Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 12/3/22

Coming out of a worldwide pandemic, common sense would tell you not to touch your lips to a cup shared by hundreds or even tens of people. The Roman Catholic church teaches its priests change bread wafers and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. While the bread correlates to the body and the wine to the blood, the RCC teaches Jesus’ body and blood are present in both “species,” so there’s allegedly no need to consume both wafer and wine. However, practice contradicts doctrine because priests and “eucharistic ministers” do differentiate and say, “The Body of Christ,” when presenting the wafer and, “The Blood of Christ,” when presenting the wine cup to the credulous faithful. A percentage of Catholics think they’re getting “short-changed” if they consume only the Jesus wafer, so they’ll brave a flu or COVID-tainted communal cup to get the “benefit” of consuming both the Jesus wafer and Jesus wine. All of this is based on the RCC’s faulty misinterpretations of John 6 and the Last Supper accounts in the gospels. We are not saved by physically eating Jesus as the RCC teaches, but by trusting in Him as Savior by faith alone.

The secret 2018 Vatican-Beijing accord limited the installation of bishops to those who were members of the Chinese communist government’s quisling Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA). The government convicted and sentenced Hong Kong cardinal Joseph Zen because he was an outspoken critic of the accord. Progressive pope Francis pragmatically throws conservative Chinese Catholics under the bus in the quest for friendly relations with Beijing.

Nine months after Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, pope Francis has finally cited Russia as the aggressor in the conflict. The pope refused to criticize Putin and Russia all this time in deference to patriarch Kirill and the Russian Orthodox church and also in an attempt to position himself as a potential peace-broker/mediator.

Despite its vow to never ordain women as priests, the day is coming when the RCC will do exactly that. The sacerdotal priesthood and sacrifice for sins were done away with by Jesus Christ and His once-for-all-time sacrifice on Calvary.

Catholics put their hard-earned dollars in the offering plate on Sundays without realizing the money is going to be used as pay-out to survivors of pedophile priests and to purchase a McMansion for the diocesan bishop.

The U.S. Catholic bishops were appalled by 2019 data that showed only 31% of American Catholics believe in transubstantiation, so they rolled out a three-year eucharistic revival to convince U.S. Catholics of the alleged genuineness of the consecrated Jesus wafer and to encourage proper reverence and worship. I see now that Spirit Filled Hearts Ministry (Catholic) has initiated a three-year, 21-city “Jesus Thirsts for America” tour in conjunction with the nationwide eucharistic revival. Imagine getting lathered-up over a bread wafer. The Catholic Inquisitors of yesteryear demanded those suspected of “Protestant heresy” to bow to and worship the Jesus wafer. Refusal led to torture and death.

This “parts of the Bible are no longer appropriate” mindset is gradually going to turn into condemnation of the entire Bible.

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #27: “The order of salvation in the New Testament is repentance, faith, and then baptism. Salvation comes first, then baptism.”

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 second of three short chapters defending baptismal regeneration, using Acts 2:38 as his proof-text:

“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

capture30

Protestant Response #27: “The order of salvation in the New Testament is repentance, faith, and then baptism. Salvation comes first, then baptism.”

Broussard cites evangelical apologist, Todd Baker, for Protestant response #27: “‘The New Testament order for salvation,’ argues Todd Baker, ‘is repentance, faith, and then water baptism. The rite of baptism does not precede the forgiveness of sins.’ To make this argument, Baker appeals to the common practice found in the New Testament. He cites several New Testament passages for support, including Acts 2:41, 8:12-13 and 36-38, and 9:18. For Baker, these passages show that salvation is granted in response to faith. Therefore, he reasons, as soon as a person has faith, he’s saved. He doesn’t need to wait for baptism.”

