Hypothetical scenario: You live in a large apartment building in a major city with many co-tenants. By chance, you discover a fire deep in the building’s basement and flee. Standing safely outside, you call out to the other tenants to get out of the building as well. Shortly thereafter, a fire department official arrives at the scene and after a cursory inspection declares there is no danger. The other tenants go back into their apartments thinking they are safe, but the building is eventually engulfed in flames and all of the residents perish.

I came out of the Roman Catholic church with its false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit in 1983 and accepted the free gift of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Over the course of forty years, I’ve witnessed many evangelical pastors and para-church leaders, who “should” have known better, declare that the RCC was fine or “close enough.” It’s not a matter of ambiguity. The RCC teaches unabashedly and without apology baptismal regeneration and that salvation is ultimately merited by obeying the Ten Commandments and church rules.

Evangelical Protestant pastor, theologian, and author, Tim Keller, died this past May 19. Keller was very popular and influential. He no doubt did a lot of good over the course of his 48-year ministry, but he also made a critical error/compromise by publicly embracing the Roman Catholic church as a Christian entity. He in effect declared the burning building, the RCC with its false gospel, was safe.

I briefly referenced Keller in my weekend round-up the day after his death with the following observation: “Many souls accepted Christ through the ministry of Tim Keller. However, Keller also muddied the Gospel by embracing the Roman Catholic church with its false gospel as a Christian entity and by introducing Catholic mystical ‘Lectio Divina’ and contemplative prayer to his Redeemer Presbyterian (NYC) mega-church congregation.”

A WordPress blogger subsequently took umbrage with all those who criticized Keller after his passing by publishing the post, “We Don’t Speak Ill of the Dead.” The writer leans upon the popular social norm and convention that frowns upon all criticism of a dead person, especially if they’ve recently passed.

Christians are not subject to worldly etiquettes and norms, especially when the Gospel is under attack. The Bible doesn’t teach us to revere false teachers or to remain silent when those who present themselves as shepherds allow wolves into the sheep pen. The Gospel and souls are at stake. We must not remain silent whether the person is living or dead.

The blogger, who only reluctantly identifies as an “evangelical Protestant,” shares Keller’s view that Roman Catholicism is a very valid branch of Christianity. She objects to those who focus on the irreconcilable doctrinal differences dividing Catholics and evangelicals and has even stated in comments elsewhere that it’s not up to her to decide if Mormonism and the Watchtower proclaim false gospels. In this particular “evangelical Protestant” blogger’s view, it’s all about a nebulous, doctrine-lite (c)hristianity where “warm and fuzzy” supersedes doctrinal truth and church history. Sadly, this type of wide-is-the-way relativism is beginning to permeate the body of Christ.

Yes, we certainly DO speak critically of the dead if they compromised/betrayed the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #48: “Mary’s response refers to her being a virgin at the time of Gabriel’s announcement, not to some vow of lifelong virginity.”

⚠️ Broussard’s self-serving and arbitrary eisegesis in this installment is particularly galling.

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 begins his short chapter in which he defends the perpetual virginity of Mary using Luke 1:34 and John 19:26-27 as his proof-texts:

“And Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I am a virgin?’” – Luke 1:34

“When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’” Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” – John 19:26-27

In this section, Broussard focuses on Luke 1:34.

The notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity is an extremely important element of Roman Catholic Mariology. In the RC religious culture where (especially for women) virginal “purity” was a mark of higher spirituality, it was unimaginable, despite Biblical evidence to the contrary, that the exalted, semi-divine Mary was anything other than “pure,” “chaste,” and “unsoiled” by sexual relations with her earthly husband.

Protestant response #48: “Mary’s response refers to her being a virgin at the time of Gabriel’s announcement, not to some vow of lifelong virginity.”

Broussard writes, “(Evangelical apologist) James White argues that (in Luke 1:34) the angel was ‘speaking about an immediate conception,’ and therefore Mary’s response has to do with her being a virgin at the time Gabriel announces to her that she is to bear the Messiah. To quote (evangelical apologist) Ron Rhodes, her response basically amounts to, ‘I am a virgin and my upcoming marriage will not take place for close to a year. So how will this pregnancy you speak of come to fruition?'”

