Reformanda Initiative Podcast #19: The Roman Catholic message of May 14th: Together let’s pray to our god(s), whoever or whatever that may be

Welcome to the nineteenth 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 19: The Roman Catholic message of May 14th: Together let’s pray to our god(s), whoever or whatever that may be

Show Notes

In this episode we discuss the Roman Catholic Church’s latest response to addressing the worldwide Covid 19 pandemic. The RCC’s response demonstrates the dangers of Vatican II theology when put into practice, and highlights its ever growing ecumenical agenda to achieve unity at the expense of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My Comments

At the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, with its soaring death rates, pope Francis called upon everyone in the world to invoke their particular deity/deities on May 14, 2020 to end the scourge. An interfaith/interreligious prayer initiative such as this reveals the RCC’s wider embracement of Universalism, all under the leadership of the papacy. Catholicism’s universalistic teachings didn’t begin with Francis, but go back to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Good discussion.

Season 1, Episode 19: The Roman Catholic message of May 14th: Together let’s pray to our god(s), whoever or whatever that may be
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
May 22, 2020 – 32 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/3871214-ep-19-the-roman-catholic-message-of-may-14th-together-let-s-pray-to-our-god-s-whoever-or-whatever-that-may-be

Sorry, a YouTube video version of this particular podcast is not available.

Next week: Season 1, Episode 20: Assessing the legacy of Pope John Paul II from an Evangelical Perspective

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #36: “The words eat and drink are used in the Bible as metaphors to refer to our relationship with God.”

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 completes his first of two chapters defending transubstantiation and the eucharist using John 6:48-67 as his lengthy proof-text. For brevity’s sake, find that passage here.

Protestant response #36: “The words eat and drink are used in the Bible as metaphors to refer to our relationship with God.”

Broussard writes, “(This comeback) argues that the language of ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ were symbols frequently used in the Old Testament to signify, in the words of (evangelical apologist) Todd Baker, ‘personally experiencing and appropriating the words and blessings Yahweh has lavishly and freely given to his prophets and people.’ Baker, as well as other Protestant apologists, appeals to several passages in the Old Testament, one of which is Jeremiah 15:16: ‘Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and a delight of my heart.’ Baker infers from this biblical use of the Hebrew idioms of eating and drinking that Jesus must be ‘following his Old Testament predecessors’ and making ‘the same practical use of these Hebrew eating idioms throughout John chapter six to convey the indisputable truth that one must fully receive his life-giving death . . . to receive eternal life.’

Broussard’s response

Broussard argues, “The reason why this inference is false is that the appeal to the Old Testament passages shows only that ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ could (author’s emphasis) be used as metaphors in John 6:53-58. It does not prove that Jesus (author’s emphasis) uses these images in a metaphorical way. Other contextual evidence would be required for such a conclusion. And given what we’ve said (previously), the contextual evidence favors a literal interpretation.”

My response

In addition to Jeremiah 15:16, we see a number of passages in the Old Testament that use the metaphorical idioms of eating and drinking for appropriating God’s Word and for belief/trust:

Deuteronomy 8:3 – “Man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.”

Job 23:12 – “I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my portion of food.”

Psalm 4:7 – “You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound.”

Psalm 19:10 – “More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.”

Psalm 34:8 – “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!”

Psalm 36:8 – “They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights.”

Psalm 42:1 – “As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God.”

Psalm 119:103 – “How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

The above is not an exhaustive list.

The disciples and observant Jews were absolutely aware of these Old Testament eating and drinking metaphorisms/idioms for belief/trust. Did Jesus have them in mind as He was giving His Bread of Life Discourse? It’s clear from John 6:31-32 that Jesus was drawing directly upon the OT account of the manna from Heaven (Exodus 16:1-36) in correlation with the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:1-15) in order to teach, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” – John 6:35. Believing/trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone is the key to salvation and eternal life, not physically eating Jesus. Todd Baker is correct in stating that Jesus’ audience was certainly familiar with the OT idioms of eating and drinking as metaphors for believing/trusting. Although Jesus did not quote the OT verses directly in John 6, He was building upon His audience’s familiarity with these idioms in presenting His metaphorical Bread of Life Discourse. Broussard’s rebuttal, claiming Baker’s proposal is a false inference, is preposterous given the abundancy of eating/drinking Scriptural references with which the observant Jews of 1st century Judea were thoroughly familiar.