Broussard’s response

Broussard’s full response is as follows: “In all these passages, the faith that precedes baptism can be explained by what (Catholic – Tom) theologians call imperfect faith. The assumption here is that faith exercised before baptism in the passages cited is perfect faith, a faith animated by charity (Gal. 5:6) and that which justifies (Rom. 5:1). But that’s not necessarily true. There is such a thing as imperfect faith that God gives in order to lead a person to and prepare him for a faith that justifies, which is given in baptism. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, faith, insofar as we distinguish it from hope and charity (1 Cor. 13:13), is an act of the intellect assenting to God’s revelation by command of the will (Summa Theologiae II-II:2:1). There is nothing in this understanding of faith that tells us whether charity informs it or not. There is nothing that tells us whether it’s a faith that justifies or not, since charity is necessary for faith to justify. God, nevertheless, gives this gift of faith to heal the person from unbelief. Belief in God’s revelation, like repentance, is a necessary starting point for conversion (Mark 1:15). Since there is a type of faith that exists without charity, you can’t automatically conclude that the people who believed in the passages cited above were saved before baptism. Their belief that preceded their baptism could have been, and most likely was, that gift of faith not informed by charity, but which is necessary to cease in unbelief and then believe. Such faith would become perfect, or saving faith, upon receiving the virtue of charity that God grants in baptism. Therefore, the order found in the New Testament of repentance, belief, and baptism doesn’t undermine the Catholic argument for the salvific value of baptism from Acts 2:38.”

My response

Todd Baker is absolutely correct in stating that the New Testament order for salvation is A) repentance (turning from rebellion against God) and B) faith resulting in salvation (i.e., trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone). Water baptism – the ordinance commanded by Christ by which a saved believer publicly identifies with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection – should immediately follow salvation as the first step in a new Christian’s walk with Christ, but it is not part of salvation.

Broussard attempts to qualify the verses and passages that clearly show the correct order for salvation by claiming that the faith in those cases was merely a preliminary, “imperfect,” seeking faith that subsequently led to the “perfect” saving faith granted in baptism. Throughout the entire New Testament, it is belief (pisteuō: to put one’s faith in, to trust in) in Jesus Christ as Savior that is the key to salvation, not sacraments and not merit. Broussard’s subdivision of “faith” in this installment is an awkward and arbitrary eisegesis intended to legitimize the heresy of baptismal regeneration. Broussard vaunts the alleged saving faith connected to baptism, yet eighty-percent of the baptisms performed by the RCC are of newborn infants who have only minimal cognitive abilities and zero ability to exercise faith/trust in Jesus Christ as Savior.

As I’ve mentioned previously, while Broussard insists upon baptismal regeneration in these chapters, the RCC incongruously grants that the unbaptized of all religious stripes and even atheists may also merit Heaven if they sincerely attempt to follow the precepts of their religion or conscience. Keeping that in mind, it’s impossible to acknowledge Broussard’s baptismal regeneration argumentation with any degree of seriousness or respect. The RCC holds to a self-refuting, dichotomous, “and-and” false gospel, i.e., baptism IS essential to salvation/baptism IS NOT essential to salvation.

Next week: Protestant response #28: “What saves us is our pledge to God to follow Jesus.”

Throwback Thursday: Rising tensions within Catholic hierarchy over “Amoris Laetitia” could lead to crisis

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on November 18, 2016 and has been revised.

capture30

We’re currently witnessing a struggle of historic proportions within the Roman Catholic hierarchy, although most Catholics and evangelicals aren’t even paying attention.

At the center of the controversy is the mass, the centerpiece of the Catholic religion. Catholics are obligated to attend mass every Sunday where priests allegedly change bread wafers into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Supplicants consume the Jesus wafer believing they receive graces, which supposedly help them avoid mortal sin, so that they are hopefully able to merit Heaven at the moment of death.

For century after century, the popes and Catholic hierarchy taught that Catholics who had divorced and remarried without an annulment of the first marriage were living in a state of open adultery and were forbidden from receiving communion and the other sacraments. That wasn’t a problem when divorce among Catholics was relatively rare, but in current times, with Catholic divorce rates at 38%, the restrictive communion policy was alienating a large portion of the membership and many were dropping away.

