Greetings and welcome to our program. I'm Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers. I'm here with a very special guest who I really want to take the time to introduce you to, Rob Zins. Rob, great to have you here, brother. Thank you, Larry. Good to be here again with you. Now, a lot of people don't really know who you are, although I know I've known you for decades. But just to let our YouTube viewers out there get a good idea who you are, I'd like you to take some time and explain the books you have written. Now, you are a former Roman Catholic, yet you graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary. Right. In fact, I think your degree is in history. Historical theology, right. Historical theology. So with that said, and for the sake of our viewers who don't really know who you are, and there's going to be a lot of people like that, I'd like you to kind of begin with some of the books you've written, some of the pamphlets, talk about your ministry, maybe your website, and then I'll just throw in my two cents worth whenever I get a chance. Okay. Go ahead. Well, thank you, Larry. It's good to be here. Actually, after graduating from Dallas Seminary, it was my intention to go into the pastoral ministry and to become involved in local church work, which I think is probably what most of the men who graduate from seminary want to do. But having been in the pastoral ministry for several years and having come to some idea through my studies about the great Protestant Reformation, I was concerned a little bit about the disposition of evangelicals toward the Roman Catholic religion. Now I was raised in the Roman Catholic religion and went through catechism and confirmation and so forth. But I left the Roman Catholic religion and was kind of free-floating and ultimately came to Christ through reading the scriptures and having been witnessed to by some Christians a little bit later on in life. And after going to seminary and being a part of the pastoral ministry, I began to notice that there was a shift taking place in our nation, that more and more evangelicals, more and more articles and books were written favoring the Roman Catholic religion and sort of building this large tent and including not only Roman Catholicism but a number of other non-Christian religions under this tent. So I began looking around for books that may address this issue and there weren't too many books out there. And I came across one book in particular written in the early 50s by a man named Lorraine Bettner. And at that time, Dr. Bettner had written a standard work on the Roman Catholic religion, but it was outdated. And along about that same time, a Roman Catholic writer wrote a book, an apologetic book, wherein he set about to do what the book says, debunk Lorraine Bettner. In other words, to disprove all that Lorraine Bettner was saying about the Roman Catholic religion. You're talking about Carl Keating? Carl Keating, right. Carl Keating's book. So I read Keating's book and read Bettner's book again. And I asked the question almost out loud, has anybody answered Keating? He started Catholic Answers. He did. He started Catholic Answers in San Diego. And no one at that time had given a direct answer to Carl Keating. So I decided, well, let's give it a try. And that's when I wrote my very first book. And this book is entitled, Romanism, the Relentless Roman Catholic Assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, it's a long title, Romanism, the Relentless Roman Catholic Assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it's a purposeful title. This book goes through every single chapter of Carl Keating's work and analyzes the Roman Catholic position on virtually every aspect of their religion. We have in this book a chapter on baptism, penance, purgatory, the Eucharist, the Mass, the place of Peter, invoking the dead, Mary, justification, the so-called charge of professional anti-Catholics, and a final chapter on the changing face of Rome due to Vatican II. So this book was written in response to a very strong Roman Catholic writer, and that actually began the ball rolling to have a more full-orbed ongoing ministry to the Roman Catholic community. But as you know, in 1994, a statement came out called ECT, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, where a number of prominent evangelicals actually signed a document essentially endorsing the Roman Catholic religion. This document came as quite a shock to the evangelical community. It still has a rippling effect to our day. I think it was signed by Bill Bright of Campus Crusade, J.I. Packer, a number of people, and that led me to write my second book. My second book is entitled On the Edge of Apostasy. subtitled The Evangelical Romance with Rome. This book is extremely important because we analyze the modern evangelical thought patterns of those who would want to convince us that the Roman Catholic religion is just another branch or form of Christianity and did a lot of research. It's well footnoted and I just spent a lot of time trying to answer the question, why would evangelicals ever think that the Roman Catholic religion is in fact a Christian religion and should be considered as an alternative worshiping community to Christianity? And having written this book, I got into all kinds of trouble because it flies in the face of the modern thinking of ecumenism. So this deals with the ecumenical movement and a number of broad organizations. And we have it available for you on a number of various websites. Could you briefly mention a few of your other references before we... Yes, we realize that a lot of people don't like to read long books, so we write short books. And this booklet right here is a book that we've sent all over the world. It's entitled, Salvation by Grace Through Faith Alone or by Grace Through Sacraments. And this is a very concise analysis of the Roman Catholic sacramental system. And it's not too hard to read. It's not too long. It's direct. And we think we hit the point very well. But for those who like to read booklets, we have written a tiny little booklet that we do send out a lot. It's called, I'm a Christian. You are a Roman Catholic. So what is the big deal? And this also has been translated into Spanish as well. And I'd like to remind you that we do send these booklets over to Spanish-speaking nations and people. In fact, we made a Spanish video out of that, and it is on YouTube. Yeah, the audio is on YouTube. So between the larger works, the medium works, and the smaller works, this is a sampling of the kinds of things that we use to help Roman Catholics understand their own religion and also to help evangelicals understand the Roman Catholic religion. And in doing so, I think you'll have to agree at the end of the day that the Roman Catholic religion is a religion unto itself. and uses in some cases many Christian terms, but defines them with a