Next week: Protestant response #37: “Jesus identifies the contents of the chalice as the ‘fruit of the vine’ after the words of consecration.”

Reformanda Initiative Podcast #18: Understanding the Sacrament of Penance in Roman Catholicism

Welcome to the eighteenth 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 18: Understanding the Sacrament of Penance in Roman Catholicism

Show Notes

In this episode we examine the Roman Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of Penance (also known by many other names) from an evangelical perspective. We underscore what is at stake with this doctrine theologically and concerning the gospel, and highlight how it fits into the larger framework of the Roman Catholic system.

My Comments

The Catholic sacrament of penance/confession/reconciliation elevates the Catholic priest to the place of God Almighty in forgiving people of their sins. The sacrament is just one facet of Roman Catholicism’s Christ-Church Interconnection construct whereby the RCC presents itself as as the prolongation of the incarnation of Christ and usurps the exclusive office of Jesus Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and men – 1 Timothy 2:5. Good discussion.

Postscript: It’s puzzlingly ironic that the RI guys favorably reference Tim Keller in this podcast because Keller is an outspoken advocate of ecumenism with Rome.

Season 1, Episode 18: Understanding the Sacrament of Penance in Roman Catholicism
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
May 13, 2020 – 66 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/3738761-ep-18-understanding-the-sacrament-of-penance-in-roman-catholicism

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

Next week: Season 1, Episode 19: The Roman Catholic message of May 14th: Together let’s pray to our god(s), whoever or whatever that may be

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #35: “The context reveals that ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ mean belief.”

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 first of two chapters defending transubstantiation and the eucharist using John 6:48-67 as his lengthy proof-text. For brevity’s sake, find that passage here.

Protestant response #35: “The context reveals that ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ mean belief.”

Broussard writes that evangelical apologists Rob Zins, Eric Svendsen, and James R. White identify John 6:35 as a very important verse that clarifies that Jesus was using metaphorical language in the Bread of Life Discourse. Zins identifies John 6:35 as the “controlling verse of John 6.”

“Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” – John 6:35

States White, “‘Coming’ and ‘believing’ will become ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ in verse 54…the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text.”

Writes Broussard, “Both White and Svendsen further cite verse 47, where Jesus says, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life,’ and infer from this that eating equals believing.”

Broussard’s response

Broussard acknowledges that “Jesus speaks about the necessity to believe in him…in verses 27-48,” but then states, “in verse 51, Jesus introduces his flesh and identifies it as the bread from heaven that he will give for the life of the world.” It is Jesus’ words about eating his flesh that distresses the Jews and disciples, says Broussard. He continues, “Belief in Jesus is not the issue here. It’s eating his flesh.” Broussard notes that “flesh” is mentioned six times in six verses. “If Jesus intended his statement about eating his flesh to be understood as mere belief,” declares Broussard, “and not something that a believer will do in order to have his spiritual hunger and thirst satiated, then he could have easily retracted his language about eating his flesh and gone back to the metaphorical language of coming to him and never hungering and believing in him and never thirsting, as he did in verse 35.”

My response

John 6:35 is definitely a prime clarifier, one of the major keys in the Bread of Life Discourse as Rob Zins, Eric Svendsen, and James R. White rightly point out. In verses that follow, Christ presents “coming” and “believing” metaphorically as “eating” and “drinking.” Broussard argues once again that Jesus would have corrected the Jews’ and disciples’ literalist understanding of “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (John 6:54) if their understanding was not accurate. That is ground we covered in great detail back in installments #30 (see here) and #31 (see here). Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors throughout His earthly ministry. “Believe” (Greek: pisteúō: to believe in, to put one’s faith in, to trust in) is used nine times in John 6. Trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone is the key to salvation, not physically eating Jesus.

Jesus spoke of the hard-hearted Jews and faux tare disciples in Matthew 13:10-13. His words are also true of Roman Catholics: “Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”

Broussard devotes twelve sections total to his passionate defense of RC-ism’s literalist interpretation of John 6 and the Last Supper gospel accounts. Six more sections to go. Will Broussard ever get around to mentioning that the RCC also grants that non-Catholic religionists who never eat the Jesus wafer – Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc., and even atheists may also merit Heaven?