Continues Broussard, “White gives two reasons for his claim. First, he says Mary was ‘only engaged to Joseph, but not married.’ From this he infers that ‘at that time [Mary] could not possibly conceive in a natural manner, since she did not know a man.’ He thinks that’s what prompts Mary’s question.”

Writes Broussard, “White’s second reason is ‘the present tense, ‘I do not know a man‘ (NKJV). For White, if Mary had a vow of perpetual virginity, she would have said, ‘I have pledged never to know a man,’ or ‘I will never know a man.’ Since Mary doesn’t say such things, White again concludes she must be thinking of not conceiving a child at that time.”

Broussard’s response

⚠️ Broussard’s and Catholicism’s interpretation of Luke 1:34 is that Mary is a betrothed virgin who has taken a vow of perpetual virginity and is therefore shocked when angel Gabriel announces she will become pregnant and give birth to the Messiah. Ancient Jewish marriage consisted of two parts: the betrothal [erusin]; and later, the wedding [nissuin]. “At the betrothal the woman was legally married, although she still remained in her father’s house. She could not belong to another man unless she was divorced from her betrothed. The wedding meant only that the betrothed woman, accompanied by a colorful procession, was brought from her father’s house to the house of her groom, and the legal tie with him was consummated.”* Broussard criticizes White for stating Mary was only “engaged” and not married. Broussard’s argument is that Mary was in the betrothal/erusin portion of the marriage and that Mary’s statement, “I am a virgin,” was intended to mean she would remain a virgin throughout the wedding/nissuin portion and afterwards. Broussard counters White’s appeal to the present tense of “I am a virgin” and the view that Mary understood Gabriel was indicating an immediate conception during the betrothal/erusin period. Broussard argues the present tense suggests Mary expected to remain a virgin on an ongoing basis. Broussard then claims Mary’s startled reaction makes sense only if she understood Gabriel’s announcement to mean she would conceive after the wedding/nissuin portion because of her alleged vow of perpetual virginity.

My response

I’m almost speechless. The sheer eisegetical sophistry of Broussard’s arguments in an attempt to defend the RCC’s doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is jaw-droppingly deceitful. The clear understanding of Gabriel’s visitation recorded in Luke 1:26-38 is that Mary was a virgin betrothed (erusin portion of the marriage) to Joseph and that Mary understood from Gabriel’s announcement that the conception would be immediate.

To construe from Luke 1:34, “I am a virgin,” that Mary had previously made a vow of perpetual virginity and that her incredulousness can be attributed to her misunderstanding of Gabriel’s announcement that conception would take place after the wedding (nissuin portion) is like pounding the proverbial square peg through a round hole. I would confidently hazard that James R. White is probably thrice the Bible scholar that Broussard is and doesn’t need to be schooled regarding the erusin and nissuin portions of ancient Jewish marriage. White and Rhodes are absolutely right in stating that Mary’s question was prompted by her correct understanding that she could not possibly conceive in a natural manner at that time of the betrothal/erusin period because she did not yet “know a man.”

*Ancient Jewish Marriage by Hayyim Schauss

Next week, Protestant response #49: “There are other explanations for why Jesus entrusts Mary into John’s care without having to say that Mary didn’t have other biological children.”

Farmer debates Stuckey . . . . . and James R. White’s response

I try to keep some distance from politics because I believe from the Bible that Christians are to be pilgrims, sojourners, and ambassadors in this temporal world rather than deeply-invested citizens. However, every once in a great while I will watch a podcast-video from conservative political pundit, Candace Owens, not necessarily because I share all of her views, but because her rapid-fire, confrontational approach is amazing to watch.

Because of my viewing history, YouTube recently presented me with two episodes from the Candace Owens Podcast channel that piqued my curiosity. The titles of the podcasts were “My Husband George Farmer Debates Protestantism with Allie Beth Stuckey,” Part 1 and Part 2. I was aware that Farmer was an Anglican convert to Roman Catholicism. Allie Beth Stuckey is an evangelical, political conservative, popular podcaster, and a personal friend of Owens.