In an effort to stanch the exodus, pope Francis the pragmatist issued the Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) apostolic exhortation last April, which, among other things, ambiguously left it up to parish priests to decide whether a remarried Catholic could receive communion or not, thus countermanding a doctrine that had been taught by other equally “infallible” popes for over a millennia. Francis guilefully rolled out the controversial new teaching in footnotes #s 329 and 351 of Amoris rather than presenting the change in the main text.

Opposition to the pope’s new teaching has been swelling within the ranks of conservative cardinals, bishops, priests, and laity for the past eight months. Recently, four cardinals, including American cardinal, Raymond Burke (photo above), formally requested that Francis “clarify” his remarks in Amoris Laetitia in light of previous infallible church teaching. The pope has declined to respond to the cardinals’ appeal. Burke is now suggesting the cardinals could possibly issue a “formal act of correction,” a declaration that Francis is teaching heresy (see articles below).

As I stated previously, most Catholics are oblivious to the dramatic tug-of-war taking place between Francis and his allies and church conservatives over Amoris Laetitia and other reforms. What’s at stake is Catholicism’s claim to the infallibility of popes on teachings involving faith and morals. The great irony here – don’t miss this – is conservatives are willing to concede the current pope is fallible and in error in order to preserve the teaching of previous infallible popes! Francis winks at “infallible” doctrines in an effort to keep people in the pews.

All men are fallible. Even casual students of Catholic church history are aware of the tragic failings of popes and other high church officials down through the ages. The only Rock we have is Jesus Christ. Accept Christ as your Savior by faith alone and then ask the Lord to lead you to an evangelical church in your area that teaches God’s Word without compromise.

Is papal infallibility biblical?

Note from 2022: The controversy over Amoris Laetitia was perhaps the RCC’s biggest internal crisis since French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, broke from the church in 1970 over the reforms of Vatican II and founded the Society of Saint Pius X. Francis wore down his opponents by not responding to their angry objections. A deepening of the crisis was averted because conservative Catholic clergy were in a Catch-22. Absolute fealty to the papacy is one of their most cherished tenets. Opposing Francis’ new heretical teaching meant that they were themselves heretics. Moderate and progressive bishops and priests had been distributing Jesus wafers to remarried divorcees prior to Amoris Laetitia and were pleased to see the practice formalized. The RCC is a hierarchical institution and open opposition to Francis’ Amoris Laetitia reform has largely been stifled. However, some conservative prelates and priests continue to resist Francis’ doctrinal change on the QT.

Truth from Arkansas! Sunday Sermon Series, #164

Today, in our ongoing “Truth from Arkansas” series, we’re featuring two new sermons from the brethren down under.

First, we have Pastor Roger Copeland of Northern Hills Baptist Church in Texarkana, preaching from Romans 11:33-36 on “The Imponderables of God.”

Next, we have Pastor Cody Andrews of Holly Springs Missionary Baptist Church in Star City preaching from Romans 9:30-33 on “Nothing More Than Faith.”

Both of these sermons were delivered on Sunday, November 13th.

Pastor Roger Copeland – The Imponderables of God

Pastor Cody Andrews – Nothing More Than Faith

Reformanda Initiative Podcast #9: Why Vatican II is essential for understanding present-day Roman Catholicism

Welcome to the ninth 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 9: Why Vatican II is essential for understanding present-day Roman Catholicism

Show Notes

Listen as we describe the role of church councils and specifically the importance of Vatican II. What happened exactly at Vatican II? Why is it arguably the most significant of all the Church councils? Why is it essential to understanding present-day Roman Catholicism and Catholic theology?