completely non-Christian dictionary. That's the way I like to say it. I would like to mention also that for those of you out there that may not be familiar with our YouTube channel page, SeeAnswersTV, you're seeing it right now on your screen, but you may not have noticed that if you look at our channel page and you go down a little bit, On the page, you'll find that we list several websites. BibleQuery.org, MuslimHope.com, HistoryCart.com, BereanBeacon.org, PilgrimPublications.com, and then there's one right after that called CWRC-RZ.org. Now, does that sound familiar to you, Rob? It certainly does. That's our website, Larry. CWRC-RZ.org. And if you come to our website and scroll through it, there are tons of articles and information on how you can get these books and pamphlets. We'd love to hear from you. You can email me and order anything you want off the website. I'd also like to mention to our viewers that if you're on our channel page, you'll notice we have 19 playlists that go down the right-hand side of the page on all kinds of subjects. The third one down is on Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists and so forth. But as you get way down in there, you find Roman Catholicism. You're seeing on the screen, this is our playlist on Roman Catholicism. At the time we did this video, we had 79 videos. We've got more now by the time you're seeing this. But as you're looking at this, you see that we have all these videos. And Rob is in quite a few of these videos. Rob, as the people are looking at this, they see here that there's a Boston College debate. And what happened in that particular video, for instance? Well, the Boston College debate was a debate that centered around the authority of the Pope at Rome. Essentially, it was our duty and privilege to debate two Roman Catholic scholars on stage at Boston College, and they presented the Roman Catholic persuasion on the Pope at Rome, who is considered in their religion to be the vicar of Christ on earth. And we did everything we could to refute their understanding and also to present the biblical Christian understanding of the person of Peter. So that's the very kind of thing that we do. And we have it on videotape. And anybody who's interested in the difference between what a Roman Catholic scholar would present about their own religion and about the Pope at Rome and the contrasting view the antithetical view, actually the opposite view of biblical Christianity, that would be a good debate to watch. Right, and I want to mention on our playlist we have our 16-hour video series with Rob and me that we did like 20 years ago, but that covers the whole orb of all the teachings and doctrines of the Roman Catholic. religion and then we've got all kinds of other videos that Rob and me have done as well. Your debate with Amon Senior, for instance, that was most interesting. He was basically saying you can believe anything and it doesn't really matter. I'm letting everyone know that we have many, many videos. One last thing I want to say is if you type Robzins, that's R-O-B-Z-I-N-S, into the YouTube search box, you'll get a whole plethora of Rob Zinn's videos that are available on YouTube. And if you were to type Rob Zinn's Romanism, once again, you'll get even more Rob Zinn's videos and a plethora of videos available. As you can see these things, there's just some samples there on your screen. But with that said, we just wanted to call your attention to all the resources that are available through this Brother in Christ here, former Roman Catholic, who was saved by a supernatural act of God. That's really the difference in a real Christian who has been born again, John 3, 3-8, through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit over just getting baptized or doing all these sacraments or things of that nature. We're talking about what makes you a real Christian is a supernatural act of God on your behalf before you were dead in your sins and trespasses. Behold, now you're alive in Christ. And that's really what changed your life. Amen. All right, brother. With that said, we're going to go into this is just a promo leading into a main video. So thank you for joining us for this little information situation for discussing Rob. And I hope you enjoy the video to come. God bless you all. Greetings and welcome once again to our program. I'm Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas. And I thank you for joining us today for this presentation. I've got a very special guest in studio with me today, Rob Zins. Rob, great to have you here, brother. Thank you, Larry. Good to be with you again. All right. We're going to do a special presentation on Roman Catholicism, where you play both sides of the coin, per se. You play a Roman Catholic and then you also play a evangelical born-again Christian who understands the scriptures. All right. So hopefully people at the audience at home can see a good difference between a Roman Catholic and a evangelical born-again Christian. and the difference between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. So in a sense, you're going to be sort of, you know, it's in the vein of a good cop, bad cop scenario, except I like to call it bad Rob, good Rob. We'll have the bad Rob first and then the good Rob. I will simply present theological questions to you And then the bad Rob, well, I mean, the Roman Catholic Rob, will give his answers. And then the biblical Christian Rob will then refute his answer. And then we'll move from question to question throughout the show until our time is up. So this should be an interesting presentation today. I don't think I've seen anything like this before done by other ministries along this vein. Let's give it a try. OK. I'm going to start out with my first question. And we'll have the Roman Catholic, Rob, answer first. Okay, here's the first question. And you can see it on your screen there at home. Is the Virgin Mary the woman described in Revelation chapter 12, verses 1 and 2? Both Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have said that Mary is the woman of Revelation 12, verses 1 and 2. The passage reads, And there appeared a great wonder in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And she, being with child, cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. Notice verse two. Being with child, cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. However in Genesis chapter 3 verse 16 it says unto the woman he said I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. Here God curses the woman in childbirth with sorrow and pain as a result of Adam and Eve's fall into sin. Thus, if Mary is the woman of Revelation 12, then she obviously has fallen under the curse of sin as stated in Genesis 3.16. If this is the case, then she is not sinless or immaculate. If she is not immaculate, how can she be assumed into heaven as the Roman Catholic Church teaches? Okay, if I have your question