Although I was interested in the 43 and 45 minute podcasts, I wasn’t in a big hurry to view them. I don’t believe either Farmer or Stuckey has had any formal theological training and I already have a list of Catholic-Protestant debates I needed to watch/listen to featuring much more qualified/knowledgeable participants. However, fellow-blogger, Katherine, at Eden Unlocked graciously sent me a heads-up regarding the Farmer-Stuckey debate, which pushed it to the head of my queue.

My impression?

Candace Owens opened the debate by stating that she was brought up as a Protestant, but was gradually being drawn to Catholicism by her husband. Hmm. Another un-regenerated, nominal “Protestant.” Well, Stuckey did a decent job of countering Farmer, but he was pressing his claims and arguments with a greater degree of energy and faux-confidence, aka chutzpah, although several of his statements were glaringly misinformed and erroneous, even from a Catholic perspective.

As I watched the podcasts, I wished evangelical apologist, James R. White, was debating Farmer. White’s knowledge of the Bible and church history is extensive. His debating experience and acumen are unparalleled, although some criticize his direct approach.

Following the Farmer-Stuckey debate, many pundits, Catholic and Protestant, created their own YouTube videos commenting on the event. Fellow-blogger, Michael, at Berean Crossroads, posted a 90-minute video reaction to the debate from James R. White titled, “The Real Issues With Rome.” Excellent. I queued it up shortly thereafter.

In his video, White presents audio clips of Farmer’s claims and arguments and responds with a high level of Biblical and church history knowledge.

Issues brought up by Farmer and addressed by White include:

• Sola Scriptura
• Papal Infallibility
• Canonization of Scripture
• The Apocrypha
• Traditions vs. Scripture
• Biblical Inerrancy
• Mary
• The Sacerdotal Priesthood and the Perpetual Sacrifice of the Mass

White concludes his video with a presentation of the genuine Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.

Below are the Part 1 and Part 2 videos of “My Husband George Farmer Debates Protestantism with Allie Beth Stuckey” as well as James R. White’s video reaction. I realize 176 total minutes of video time is quite a bit to soak in, but you may want to bookmark this post for when you have some downtime.

Bottom line: Rome’s false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit is NOT the same as the genuine New Testament Good News! Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. The two gospels are irreconcilable. One is right and one is wrong. They cannot both be right. Blessings to Allie Beth Stuckey and James R. White for defending the genuine Gospel of grace. Please say a prayer for George Farmer and Candace Owens.

Reformanda Initiative Podcast, S2.E10: An Introduction to the Papacy

Welcome to this week’s installment of our 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 2, Episode 10: An Introduction to the Papacy

Show Notes

In this episode we provide a brief overview of the papacy from an evangelical perspective.

My Comments

Dr. De Chirico provides many excellent insights regarding how the bishops of Rome consolidated their prerogatives and power in their quest to become the leaders of the increasingly institutionalized church.

Season 2, Episode 10: An Introduction to the Papacy
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
February 2, 2021 – 44 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/7627780-s2-e10-an-introduction-to-the-papacy

For the YouTube video version of this particular podcast, see here.

Next week: Season 2, Episode 11: Faith and Reason (Vatican File 185)

Rome Under Grace – Wow!

I became aware of Dr. Leonardo De Chirico and the Reformanda Initiative ministry several years ago. The stated purpose of RI is “to identify, unite, equip, and resource evangelical leaders to understand Roman Catholic theology and practice, to educate the evangelical Church and to communicate the Gospel.”

Well, that is a much needed ministry in this era of undiscerning ecumenism with Rome.

Over the years, I’ve referred to Reformanda Initiative many times and reviewed all four of Dr. De Chirico’s excellent books. Last October, I began posting Reformanda Initiative’s podcasts on Mondays as part of a weekly series. After listening to and briefly summarizing 31 RI podcasts at this point, I feel like I’ve gotten to “know” Dr. De Chirico and his colleagues at Reformanda Initiative, Reid Karr (associate director) and Clay Kannard (communications director) to a small degree.

A few weeks ago, I was perusing through YouTube and stumbled upon the 12-minute video below, which focuses on Reid Karr and his ministries in Rome, Italy, including co-pastoring a church and being associate director of the Reformanda Initiative.