My Comments

Pope John XXIII aka Angelo Roncalli convened the Second Vatican Council in 1962. The unofficial theme of the council was aggiornamento, the Italian word for “bringing up to date.” The purpose of the council was to adapt the RCC to the modern world. Many Protestants hailed the council for the conciliatory language of some of its documents. The RCC did change some of its window dressings at Vatican II, especially regarding its approach toward Protestants and other religionists, but the church did not change any of its core doctrines. Vatican II steered the RCC from militant doctrinalism towards doctrine-soft pastoralism and has found its fulfilment in progressive pope Francis. Sixty-years after the council, conservative Catholics criticize the council as a betrayal of the RCC, while undiscerning, ecumenical-leaning evangelicals hail it as the dawn of a Catholic-Protestant rapprochement. In this podcast, the Reformanda Initiative guys introduce their audience to the Second Vatican Council (along with some basic information on church councils in general). This is just an overview, the next two podcasts will present more detail. As the RI team points out, it’s impossible to understand today’s RCC without understanding VC2. The RI guys correctly point out that some people are misguidedly attracted to the RCC because of its dusty antiquity. Many evangelical pastors unwisely neglect referencing church history and the Reformation, as if evangelicalism is a phenomenon without a past.

Season 1, Episode 9: Why Vatican II is essential for understanding present-day Roman Catholicism
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
December 13, 2019 – 36 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/2276192-ep-9-why-vatican-ii-is-essential-for-understanding-present-day-roman-catholicism

Next week: Season 1, Episode 10: Wrestling with the contradictions of Vatican II

Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 11/26/22

A congregant of an evangelical church in South Dakota recently called out Pastor Adam Weber (photo above) for wearing skin-tight “skinny jeans” when he preached. I can relate to this one. From 2015 to early-2020, my wife and I attended a Rochester mega-church that had several suburban satellite branches. The lead pastor left in 2016 and was replaced by a young man who was on a mission to make himself and the church more “culturally relevant.” His Sunday attire gradually devolved into hoodies and skinny jeans with the requisite holes in the knees, all topped off with a $100 swag haircut. It was ridiculous. We once brought an unsaved guest to the church and the first thing out of the person’s mouth when we got back to the car was, “Man, that pastor’s jeans were tight!” The church switched to streaming services online in March 2020 because of COVID, but we even stopped watching the virtual service because of the skinny jeans “controversy” as well as a host of other problems that we decided we could no longer tolerate. I began working weekends in January 2021, but we continued watching sermon videos from solid pastors. I retired on October 31st and last weekend we visited a local church and were quite pleased. The fact that the pastor wore loose khakis was a plus among many more important plusses. More on our new church in an upcoming post.

Pope Francis is favorable to several of the progressive changes being advanced by the German Catholic Synodale Weg (Synodal Path), but he must also appease conservatives who are already discontented with his reforms and are waiting for a reason to propose schism.

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy split in 1054 after the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, refused to accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome and was subsequently excommunicated by the RCC. In trying to convince Michael of his primacy and authority, pope Leo IX referenced the “Donation of Constantine,” a fraudulent document forged in the 8th century purporting to show Roman Emperor Constantine’s bestowal of authority to the bishop of Rome over the four principal eastern sees. Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest, proved the “Donation” was a forgery in 1439-1440. The history of the RCC is riddled with examples of heresy, fraud, and corruption. Modern popes have been making regular overtures to the EO patriarchs. Some form of a reunion is a forgone conclusion.

Last weekend, the city of Buffalo, New York was buried under six feet of white stuff in a late-autumn snow storm off of Lake Erie. Buffalo Catholic bishop, Michael Fisher, issued a dispensation allowing Buffalo Catholics to skip mass last Sunday without incurring mortal sin. The irony that’s not to be missed is that while Fisher was busy issuing a snow dispensation, the state-appointed, former-FBI official, Kathleen McChesney, was looking over his shoulder, making sure Fisher and the diocese were/are complying with New York State’s mandated requirements guarding Buffalo’s children from pedophile priests and enabling prelates.

Catholics are celebrating YouTuber and self-proclaimed “evangelical apologist,” Cameron Bertuzzi’s recent “conversion” to Roman Catholicism. While 38YO Bertuzzi has an admittedly large YouTube following (156K subscribers), his knowledge of the Bible and church history has been demonstrated to be severely limited. I’ll have more to say about Bertuzzi in an upcoming post.