Next week: Protestant response #36: “The words eat and drink are used in the Bible as metaphors to refer to our relationship with God.”

Reformanda Initiative Podcast #17: An interview with Dr. Michael Reeves on The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)

Welcome to the seventeenth 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 17: An interview with Dr. Michael Reeves on The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)

Show Notes

An interview with Prof. Michael Reeves, President and Professor of Theology at Union School of Theology, UK. Author of books such as The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation (2010) and (with Tim Chester), Why The Reformation Still Matters (2016).

On October 31, 1999, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed ‘The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification’ (JDDJ), claiming that they were ‘now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ.’ This has led many since to think that the fundamental theological differences of the Reformation have now been resolved, and that there remains little or nothing of real theological substance to prevent evangelical-Catholic unity. Professor Mark Noll, for instance, boldly declared,

“If it is true, as once was repeated frequently by Protestants conscious of their anchorage in Martin Luther or John Calvin that iustificatio articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae (justification is the article on which the church stands or falls), then the Reformation is over.”

Is the Reformation indeed, over? Listen as Dr. Reeves helps us make sense of the JDDJ.

My Comments

Did the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” (JDDJ) forged by the Roman Catholic church and the liberal Lutheran World Federation in 1999 really resolve the opposing and irreconcilable views on justification that sparked the Reformation? Dr. Michael Reeves peels back the ambiguous parlance of the document to reveal that Rome continues to teach that Catholics are initially justified by baptism and then “enter into a process of justification and salvation requiring (their) free cooperation with God’s grace” (i.e., good works resulting in merit). That’s NOT the Good News. Very informative discussion.

Season 1, Episode 17: An interview with Dr. Michael Reeves on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
April 30, 2020 – 45 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/3564586-ep-17-an-interview-with-dr-michael-reeves-on-the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification-jddj

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

Next week: Season 1, Episode 18: Understanding the Sacrament of Penance in Roman Catholicism

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #34: “Jesus meant his words figuratively, as he did in John 10:9, when he spoke of himself as a ‘door,’ and in John 15:5, when he spoke of himself as ‘the vine.’”

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 first of two chapters defending transubstantiation and the eucharist using John 6:48-67 as his lengthy proof-text. For brevity’s sake, find that passage here.

Protestant response #34: “Jesus meant his words figuratively, as he did in John 10:9, when he spoke of himself as a ‘door,’ and in John 15:5, when he spoke of himself as ‘the vine.’”

In his presentation of the Protestant view, Broussard writes, “If Catholics interpret Jesus’ command to eat his flesh and drink his blood literally in John 6, then they have to take him literally in other passages when he says he’s a door (John 10:9) and a vine (John 15:5). As (Norman) Geisler and (Ralph) MacKenzie write, Jesus ‘said, ‘I am the door’ … and ‘I am the vine’ … and Roman Catholic scholars do not take these statements literally, even though they come from the same book that records, ‘This is my body’!’ (Evangelical apologist) Todd Baker bolsters this argument by highlighting the fact that Jesus’ words in John 6 are part of a series of ‘I Am’ statements in John’s Gospel. In John 10:9, Jesus says, ‘I am the door.’ He says, ‘I am the vine’ in John 15:5. In John 6:48, the beginning of Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse, he says, ‘I am the bread of life.’ Baker argues that this ‘I Am’ statement clues us in to how we’re to understand his words concerning the bread he will give, which he identifies as his ‘flesh,’ and that we must eat it. Like in John 10:9 and John 15:5, we should interpret him figuratively.”

Broussard’s response

Broussard asserts that the door and the vine passages are disanalogous to the bread of life passage. States Broussard, “The people in the audience in the door and vine passages don’t interpret Jesus literally as they do in John 6.” He concludes, “Given the presence of the literal thoughts among Jesus’ audience in John 6 compared to the lack of such thoughts in the door and vine passages, and Jesus’ engagement with those literal thoughts by way of affirming them, we can conclude that the door and vine passages are meant to be read differently from how we should read Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.”