I strongly encourage you to watch this short, 12-minute video.

I don’t want to give too much away, but Reid had to deal with an unimaginable tragedy in his life, and yet continues his outreach to the lost Roman Catholics of Rome, Italy and throughout the world. I’m grateful for this video and for faithful servants of God like Leonardo de Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard.

Praise God and pass the kleenex!

Note: This video is four+ years-old. Reid re-located to San Paolo, Italy in 2018 and helped plant a church there and from the information I gathered, was planning another church plant in the Trionfale neighborhood of Rome in 2022. Reid is now remarried, to his second wife, Steppie.

reformandainitiative.org

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #47: “If you take some parallels with the ark, then you need to take all of them.”

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 concludes this short chapter in which he defends the notion of Mary as the “Mother of God” using Luke 1:43 as his proof-text:

“And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Roman Catholics unreservedly identify Mary as the “Mother of God” in their veneration (aka worship) of her as the semi-divine Advocate, Mediatrix of all graces, and Co-Redemptrix. Evangelicals object to Mary being venerated/worshiped as the “Mother of God.” Mary was certainly the earthly mother of Jesus Christ, but He existed as the divine Son of God prior to His incarnation. To grant Mary the title, “Mother of God,” accords to her a heretical status that is not warranted by Scripture.

Protestant response #47: “If you take some parallels with the ark, then you need to take all of them.”

Broussard writes, “(Evangelical apologist) James White poses a challenge directed at the use of Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant for support for Mary’s sinlessness. But since it’s directed at Mary the new Ark of the Covenant, the counter-argument can be utilized for whatever inferences a Catholic might make from Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant, such as Mary, ‘Mother of God’ in Luke 1:43. White argues that if we draw parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, then we’ll be pushed to affirm absurdities. He writes:

Must Mary have been stolen by God’s enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing (2 Sam. 6:14-15)? Who was Mary’s Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:3-8)? [Catholic apologist Patrick] Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David’s action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Sam. 6:13)?

White charges that the use of Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant is violating rules of scriptural interpretation, since he perceives it is picking and choosing ‘those aspects of Mary’s life [a Catholic] wishes to parallel in the ark and those which he does not.'”

Broussard’s response

Broussard states, “The premise – that some parallels require all parallels – is simply false. That’s not how prophetic foreshadowing or intertexuality works.” Broussard then presents Hosea 11:1-2 as an example of only a partial foreshadowing of Matthew 2:15. Broussard continues, “Whenever prophetic foreshadowing is in play, some elements foreshadow and some don’t. There are continuities and discontinuities. If the New Testament authors employ this type of hermeneutic when relating the Old Testament to the New, it’s legitimate for Catholics to do the same.”

My response

Broussard begins this installment citing James White’s critique of the RCC’s claim for Mary’s sinlessness in its reference to her as the “new Ark of the Covenant.” That Catholic argument goes something like this: A) The Old Testament Israelites esteemed the Ark of the Covenant as the very presence of Holy and sinless God, and B) the Ark was a foreshadowing of Mary, therefore C) Mary, as the “new Ark” vessel of God had to be sinless herself. Last week, we thoroughly examined and refuted the RCC’s claim that the Ark of the Covenant was an Old Testament foreshadowing of Mary (see here). Broussard’s convoluted argument here, that the Ark was a prophetic foreshadowing of Mary, is meant to marshal Old Testament Scriptural support for Mary’s elevated status in RC theology.

The RCC unabashedly extols Mary as the “Mother of God,” a title which communicates Mary’s elevated, semi-deific status in Catholic theology. The implication is that the “Mother of God” must necessarily possess some god-like, deific powers/qualities herself, and RC-ism does insist that Mary was sinless and shares Jesus Christ’s offices of Mediator and (unofficially) Redeemer. Evangelicals certainly agree with New Testament Scripture that Mary was the chosen vessel for the incarnate Jesus Christ. But giving her the title, “Mother of God” accords to her a status and worship that is not hers. James White does overextend his argument by insisting New Testament prophetic fulfilments had to perfectly parallel Old Testament passages that included prophetic foreshadowings, however, Broussard is getting lost in the weeds by pressing this point. Was Mary the Mother of God? She was more accurately the earthly mother of the incarnate Jesus Christ. The eternal Son of God preexisted her. Was the Ark of the Covenant an Old Testament foreshadowing of Mary? Clearly, no.