Conservative Catholic prelates and priests are applauding the election of archbishop Timothy Broglio as president of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops. Broglio has a track record of passively-aggressively opposing many of Bergoglio’s reforms

It’s interesting to see this debate over Mariolatry in a secular newspaper. While the worship of Mary is grievous, the RCC’s most serious heresy is its false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit.

Why would a Christian parent/s send their child to a Roman Catholic school where they are sure to be indoctrinated with the RCC’s false gospel? What parent would knowingly lower their child into a snake pit? Of course, we don’t know if the mother in question is genuinely saved.

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #26: “Baptism is not the cause of salvation but rather follows it.”

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 opens his second of three short chapters defending baptismal regeneration, this time using Acts 2:38 as his proof-text:

“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Catholics present Acts 2:38 as incontrovertible evidence for baptismal regeneration.

capture30

Protestant Response #26: “Baptism is not the cause of salvation but rather follows it.”

Writes Broussard, “(Evangelical apologist) Ron Rhodes bases this argument on a particular reading of the Greek preposition eis, translated as ‘for’ [regarding the “for” in Acts 2:38, “…for the forgiveness of your sins” – Tom]. Rhodes rightly points out that eis ‘can indicate causality (‘in order to attain’) or a result (‘because of’)’. An example of this causal sense is, ‘I’m going to the office for (in order to get) my paycheck.’ An example of the resultant sense is, ‘I’m taking an aspirin for (because of) my headache.’ Rhodes asserts that in Acts 2:38 eis is used in the resultant sense: Peter is not saying, ‘Repent and be baptized in order to attain the forgiveness of sins’ but rather, ‘Repent, and be baptized because you’ve been forgiven.’ Rather than baptism being a cause of salvation, it’s something we do once we’re saved” (author’s emphases).

Broussard’s response

Broussard’s response is lengthy and multifold, so I will summarize using bullets:

  • Broussard dismisses an interpretation of eis in Acts 2:38 in the resultant sense as an arbitrary manipulation that flouts context. Broussard notes that Protestants appeal to Acts 10:47 (see Acts 10:44-48 for the wider context), which describes the sequence of 1) Cornelius and his gathered relatives and close friends hear the Gospel from Peter, 2) the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they manifest the gift of languages, and 3) they were subsequently baptized. Broussard argues that “someone can reasonably interpret this reception of the Holy Spirit not as an instance of salvation, but simply as a visible confirmation that membership in God’s family is extended to the Gentiles.” Broussard concedes that the interpretation of Cornelius and the Gentiles receiving salvation prior to baptism is the more probable one, but categorizes it as an “exceptional case” required for the circumstances. Broussard concedes that “the necessity of baptism is not absolute,” that “God can administer the graces of baptism without the sacrament.” [This is Jesuitical sophistry at its most guileful. – Tom]
  • Broussard cites other passages in the Bible and early Christian writings to demonstrate that “baptism is an instrumental cause of the forgiveness of sins”:
    • Acts 22:16 – “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
    • Romans 6:3-4 – “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”
    • Quotes from the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas
  • Broussard argues that Acts 2:38 taken in context with v. 37 reveals “the natural reading of the text is that the forgiveness of sins occurs with (author’s emphasis) the reception of baptism.”
  • Broussard claims the resultant interpretation “entails unnecessary mental gymnastics” and is “a strained reading to say the least.”

My response

Ron Rhodes’ interpretation of eis in Acts 2:38 as “because of” in the resultant sense is absolutely correct. Baptism follows salvation and is a believer’s public testimony of their identification with Jesus Christ in His death, burial. and resurrection. As the New Testament makes clear repeatedly, salvation is solely through “belief” (pisteuō: to put one’s faith in, to trust in) in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone. Baptism is important and was commanded by Christ, but the physical waters of baptism impart nothing.

Broussard acknowledges that the sequence of events in Acts 10:44-48 contradicts his baptism=salvation position, but in his painfully torturous eisegesis he dismisses the passage as a divine “exception.”