right, the Roman Catholic religion teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived without sin. She lived a sinless life and she was assumed into heaven. Roman Catholic religion also teaches that the woman of Revelation chapter 12 is Mary. But wait a minute, the woman in Revelation 12 is suffering the pains of childbirth and the pains of childbirth are pains associated with the curse of sin. Therefore, all those cursed with sin, the women, would suffer the pains of childbirth. But yet Mary had no sin, so how can she be the woman of Revelation 12? Is that... That's correct, because really you have two questions here. Right. Is that Mary in Revelation 12? And if so, how does that relate to the Immaculate Conception and all the rest of it? Well, of course, the Roman Catholic religion believes that the woman of Revelation 12 is in fact Mary. How then do they reconcile her sinlessness and being outside of the curse of God with the fact that she's suffering these pains of childbirth? The answer given by most Roman Catholic theologians to this question is that Mary did suffer anguish, did suffer pain, But the anguish was spiritual anguish, and the pain was spiritual pain, had nothing to do with the physical birth of Jesus at all, but rather has to do with the suffering and pain that Mary experienced with Jesus when he died on the cross, she being with him spiritually as his death in pain and suffering gave birth to the church. So the birth that this woman is experiencing is the birth of the church, and the pain that this woman is suffering is a spiritual pain, it is not a physical pain at all. And the Roman Catholic theologians would cite the pain that was predicted of Mary when she took the baby up to the temple, when a sword would pierce her heart in pain, and also the pain that she must have experienced at the cross watching her son die and when Jesus turned her over for safekeeping to John. And they put this together and they say, yeah, there's anguish, yeah, there's pain, but you've got the childbearing wrong and you've got the pain wrong. She's not giving birth to a physical Jesus at this point. Rather, she's joining with Jesus and experiencing spiritual pangs of pain as predicted by the prophet that she would undergo. That's the answer that most Roman Catholic theologians would give you to reconcile what you've already mentioned. Now, what would we say as Christians? we would say as Christians, you can't really have it both ways. You can't say that Mary is excluded from the curse and now take what are obviously pains associated with an obvious childbirth of some kind, even if it's metaphorical language, even if it's a figure of speech, even if it's hyperbolic language, it is an indication of a woman giving birth to something at some time that is alluded to here. And if you want to say it's Mary, you're stuck with her giving birth. And the only birth that she gave, according to the Roman Catholic religion, was the birth of Jesus Christ. She had no children afterwards. So this is the one and only. So our answer in response is it's arbitrary, it's fabricated, and it's designed to satisfy the contradiction that is apparent in their own theology. Now, I would quickly add this. Evangelical Christians are divided as to their understanding of who this woman may be. A lot of Evangelical Christians believe that this woman represents the nation of Israel. Some think that this woman represents the body of Christ, the church of Christ, and the pain that the church would suffer and go through. It's highly symbolic language, but you can't get away from a birth and pain in the birth at this point. And if you say it's Mary and you want it to be literally Mary, then you're stuck with pain in childbirth And that is part of the curse. That's right. That's right. Oh, by the way, before I would give you your next question, I just wanted to put in this quick plug for Timothy F. Kaufman's book, Quite Contrary, A Biblical Reconsideration of the Apparitions of Mary. And it's basically from his book where I derived that first question. And we have his video on the apparitions of Mary on YouTube if anyone would like to Check that out. You can go to our playlist on our channel page on Roman Catholicism and then just scroll through all those videos and you'll find the Apparitions of Mary video that we produce. And he's had quite a lot of hits on that video. Okay, anyway, back to the questions now. Back to bad Rob, good Rob. I'm determined to give good Roman Catholic responses. I'm not making up the responses. I've researched them. I've tried my level best to stay within the parameters of a theological teaching. That's the whole point of this show. Right. We're not doing a straw man here. That's right. And if you're a Roman Catholic out there listening, you're saying, he just made up that answer and now he's shooting it down. I didn't make it up and I'm not shooting it down. Pick any Roman Catholic theologian. Go to Revelation 12 or go to any commentary or book written on the subject, and you're going to see that that's the answer most given by Roman Catholic theology. That's right. Just keep that in mind. That was a very important point by Rob that he is presenting the best he can research on answers by the Roman Catholic religion to these questions I'm asking. OK, here's the next question, Rob. And if people can see it on their screen, If Peter has the power to forgive sins, as the Roman Catholic Church declares, why did Peter not use this power to forgive Simon the sorcerer, but told him to repent and pray to God for forgiveness? The answer that Rome would give on this is straightforward at a lot of levels. Rome says, in the first place, who says that Simon the sorcerer did not confess to Peter. There is nothing in here. This whole story has not been told. It could very well have been that Simon the sorcerer did in fact seek out Peter and did in fact confess his sins to Peter and was absolved from his sins by Peter. The whole story is not written. It could be that Peter took Simon Peter aside after this and said, look, you need to confess your sins to me. And then you need to go to God and understand what you have done. But it could be that Simon the sorcerer refused, in which case Peter had no choice but to tell him, I'm leaving you with God. The whole story is not written here. Thirdly, we know from John 20, 22 and 23, that even Simon would eventually have to confess to an apostle because that's the only way that his sins can be covered. Jesus gave the apostles authority to remit sins and to retain sins. So at some point, somewhere along the way, Simon either did refuse to do or Peter, in direct counsel with him, was rejected by Simon in this matter. So it's not a matter of saying that All of the auricular confession of the Roman Catholic priesthood is done away with because Peter told Simon the sorcerer, pray to God for forgiveness. As a matter of fact, a