Next week, Protestant response #48: “Mary’s response refers to her being a virgin at the time of Gabriel’s announcement, not to some vow of lifelong virginity.”

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #46: “Elizabeth simply uses the title lord in the sense of an earthly ruler. She’s referring to the fruit of Mary’s womb, Jesus, as her messianic king, not the divine messianic king.”

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 begins a new chapter in which he defends the notion of Mary as the “Mother of God” using Luke 1:43 as his proof-text:

“And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Roman Catholics unreservedly identify Mary as the “Mother of God” in their veneration (aka worship) of her as the semi-divine Advocate, Mediatrix of all graces, and Co-Redemptrix. Evangelicals object to Mary being venerated/worshiped as the “Mother of God.” Mary was certainly the earthly mother of Jesus, but Jesus existed as the divine Son of God prior to His incarnation. To grant Mary the title, “Mother of God,” accords to her a heretical status that is not warranted by Scripture. We’ll touch upon the historical development of this “Mother of God” title farther below.

Protestant response #46: “Elizabeth simply uses the title lord in the sense of an earthly ruler. She’s referring to the fruit of Mary’s womb, Jesus, as her messianic king, not the divine messianic king.”

Broussard writes, “Protestant Bible scholar Walter L. Leifeld argues that we shouldn’t interpret (Luke 1:43) as a reference to Mary, “mother of God.” His alternative interpretation is that Elizabeth was referring to Jesus as the Messiah. He writes: ‘Nowhere in the [New Testament] is Mary called ‘mother of God.’ Deity is not confined to the person of Jesus (we may say, “Jesus is God,’ but not all of ‘God is Jesus’). She was, however, the mother of Jesus the Messiah and Lord.’ The evidence he gives is the fact that Luke frequently uses ‘Lord’ as a title, 95 out of 166 occurrences in the synoptics. And not every (occurrence) is charged with a divine meaning. Moreover, so Leifeld argues, Jesus is called ‘Lord’ elsewhere in the Lukan birth narrative in a non-divine way (‘For to you is born this day in the city of David a savior, who is Christ the Lord’ – Luke 2:11).”

Broussard’s response

Broussard concedes that Luke often uses kurios “Lord” in a non-divine way ( e.g., Luke 12:36, 37, 42, etc.). However, Broussard argues that in Luke 1:43, the writer is “drawing a parallel between Mary and the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant.” Broussard cites three OT passages as proof-texts for his assertion:

• “And David was afraid of the Lord that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” – 2 Samuel 6:9

• “And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the Lord, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals.” – 2 Samuel 6:5. Broussard’s suggests that David makes merry before the Ark of the Covenant just as Elizabeth celebrated the arrival of Mary.

• “And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household.” – 2 Samuel 6:11. Broussard’s argument is that the Ark of the Covenant was in the house of Obed-edom for three months, the same amount of time Mary resided with Elizabeth.

Concludes Broussard, “Since Luke is paralleling Elizabeth’s ‘mother of my Lord’ with David’s ‘the ark of the Lord,’ it stands to reason that Luke intends for us to take Elizabeth’s cry as a reference to almighty God.”

My response

Roman Catholics attempt to legitimize their Mariolatry by claiming Eve and the Ark of the Covenant as Old Testament prophetic types of Mary, but these are baseless claims using eisegetical sophistry. The Ark of the Covenant was in its entirety a prophetic type/symbol of Jesus Christ. The box or chest of the Ark contained the the jar of manna, Aaron’s staff, and the Ten Commandments inscribed on the two stone tablets. All of these items pointed to Jesus Christ. He is the Bread of Life and the Good Shepherd, and He kept the Law perfectly. However, on the exterior top of the Ark, between the two decorative cherubim, was the most important component of the Ark, the Mercy Seat. Once each year, the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies (the inner sanctuary of the Tabernacle, and later, the Temple) where the Ark was kept and he atoned for his sins and the sins of the Israelites. The High Priest sprinkled the blood of a sacrificed animal onto the Mercy Seat to appease the judgement of God for past sins committed. The Mercy Seat was the only place in the entire world where this atonement could take place. This was a prophetic foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice – the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross for the remission of sins. The Ark was entirely about Jesus Christ. There isn’t one iota of prophetic foreshadowing of Mary connected to the Ark. It was all about Jesus Christ.