Notice how Broussard conveniently omits referencing Acts 2:41, only three verses removed from his proof-text:

“So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”

Receiving/trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior results in salvation, which is followed by believer’s baptism.

We needn’t jump through hoops to examine all of Broussard’s secondary proof-texts for the sake of this installment, but let’s take a look at the seemingly problematic (for Protestants) Acts 22:16 – “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” Grammatically, the phrase, “calling on his name,” precedes “Rise and be baptized,” showing that baptism follows salvation. Broussard’s secondary proof-text actually refutes his argument.

Broussard dismisses Rhodes’ correct interpretation of Acts 2:38 as entailing “unnecessary mental gymnastics” and a “strained reading,” but let’s turn the lens around and evaluate the Roman Catholic church’s insistence that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation while also dichotomously teaching that all unbaptized, non-Catholic religionists – Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, etc. – and even atheists are also able to merit salvation! The mental gymnastics involved in believing and defending such self-refuting, incongruent, religious schizophrenia are beyond impossible.

Undiscerning evangelicals who believe Roman Catholics hold to the same gospel must stop the self-delusion and take Catholics such as Karlo Broussard at their word.

Next week: Protestant response #27: “The order of salvation in the New Testament is repentance, faith, and then baptism.

Throwback Thursday: Happy Thanksgiving!

For this week’s Throwback Thursday installment, I’m republishing this short post from previous years about something that never gets old; being grateful to the Lord for His bountiful blessings!

“Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” – 1 Thessalonians 5:18

Happy Thanksgiving to all of my brothers and sisters in the Lord here at the WordPress blogosphere! May your time today with your family and friends be joyous as we contemplate all of our blessings in Christ Jesus!

Truth from Arkansas! Sunday Sermon Series, #163

Today, in our ongoing “Truth from Arkansas” series, we’re featuring two new sermons from the brethren down under.

First, we have Pastor Roger Copeland of Northern Hills Baptist Church in Texarkana preaching from Scripture on “What is Death?”

Next, we have Pastor Cody Andrews of Holly Springs Missionary Baptist Church in Star City preaching from Romans 9:6-29 on “You Have a Choice.”

Both of these sermons were delivered on Sunday, November 6th.

Pastor Roger Copeland – What is Death?

Pastor Cody Andrews – You Have a Choice

Reformanda Initiative Podcast #8: Totus Christus (The Whole Christ) or Solus Christus (Christ Alone)?

Welcome to the eighth 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 8: Totus Christus (The Whole Christ) or Solus Christus (Christ Alone)?

Show Notes

Solus Christus (Christ Alone) versus Totus Christus (the Whole Christ). If one wants to capture the difference between the evangelical faith and Roman Catholicism, here it is. On the one hand, the evangelical stress on the uniqueness of Jesus’s person (the God-man) and His atoning work; on the other, the Roman Catholic insistence on the organic relationship between Christ and the Church.

My Comments

As with two previous podcasts, this installment focuses on a derivative of one of the RCC’s two basic theological constructs, the Christ-Church Interconnection. Scripture refers to Jesus Christ as being the Head of the body of believers, the church (Ephesians 5:23, etc.). However, “early church father,” Augustine, advanced the concept of Totus Christus, the Whole Christ, which posited that the church was mystically united with Christ to a degree that was not warranted by Scripture. The developing Roman Catholic church latched on to Totus Christus and advanced the concept even further by illegitimately claiming for itself the prerogatives and offices of Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King. The Reformanda Initiative guys break it all down.

Season 1, Episode 8: Totus Christus (The Whole Christ) or Solus Christus (Christ Alone)?
Featuring Leonardo De Chirico, Reid Karr, and Clay Kannard
November 28, 2019 – 38 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/2185379-ep-8-totus-christus-the-whole-christ-or-solus-christus-christ-alone

Next week: Season 1, Episode 9: Why Vatican II is essential for understanding present-day Roman Catholicism