priest will tell a person, pray to God for forgiveness, and by the way, this is the penance that you need to do. And that would be the Roman Catholic answer. Now, as a Christian, we would ask this hard question of Roman Catholics. Where? in all of the New Testament, where in all of church history, all of the church fathers combined, all of the writings, do we ever find one, one confessional box where a person actually goes in to a confessional box and asks for absolution of his sins from an apostle. Peter, Paul, doesn't matter, any of them. John, doesn't matter, any of them. There is no indication, either in the Bible or in early church history, of any of this happening. Also, there is no priestly class ever instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ. The priestly class is done away with by Christ as our high priest. And we have access to him, the Old Testament priest who had served as a shadow and type of the one priest who was to come, a priest not of Levi, a priest not after the order, but after the order of Melchizedek. And this is our high priest Jesus Christ. We confess our sins to him, not to any priesthood. And here, Peter is not even a priest. And you expect him to go into a confessional box somewhere. He's an apostle. He's not a priest. So the whole thing is rather bogus. And their answer is absolutely ludicrous to say that, well, it could have happened later. Look, if we're going to argue from silence, it didn't happen later. Matter of factly totally it did not happen and never should and never will for the Christian. Mm-hmm. Very well said Okay next question Where does it even hint in Scripture that the Virgin Mary was sinless in light of Luke? Chapter 1 does this verse not tell us that Mary needed the same Calvary redemptive blood as everyone else Well Of course, Larry, as a Roman Catholic, I would have to say absolutely. Mary absolutely needed a Savior. And she got a Savior. But she did not need to be saved from her sins that she committed. She needed to be saved from committing sins. And let me give you an example of this, okay? If you're walking down the street, okay, and there's a giant hole in front of you, and if you fall into that hole, I know you're going to die. Break your leg, break your neck, something in that hole. All right. But supposing you fall in that hole and you're down there and you don't die. You're just injured. And I come along, I throw you a rope and I pull you out. Have I not saved you from that hole? Yes, I have. I have saved you from the act committed. But now listen to this. What if you're walking down the street and I come up to you and I say, whoa, don't take one more step. You take another step, you're going to fall into the hole. And then I got to save you out of it. Have I not saved you from going into the hole? There are two ways of looking at salvation. And we as Catholics believe that you can save somebody out of their sin, which is for most people, because they all commit sin. They're in the hole. Or you can save somebody from sinning, ever. And that's what God did for Mary. In fact, Jesus Christ singularly saved Mary in the most unique way. He saved her from ever sinning. He is her Redeemer. He redeemed her from ever committing one sin. And so we agree with Luke chapter 1. Mary did need a Savior to be saved from committing a sin. Well, I'd like to hear from the other Rob now. Well, as a Christian, I would have to say that we need more than that from the Roman Catholic community when it comes to Mary, in light of the fact that the entire New Testament states unequivocally that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The only exception is Jesus Christ, and he is stated as the exception. He who knew no sin became sin on behalf of us. Never is it recorded that Mary knew no sin. Never is it recorded that she was preemptively saved from her sin. You see, this is what I mean about going outside of scripture. This is The Roman Catholic position is a position based upon pure and total silence. It's brought into the text. The text doesn't say that. In a matter of fact, Roman Catholic theologians say this is a different way of using the word salvation, the word redeemed, the word saved, so forth and so on, out of Luke 1. Show me one other place in all of Scripture where the word redeemed or saved is used in a preemptive sense, where salvation is used in a preemptive sense. Never, never. So Rome must do something with the text. They fabricate a loose meaning of the word, apply it to their situation, and away they go. But it ain't in the Bible. Excuse my French. It's just not part of God's revelation. Got you. Next question. Why did Mary offer up a sin offering in Luke chapter 2, verses 22 through 24, cross-reference that to Leviticus chapter 12, verses 2 through 6, if she was really sinless? OK, I'm going to answer this question for you, Larry, in two parts. In the first part, I answer to you that Jesus Christ was sinless. We'd all agree with that, right? But didn't Jesus Christ get baptized? Yes, he did. Was there a need for Jesus Christ to be baptized? No. What sin had he ever committed? He went in the waters of baptism, and John baptized him, but there was no need for him to declare that he needed to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin. Yet he did it, and he was sinless, okay? He did it to fulfill the law, the righteousness in the law. He wanted to identify with the mission of John. Well, we say this about Mary. Mary was sinless. She didn't have any sin. So when she went up to the temple to present her sacrifices, she went and did this in fulfillment to the cross reference Leviticus chapter 12 verse 2 through 6. In doing so, she did it in order to maintain righteousness, in order to show that she was willing to place herself under the requirements of the law, so as not to flaunt her sinlessness. In fact, she was following the same exact pattern that she knew her son would follow later on. He's sinless. He takes part of a sin-forgiving sacrament. She's sinless. She takes part in a sin-forgiving sacrifice. doesn't mean she's sinful, doesn't mean she has sin, doesn't mean Jesus is sinful, doesn't mean Jesus has sin. They do it that all righteousness may be fulfilled. And, you know, it makes sense, doesn't it? Like mother, like son, they do the exact same thing. And we believe that this is exactly what Mary had in mind when she went up to the temple. I think the other Rob is going to disagree with that. I do. I do disagree with that explanation. In the first place, Jesus Christ being baptized was not being baptized into a sin-forgiving sacrament. Baptism is not a sacrament, and it definitely does not forgive sin. So now we're comparing apples and oranges. When you talk about Leviticus in a sin offering, by Mary, that's one thing. When you talk about Jesus identifying with the ministry of John and calling it a sin sacrament, that is over the top. We don't believe