My response

Jesus used metaphorical language (“I am the bread of life”) in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, just as he did later on in John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:5 (“I am the vine”). However, unlike the other two passages, in John 6 Jesus was alluding to and building directly from a particular event, the feeding of the five-thousand (John 6:1-15), and hence the more complex symbolism that baffled the hard-hearted disciples. Jesus certainly did not “affirm” a literal understanding as Broussard claims. In the previous four installments, we thoroughly discussed how Jesus had clarified His metaphorical language throughout the discourse. Jesus interposed “believe” (Greek: pisteúō: to believe in, put one’s faith in, trust in), nine times along with His “bread of life” metaphorism in John 6. Belief and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior through faith alone is the key to salvation, not physically eating Jesus.

Take heart my friends. Looking ahead, I see there are “only” seven more installments to go in this transubstantiation marathon.

Next week: Protestant response #35: “The context reveals that ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ mean belief.”

Reformanda Initiative Podcast #16: The doctrine of justification according to Roman Catholicism

Welcome to the sixteenth 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 16: The doctrine of justification according to Roman Catholicism

Show Notes

What is the doctrine of justification and why has it been such a big point of disagreement between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism? Listen as we describe the doctrine of justification according to Roman Catholicism.

My Comments

How is a person made righteous or “justified” before a Holy God? The Roman Catholic church teaches a person becomes justified by the infusion of sacramental graces whereby they are able to “cooperate with grace” through good works and charity in order to become increasingly sanctified/holy so as to possibly merit Heaven at the moment of death. Gospel Christianity teaches a person is justified only by the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ that is imputed to them the moment they receive Christ as Savior by faith alone. The two views on justification are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable. One is right and one is wrong. They cannot both be right. Martin Luther correctly said, “Justification is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls.” In this podcast, the Reformanda Initiative guys examine the RCC teaching on justification and how it’s become more inclusive/universalized by liberals/progressives like pope Francis. Excellent discussion.

Season 1, Episode 16: The doctrine of justification according to Roman Catholicism
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
April 25, 2020 – 59 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/3498823-ep-16-the-doctrine-of-justification-according-to-roman-catholicism

For the YouTube video version of this episode, see here.

Next week: Season 1, Episode 17: An interview with Dr. Michael Reeves on The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #33: “Jesus can’t intend us to literally drink his blood because the Bible prohibits the partaking of blood in Leviticus 17:10-12.”

⚠️ I realize not everyone enjoys the nitty-gritty, back-and-forth exchanges of theological debates, but I strongly encourage you to read this installment.

---

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 first of two chapters defending transubstantiation and the eucharist using John 6:48-67 as his lengthy proof-text. For brevity’s sake, find that passage here.

Protestant response #33: “Jesus can’t intend us to literally drink his blood because the Bible prohibits the partaking of blood in Leviticus 17:10-12.”

Leviticus 17:10-12 referred to above reads as follows: ¹⁰ “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. ¹¹ For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. ¹² Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.”

Writes Broussard, “The late (evangelical) American theologian Loraine Boettner (d. 1990) appealed to this verse in his book Roman Catholicism and argued that the Catholic understanding of John 6 violates this prohibition of drinking blood. Protestant apologist Matt Slick follows suit, concluding, ‘It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament Scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ.'”

Broussard’s response

Responds Broussard, “The dietary laws of the Old Law, to which the prohibition of drinking blood belonged, passed away with the advent of Christ. The prohibition of consuming blood was not a precept rooted in the natural moral law, which is forever binding (Rom. 2:14-15). Rather, it was one of many dietary regulations that involved the ritual purity of Jews – disciplinary in nature, not moral, and thus subject to change.” Concludes Broussard, “If the dietary laws of the Old Law are no longer binding for Christians, and the prohibition of consuming blood was a part of those dietary laws, it follows that the prohibition of consuming blood is no longer binding for Christians. This challenge from Leviticus 17:10, therefore, doesn’t undermine the argument that Jesus meant for us to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood.”

My response

When Jesus Christ offered His body and blood as the perfect sacrifice for sin on Calvary, and not before, the Mosaic covenant, including the dietary restrictions, was done away with and was superseded by the New Covenant (see Hebrews 8:13 and 9:12 and 9:15-18). Jesus Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly, the only Israelite/Jew to do so. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” – Matthew 5:17. Because Jesus Christ followed the Mosaic Law perfectly as an observant Jew, He certainly would not have required His observant Jewish apostles to drink His actual blood at the Last Supper Passover meal.