As for the history of this “Mother of God” title, there were those in the early church, the Nestorians, who claimed Jesus’ divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. The Council of Ephesus in AD 431 affirmed the Scriptural view that Jesus is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. The council emphasized this doctrine by declaring that Mary was Theotókos (“God-bearer”), maintaining that she physically gave birth to Jesus, the indivisible God-Man. Over time, Mariolaters twisted this Theotókos into the “Mother of God” title, which places Mary in preeminence over Jesus Christ in accordance with Mariolatrous beliefs and practices. Yet the divine Son of God existed eternally before Mary was conceived. Mary was only a humble vessel used by God. She is not an exalted deity that the title “Mother of God” unsubtly infers. It’s regrettable that the members of the Council of Ephesus chose to use Mary and Theotókos as the basis for countering the Nestorian heresy. They did not foresee the widespread Mariolatry that would eventually flourish.

As for Elizabeth’s statement, “mother of my Lord,” in Luke 1:43, “this expression is not in praise of Mary, but in praise of the child whom she bore. It was a profound expression of Elizabeth’s confidence that Mary’s child would be the long-hoped-for Messiah” (Leifeld’s point – Tom).*

*The MacArthur Bible Commentary, 2005, p. 1274.

See the excellent article below for more information.

Got Questions – Is Mary the mother of God (Theotokos)?
https://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html

Next week, Protestant response #47: “If you take some parallels with the ark, then you need to take all of them.”

Reformanda Initiative Podcast, S2.E9: Responding to Your Questions

Welcome to this week’s installment of our 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 2, Episode 9: Responding to Your Questions

Show Notes

In this episode we respond to our listener’s questions, which concern the RCC’s relationship to Latin language, both today and in the past. We also briefly discuss Epiphany, and respond to a listener’s comments on Mary and Marian typology. We also respond to several questions about indulgences: What is the difference between indulgences and penance? What exactly is the purpose of indulgences? What biblical defense does the RCC give to support indulgences? Lastly, we respond to a listener’s question about how to bring these topics and others up with family and friends who are Catholic.

My Comments

The Reformanda Initiative guys take a bit of a break with this podcast by answering some pertinent questions from listeners.

Season 2, Episode 9: Responding to Your Questions
Featuring Reid Karr and Leonardo De Chirico
January 16, 2021 – 45 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/7319527-s2-e9-responding-to-your-questions

For the YouTube video version of this particular podcast, see here.

Next week: Season 2, Episode 10: An Introduction to the Papacy

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #45: “The apostles didn’t absolve people; they preached the forgiveness of sins.”

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 concludes his chapter in which he defends confessing sins to a priest, using John 20:23 as his proof-text:

“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Protestant response #45: “The apostles didn’t absolve people; they preached the forgiveness of sins.”

Broussard writes, “Some Protestants argue that we know that the disciples understood Jesus’ instructions in John 20:23 to mean “preach the forgiveness of sins” because that’s what they did, as recorded in the New Testament. They didn’t go around absolving people’s sins in a sacramental way. In the words of (evangelical apologist Todd) Baker: ‘By letting Scripture interpret Scripture, we discover this commission was carried out and understood by the apostles and disciples to consist of the proclamation of the gospel to the world . . . This is exactly what the apostles did, taught, and wrote in the New Testament.'”

Broussard continues, “Baker appeals to several New Testament passages for evidence that the disciples preached the forgiveness of sins:

• Peter invites those present on Pentecost to ‘repent . . . for the forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 2:38). [Broussard incorrectly cites the verse as Acts 2:28]

• Philip preached and called to the forgiveness of sins the Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and all the cities leading to Caesarea (Acts 8:5-7, 34-40). [Broussard cites only Acts 8:5-7]

• Paul preaches to the Gentiles that ‘everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name’ (Acts 10:43).