that. Only Roman Catholics believe that baptism of infants and adults is a sin-forgiving sacrament. That's not in the scripture. So to compare the two on that level would be incorrect in the first place. In the second place, let's take a deeper look here. The New Testament nowhere gives us a hint of Mary's sinlessness. Not one chapter, not one verse, not one paragraph ever gives us any indication that she was sinless. And yet here, it gives us an indication that she was a sinner. And now you would have to put words in her mouth and thoughts in her mind to say, oh, well, she's just going up there to fulfill all righteousness. She knew she was sinless, but she did it because the Mosaic law called for it. That's you bringing it to the text. The obvious conclusion from the text is she's doing exactly what all the other women in Israel did for centuries. She marched to that temple and she offered a sacrifice for her sins after the firstborn. as they have been doing for hundreds of years in the nation of Israel. To import a foreign thought and argue from silence is exactly what Rome has done with this passage. Very well said. Next question. Can you give me any Bible verse that tells us that Mary was assumed into heaven bodily after her death? We don't need to give you a Bible verse for that. We really don't because There are some things that we know to be true that simply aren't recorded by book, chapter, and verse. For instance, the Trinity. There's no verse in the Bible that says that God is a triune God, but yet we believe in the Trinity. We do so because we put other verses together that lead us to the conclusion that there is a Trinity. Now, here's what we know about this whole thing. We know from the Bible that many saints ascended into heaven after the resurrection of Jesus. And Matthew 27, 52 and 53 gives us the precedence. It tells us that the tombs were open and these people came out of the tombs. They actually walked around and they witnessed. Well, where did they go afterwards? Did they go back into the tombs? Do you think they died again a second time? Of course not. Where did they go? They went up into heaven. And that's exactly what happened to Mary. She went up into heaven. And it's fitting that Mary be assumed into heaven. In light of her immaculate conception and sinless life, there is no necessity for her to die whatsoever. It's fitting that she would go up. So we have biblical precedent by way of those who went before her, who ascended into heaven, and we also have a fitting good and necessary deduction she's sinless and she was born without sin therefore she was assumed into heaven and i think that makes good biblical sense and i think it makes good logical sense we don't need exactly a book chapter or verse for this i think the bible believing rob is going to disagree with that i would disagree with that larry and this is why i would disagree with it The opening of the tombs in Matthew 27 and the witnessing of these men and women, presumably men and women who came out of the tombs, is an isolated incident. It's an isolated incident due to the extraordinary event that has just taken place. It's a sign of the power of Jesus Christ, the power of God to raise people from the dead, so forth and so on. We don't have any proof that they actually ascended into heaven. We don't have any data at all as to what happened to them. So to make a deduction that they did actually ascend into heaven because we don't know where they went, or if they died again, is an argument from silence, once again. That's your deduction. That's not mine. The other thing is that to say that Mary had to ascend into heaven because they did, or because Elijah was taken up, or because Enoch was taken up, or something like that, is a non sequitur. We were told they were taken up. We're never told Mary was taken up. And what's lacking here is biblical identification. And also, the fitting part of it, it's only fitting if you believe Mary was immaculate, born without sin, and was sinless throughout her whole life. Well, if you don't believe that, then it's not fitting, you see? So what Rome does here is they say, well, she was born without sin. Well, she never sinned. Well, it was fitting. Time out. She wasn't born without sin. She did commit sin in her lifetime. Therefore, it's not fitting. Lose the fitting argument, OK? Because it doesn't fit, all right? No pun intended. The other thing is, because an extraordinary event, happens in time and space to one particular group of people at one time does not mean it's a repeatable historical event or that we should ascribe it to somebody else. That's good hermeneutics. Elsewise, we would have everybody in Christendom selling all of their property, selling all of their possessions, and laying them at the feet of their elders to be distributed in Christian communism because that's exactly what happened. in the second chapter of the book of Acts and fourth chapter of the book of Acts. Are we to repeat that? No, because that's a historical event and we're never commanded to repeat it. And there's no reason to repeat it. So the Roman Catholics are grasping at straws once again in their explanation. That's correct. All right. Next question. Since Mary died, does this not prove that she was a sinner since the wages of sin is death? Well, if Mary died, But we don't know. We don't think Mary did die. I know the Roman Catholic community is kind of split on this. Some in our community think that she fell asleep, didn't die. She was in a state of dormition. Others say, no, no, no, no, no. She just went directly to heaven. We know this. There's no record of her death whatsoever in any city. Every other biblical character in the New Testament has some kind of record of either the apostles being there, or Elijah being there, or Elisha being there, or David being there, or Jesus being there, or Peter being there, or Paul being there. But where's the record of where Mary died? There's no record whatsoever of where she died. Not one city has ever claimed the death of Mary. Don't you find that a little bit peculiar? Probably because she didn't die. Secondly, there are no known artifacts of her bones. No one has ever produced one single hair or bone or artifact of Mary, personally. The wages of sin is death, but not for Mary. And certainly, if Elijah can be taken up to heaven, and if Jesus can be taken up from heaven, then why not Mary? Why do you resist this so much? And we don't understand why the so-called evangelical community resists this so much. No record of her death. No one claimed a tomb for Mary. No known artifacts, no bones, nothing. She didn't commit any sins. She was immaculately conceived. Elijah was taken up. Jesus was taken up. I mean, it's not unprecedented. So we're holding fast to this. She was not subject to the wages of sin. That is death. She didn't undergo the suffering of death. Well, as a Christian, I have something to say