⚠️ Here’s a difficult question for Mr. Broussard and other Catholic advocates of transubstantiation: If the apostle Peter understood from the words of Christ recorded in John 6 and the gospel accounts (Matthew 26:17–29; Mark 14:12–25; Luke 22:7–38) that he was eating Jesus’ actual body and blood at the Last Supper, which Catholics insist was the case, why did Peter recoil in revulsion when the Lord later instructed him to eat ceremonially unclean food in Acts 10:9-16? Peter replied to God’s command by emphatically stating, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” – Acts 10:14. If Peter had consumed Jesus’ actual blood at the Last Supper and at hundreds of alleged masses afterwards, as Catholics insist was the case, he would not have protested that he had never eaten any ceremonially unclean food as he declared in Acts 10, which records events that occured seven years after the Lord’s Supper! Scripture interprets Scripture and in this case Scripture clearly refutes the Catholic view. Acts 10:14 is incontrovertible evidence that the Catholic literalist interpretations of John 6 and the Last Supper gospel accounts are perilously incorrect.

Catholic friends, please take note. Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 6. Believe (Greek: pisteúō: to believe in, to put one’s faith in, to trust in) is used nine times in John 6. Trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone is the key to salvation, not physically eating Jesus.

For further clarification on the question of whether it’s permissible for a Christian to consume blood, see the article below:

Got Questions – What does the Bible say about eating/drinking blood?
https://www.gotquestions.org/eating-drinking-blood.html

Next week: Protestant response #34: “Jesus meant his words figuratively, as he did in John 10:9, when he spoke of himself as a ‘door,’ and in John 15:5, when he spoke of himself as ‘the vine.'”

Throwback Thursday: 5 Reasons I’m Not Catholic

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on December 19, 2016 and has been revised.

I appreciate the good article below that was published on the Christian Post website a few days ago. The only thing I would add is that Pastor Idleman is being irenic to a fault by stating that he has Catholic friends “who are devoted to God.” This brings to mind Romans 10:2: “For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.”

---

5 Reasons I’m Not Catholic
By Shane Idleman
The Christian Post
12/15/2016

I recently had the privilege of meeting a priest of a large parish in Southern California. The purpose of our conversation was to discuss the role of tradition in light of Scripture. Granted, some tradition is beneficial if it lines up with Scripture.

I have Catholic friends who are devoted to God — they are pillars in our community. I attended a Catholic High School and loved the faculty. I desire peace with all men, but the Bible also encourages me to boldly and confidently present a scriptural basis for truth.

To continue reading the article, click on the link below…

http://www.christianpost.com/news/5-reasons-im-not-catholic-172119/

Reformanda Initiative Podcast #15: Crossing the Tiber: Why do evangelicals convert to Roman Catholicism? Part 2

Welcome to the fifteenth 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 15: Crossing the Tiber: Why do evangelicals convert to Roman Catholicism? Part 2

Show Notes

Listen as we follow up on a previous episode covering why Evangelicals convert to Roman Catholicism. In this episode we discuss how churches can respond to certain weak points in the evangelical culture of today that have led evangelicals to cross the Tiber.

My Comments

In this episode, the Reformanda Initiative guys conclude their discussion on why some unsaved tares who are part of “evangelical culture” are attracted to Roman Catholicism. The main reasons “converts” cite for crossing the Tiber are:

• Historicity of the RCC

• Unity under papal authority

• Sacramentalism

The Reformanda Initiative guys examine the validity of each of these ascribed characteristics and discuss practical ways in which evangelical pastors can address weaknesses in approach/practice that encourage dissatisfied, unsaved seekers within “evangelical culture” to look to Rome. That does NOT mean that evangelicals need to compromise the Gospel to counter misguided attraction to RC-ism. If you’d like to listen to part one of this discussion, see here.

Season 1, Episode 15: Crossing the Tiber: Why do evangelicals convert to Roman Catholicism? Part 2
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
April 10, 2020 – 54 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/3312160-ep-15-crossing-the-tiber-pt-2-why-do-evangelicals-convert-to-roman-catholicism

Next week: Season 1, Episode 16: The doctrine of justification according to Roman Catholicism.