• Paul declares, ‘Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you’ (Acts 13:38).

• Paul defines the gospel that he preaches as ‘that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures’ (1 Cor. 15:3).

• Paul informs the Corinthians that he has been entrusted with ‘the ministry of reconciliation’ (2 Cor. 5:18) and exercises it by saying, ‘We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God’ (5:20).

Continues Broussard, “For Baker, that the early Christians didn’t go around absolving people’s sins in a sacramental way, but rather proclaimed the gospel message that through Jesus we have our sins forgiven gives evidence that the disciples understood Jesus’ instructions in John 20:23 as a directive to preach the forgiveness of sins and not actually to forgive them.”

Broussard’s response

Broussard counters this Protestant response with a rather lengthy, three-point rebuttal, which I will summarize with bullets:

• Broussard states that it’s okay that there’s no record of apostolic confession in the New Testament. Writes Broussard, “Although it is true that having New Testament records of the disciples absolving sins would make the sacramental interpretation of John 20:23 stronger, there is no need to reject the Catholic interpretation based on the lack of such evidence.”
  • The apostles were concerned with evangelization, not pastoral care – “Most preaching in the New Testament was directed to unbelievers…Confession is only for those who’ve already been converted.”
  • The passages cited by Baker “aren’t necessarily exclusive of sacramental absolution.”
• Broussard writes, “It’s true that there’s no explicit statement that the apostles ever forgave sins in a sacramental way. But there is good evidence that at least the presbyters of the early Church did.” He then presents James 5:14-15: “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”
• Broussard appeals to “church fathers” for proof of priestly absolution of sin.
  • “…that by the high priestly Spirit he may have the authority to forgive sins according to your command” – Hippolytus from Apostolic Tradition.
  • “It would not be wrong . . . to say that they received then the gift of a certain spiritual power, not to raise the dead and do miracles, but to remit sins” – John Chrysostom from Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels.

My response

We actually covered most of this material in this section in previous installments 42, 43, and 44. The proclamation of the Gospel including the forgiveness of all sins through Jesus Christ is directly connected to the “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld” statement of John 20:23. The fundamental problem is that the Roman Catholic church teaches a different gospel. The RC gospel starts with baptismal regeneration followed by a lifelong process of receiving the sacraments and their alleged graces in order to obey the Ten Commandments (impossible!) and church rules and thereby hopefully meriting Heaven at the moment of death. In stark contrast is the genuine Biblical Good News! Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Broussard concedes there is no Scriptural record of the apostles forgiving sins in the confessional booth and hypothesizes that the apostles were primarily concerned with initially converting souls to the Catholic “process” of salvation, beginning with baptism. He suggests the apostles left pastoral follow-up, including hearing confessions and absolving sins, to local presbyters. All of this is empty hypothesis with zero Scriptural support. From the passages cited by Baker and from MANY other passages we see that salvation is NOT a lifelong process of good works and merit. Salvation comes by trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone.

Broussard cites James 5:14-15 as a proof-text for confessing sins to a priest. Contrary to Broussard’s self-serving eisegesis, the passage does not explicitly or implicitly teach the confession of sins to a priest. Citing church “fathers” in a doctrinal disagreement is never conclusive. The “fathers” disagreed with each other and with Catholic and evangelical teaching on various topics.

Please note that in his four sections defending the confession of sins to a priest, Broussard makes no mention that the RCC grants that non-Catholic religionists and atheists who NEVER go to Catholic confession may also merit Heaven by following their religion/conscience sincerely and by being “good.”

For a critical examination of the false doctrine of confessing sins to a priest, see the article below.

Got Questions – What does the Bible say about confession of sin to a priest?
https://www.gotquestions.org/confession-sin-priest.html

Next week, Broussard kicks off the first of four chapters and nine sections defending Mariolatry with Protestant response #46: “Elizabeth simply uses the title lord in the sense of an earthly ruler. She’s referring to the fruit of Mary’s womb, Jesus, as her messianic king, not the divine messianic king.”