to this. I disagree with this entirely. The reason I disagree with this is that, once again, all the argument is from silence. There's no bone of Mary, really. Do we have a bone of Joseph? Do we have a bone of Joseph of Arimathea? Do we have a bone of Herod? How many bones do we need to prove that somebody died? I mean, that argument is so shallow and so empty that what you're telling me is that if I can't produce the bone, the person didn't die. Well, we can't produce the bones of half the people who have died in fires, and in hurricanes, and at the bottom of the sea, and those that have turned to dust and slaughtered. Those buried in the Great Wall of China could equal a half a nation today. So no bones? I guess they didn't die. So we're going to have to lose that one. No record of her death? Not yet. Maybe none specifically recorded? Not yet. But what's going to happen when we do unearth some record of her death? You see, the fact that we can't find it is an argument from Psalmist that proves nothing. And the other thing, the idea that once again that Mary didn't commit a sin and Mary was born sinless so forth and so on if you don't believe that then it's not fitting once again grasping at straws and they're building upon a faulty premise your premise is Mary didn't sin Mary was sinless therefore it was fitting that's your premise but if it's a false premise it's a false conclusion and this is a false conclusion all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God And death is the penalty of sin, unless God intercedes and we need proof of it. And we have it with Elijah, but not with Mary. That's right. That's right. All right. Next question. If Peter was infallible in faith and morals, why did Paul confront him to his face in Galatians chapter 2 verse 11? Was this not a matter of faith morals? Well, you've got to understand the difference between somebody speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals and somebody expressing his own opinion. Peter was expressing his own opinion at Antioch. He was not speaking out of the chair of Peter. Besides, Papal infallibility will say it again and again and again to you evangelical Christians. Get it and get it straight. Papal infallibility does not equal papal perfection. We have never once maintained that Popes are perfect. They're not perfect. Popes make mistakes. They're not perfect. Peter had to be corrected, as have other popes who are not speaking from the chair of Peter. So I say to you, yeah, he made a mistake. Yeah, he goofed up. And Paul went to him and told him, you goofed up. That's it. But this just proves the point. Peter is not Jesus Christ incarnate. He's the vicar of Christ on earth in the sense that he protects the doctrine, he protects the dogma, and he protects the church against error. But he himself, he can make mistakes, and he did. That's our position. All right. And what does the Bible-believing Rob have to say? Well, of course, We would like to know how a Roman Catholic theologian can split the hair between protecting doctrine, protecting dogma, protecting the Church from error, and expressing an opinion that destroys and is destructive of the Gospel. Okay, so the question for our Roman Catholic theologians is this. How do we know when a Pope is speaking ex cathedra, out of the chair of Peter? How do we know? If you say, he is when he says he is, then our next question is, how does he know that he is? Does a pope infallibly know when he's going to speak infallibly? And if so, how does he know he's going to speak infallibly? How would we know that his statement is going to be an infallible statement? Now you say it's in a matter of faith and morals that he is infallible. Is there anything more moral than telling a lie? Is there anything more pertaining to faith than presenting a different gospel? The Apostle Paul told Peter, you lied and you presented a different gospel. Now if that's not faith and morals, there is no faith and morals. So if you're here to tell us that the Pope wasn't speaking out of the chair of Peter when he made these statements, because if he does speak out of the chair of Peter, he can't make a mistake, I have another question for you. What if your Pope tells us he is speaking out of the chair of Peter, but he's lying and he's disingenuous? What then? Has he spoken from the chair? Can we trust Peter to tell us that he's speaking from the chair after lying about the gospel and being immoral? I don't think so. You caught yourself on the horns of your own dilemma, and we're not buying it as Christians. Besides, papal infallibility is never taught anywhere in history or in scripture. Well said. All right, next question. At the Last Supper, did Jesus transubstantiate himself into the bread and wine, and hence eat his flesh and drink his own blood? Well, the first thing I want to say to you is this. Did Jesus drink the cup and eat the bread? Did he? I mean, the text says he took the cup blessed it and gave it to them. And he took the bread, blessed it and gave it to them. So you really can't say that he ate the bread and drank the cup. Not at that point. I don't think you can say that he did. So it's a ridiculous question. Did he eat his body and drink his blood? Because we don't know. But I can say this. If he did, if he did, then yes. Because the cup is in fact his blood and the bread is now his body and we say this Jesus was physically there in person but he was sacramentally there in the bread and in the wine and Jesus can be two places at once in total he can be sacramentally present And he also can be physically present. And this has been the teaching of the church since the Last Supper. And it's exactly what Jesus told us to do in John chapter 6, to drink his blood and eat his flesh. And we do so. And I know this is hard for Evangelicals, quote, to stomach, but you're going to have to get over it. It's in your Bible. It's throughout your Bible. And this is the teaching of the text. Well, what does good old Rob the Bible believer say? Well, I want to bypass the first part of it because in reading the account of the Lord's Supper, I'm not absolutely certain that He did drink the wine and eat the blood. Let's just assume that He did because probably He did. focus on the sequence maybe as well as others, so I'm not going to debate that point. Didn't Jesus put the bread into the sup when he was telling John that whoever dips at the same time I do is a betrayer? Yeah. Wouldn't that indicate that there's a good chance that if he's dipping into the sup, he's probably partaking of the food along with the rest of the disciples? Yeah, but it was Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there's a sequence here and it's not just a one-time sipping of wine, not just one-time eating of the sop. It's progressive here, like a small progressive meal. But I don't want to get sidetracked on that. I want to focus on the second part of it, okay? I just want to bring up to the listeners right now that if Jesus is having this supper like he's always had with his disciples, I don't think there was ever a time where he wasn't eating with them during those times. The question is, did he eat the bread first? drink of it and then transubstantiate it and give it to them. That's what I'm saying, the sequence. All I'm pointing out is he was eating at the table with the disciples like he's always eating with them. But he may have in fact drank it first, ate it first, then transubstantiated it and gets him off the hook from eating himself. That's all I'm saying. But what Rome is saying here is what is clear is that the cup and bread are now his body and blood and they would repeat the ceremony again and again until his coming. Okay. My answer to that is that there is absolutely no indication of this at the Lord's table or at any other place in scripture. If you read the account of the last supper of the Lord, the bread is never called. the body of Jesus Christ. And he doesn't even refer to it as the body of Jesus Christ. And after they have eaten it, no one refers to it as the body, the literal flesh of Jesus Christ, never called the flesh of Jesus Christ. And the wine is never called the literal blood of Jesus Christ ever. It's always called wine. It's always called bread. It's always called eating this bread, drinking this wine. And so Rome comes in and presses home this fantastic idea that Jesus transformed, before their very eyes, this piece of bread and this vial of wine to make it sacramentally His entire body, blood, soul, and divinity. And then they ingested it, they ate it, and they were eating Jesus. I mean, what do we say to these things? There's no evidence in the text. There's no such term as transubstantiation ever. With our own eyes, we're seeing the bread and the wine, they saw it too, that's what they called it, and yet they insist on what I would call hocus pocus, an overripe imagination, but more importantly, they insist upon this because Jesus says, do this in remembrance of me, and wow, if they can prove that he transubstantiated and he told them to do it, he didn't tell them to just eat and drink, he told them to transubstantiate. And that's what they do in their mass, they transubstantiate. And of course, that is anathema to the Christian experience. Yeah, which is a blasphemy because you're actually violating one of the Ten Commandments because you're making a graven image, or in this case, a physical object, God himself, which would be bread and wine, taking something that's a physical property of this world and making it into God himself. And that's why Christians would consider that a blasphemy. If anyone wants to see a Roman Catholic lose his cool, watch my two-hour debate with Dr. Robert Prestigi at St. Edward's University, when I told him that That was a blasphemy. He just about popped a blood vessel. You get some real fireworks there. He did not like that. But anyway, that's another subject. OK, let's get on to the next question here. If Roman Catholic priests have the power to forgive sins, then can a Roman Catholic priest forgive the sins of a non-Catholic? Essentially, can a non-Catholic Go to confession. What I'm going to do is that I'm not even going to paraphrase this. I'm just going to give you canon law from the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic religion. It states this. If there is a danger of death, or if, in the judgment of the bishop there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for these sacraments. But they must provide that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed to receive them. In other words, you got an emergency, a guy can't get to his minister of his own community, whatever that community may be, we can administer these sacraments. But the person receiving them, he's got to believe about these sacraments, what we believe about these sacraments, and he has to be properly disposed to receive them. He can't take it as a joke. He can't take it as a stopgap measure. He's got to view it properly. He's got to give all due respect. He has to be told what is being done here and what Roman Catholics believe about it, and he has to agree with it. If he doesn't, he's not going to get it. And furthermore, if your friend is a non-Christian, he must receive baptism. before receiving confession. He cannot receive confession without baptism, because baptism is a pathway to the Christian life, and you cannot have confession without baptism. So, in answer to your question, in dire circumstances, a Protestant can't get to his minister, will do it, but the Protestant has to agree with us on what it means? He has to be properly disposed to it. It has to be a dire circumstance. But if your friend is no Christian, out of no community, he's baptized first. He can't take confession. Period. That's the way we see it. He has to be baptized in a Roman Catholic tradition. Right. Absolutely. All right. What does a Bible-believing Rob have to say about all this? Well, this is ridiculous. What you're really saying is that the Roman Catholic priest doesn't have the authority to forgive sins at all. because he is bound. He is bound by what we call sola ecclesia. He doesn't have authority to sit down with a poor lost sinner and say, come to Christ. Take his righteousness by faith alone in his finished work. Come to Christ. See him in all his glory and see yourself in all your destitution and your sin. Take Christ as your own. Trust and have confidence in his atonement. Roman Catholic priests can't say that. He must go through the rigmarole of saying, well, now, you might be a Christian, whatever that means, coming from a Roman Catholic. But look, if you want confession, you've got to agree with what we think confession is. And then you have to be properly disposed to it. Well, hold on. What you agree confession is means I'm not a Christian. What do you mean I'm a Christian? I'm from a different community. Your confession tells me I can't be a Christian because I'm confessing to you before I die. Otherwise, I'm going to go to hell. And my communion says I don't do that. My minister says I don't do that. My minister says there's no such thing as confessing to a priest. And so if I confess your way, and admit that I believe it, I've denied being a Christian. And you say, I have to be a Christian of another community. And you agree that I am a Christian of another. This is where it's also absolutely upside down and crazy. The priest is saying, OK, you're a Christian of another community. You can't get to your minister. So come on. I'll hear your confession under one deal. You've got to believe in confession like we do, and you've got to be properly disposed. Wait a minute. You just called me a Christian. How can I be a Christian? I've never believed what you believe. So, the whole thing is so hokey, that's what it is, that it's just crazy and upside down. And it has nothing to do with biblical Christianity. Look, if you're a Christian out there and you feel a need to confess your sins to somebody, go confess them to the one you offended. Or else, go confess them to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and He is faithful and just to forgive you of your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness. You never need a Roman Catholic priest, ever. Very well said. Now we don't have much time left, Rob, so what I want to do for the benefit of the viewing audience is read through these questions without you answering them until I get to the last question. Then you'll have to give just a brief answer. But let me just read through these so people can see additional questions we just ran out of time and couldn't get through them all. But is the origin of the Roman Catholic Mass the Last Supper? If so, then how can the Last Supper be the same as Calvary, which is an event yet future to the Last Supper? Next question. What is a venial sin? Is there such a thing as a venial sin that does not in some way break one of the Ten Commandments? If not, then is not the sin a mortal sin? Next question. Is the Mass an unbloody sacrifice? If so, then what is the wine changed into the consecration? If not blood, then what? If blood, then it is a bloody sacrifice, is it not? Next question. Explain why eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin punishable by hell prior to 1965? And now it is no sin at all. How can a mortal sin be dismissed or changed into a non-sin? Next question. Why does the Roman Catholic religion only serve the bread and not the wine at their communion? In light of John 6, 54, how can the wine be denied? Next question. The Roman Catholic Church religion believes that venial sins can be purged or paid for in purgatory. How are mortal sins purged? What punishment is sufficient for mortal sins? Okay, our final question, and then Rob, you're going to have to give a really fast answer as both the Catholic Rob and the Evangelical Rob. If attending Mass and eating the Roman Catholic waiver is a sin-forgiving sacrament, then why are not mortal sins forgiven in the Mass? Are they not more important? Hence, the re-presentation of Calvary, which offers up the blood of Christ, is to no avail in forgiving mortal sins. Are they not more important? What could be more important than the blood of Christ? Well, as a Roman Catholic, I have to be directly honest with you. We believe that the sacrament of penance, whereby a confession is made to a Roman Catholic priest and absolution is given on condition that the penance is satisfied, is the only possibility whereby mortal sins can be forgiven. So if you've committed a mortal sin, it's not going to be forgiven at Mass. You can go to all the Masses you want to, and it's a good thing to go to Mass. I'm not saying it's not. It's good to go to Mass, but Mass is not designed to forgive mortal sins. God has only provided one way for mortal sins to be forgiven, and that way is in the sacrament of reconciliation or the sacrament of penance. That's just the way God has designed it. Now you want me to accept that with a straight face, but anyway, what does Bible-believing Rob have to say? Bible-believing Rob and all other Christians think that this perhaps is the most egregious, anti-Christian, and utterly devastating comment that a Roman Catholic could possibly make. on Biblical Christianity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What you are telling us in a nutshell is that your priests have the power to transubstantiate the bread and the wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, and that they offer up an unbloody sacrifice to God. That sacrifice is picked up by an angel and carried on the wings of an angel to the holy of holies and presented before God and it is said to be a propitiatory sacrifice that God is pleased with it and because of it God can forgive sins but oh wait a minute wait a minute God only forgives menial sins little sins sins that land you in purgatory but never in hell so the blood of Christ in a Roman Catholic altar presented to the Most Holy God by an angel avails only for a venial sin. A venial sin that can't even land you in hell. So this elaborate charade called the Mass can only satisfy puny little sins that can never harm you. The real deal is when you go into a confessional box and you confess your mortal sins to a priest, and once again, The Roman Catholic priest trumps the blood of Jesus Christ. And this is our objection to your entire religion. It is the priest who grants absolution. It is the priest who grants penance. It is the priest who grants repentance. It is the priest who has the authority to forgive mortal sins, even over the blood of Jesus Christ. And that's what we Christians have been saying all along. The Roman Catholic religion is a man-made religion full of churchy, sacerdotal religious folk, garbed in garments, who are more powerful, greater, have more authority, and have the say over your eternal life, even more than the blood of Jesus Christ, whether it's at Calvary originally where it belongs, or in your nonsensical, unbloody sacrifice on a Roman Catholic altar. is not only a different gospel, that is a cultic religion. Thank you, Rob, for that. We're out of time. I want to thank you all for joining us. Just keep in mind, we have over 80 videos on Roman Catholicism on our YouTube channel page, SeeAnswersTV. Many videos here by my special guest, Rob. Great job, Rob. Thank you. Playing both parts, by the way. Shut up. But anyway, you can see more of Rob and our other shows on this subject and many others. by just going to our channel page. Thank you for being with us and may the Lord bless you and yours. God bless. Check out our websites BibleQuery.org This site answers 7,700 Bible questions HistoryCart.com This site reveals early church history and doctrine, proving Roman Catholicism is not historically or doctrinally viable. MuslimHope.com. This site is a classic refutation of Islam, a counterfeit religion created by Muhammad. Free newsletters are also available. Hello, this is Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas, Christian Debater. My daughter Marlena has come out with a Christian music CD entitled Win This Fight. It has eight songs that she has written and performed herself. Some of the song titles are Win This Fight, Love Song to My Lord, Vessel to You, Waiting to Hear from You, Jesus Is, and others. YouTube viewers can listen and see Marlena's music video, Jesus Is, right now, free. Just type Marlena Wessels, M-A-R-L-E-N-A W-E-S-S-E-L-S in the YouTube search box and click on her video on the page that comes next. If you would like more information about getting a copy of her CD, just email us at cdebater at aol.com. That's c-d-e-b-a-t-e-r at aol.com. Or give us a call at 512-218-8022. Thank you, and may the Lord bless you and yours.