Episode 120: Year C – 1st Sunday of Lent
In today’s episode, we explore key apologetics topics from the 1st Sunday of Lent, Year C readings. We focus on two critical theological discussions that often arise in Christian apologetics.
The first topic comes from the second reading—Romans 10:8-13—which raises the question: Does faith in Christ alone grant salvation, or is baptism necessary for salvation? This passage is central to debates on sola fide (faith alone) and the role of sacraments in salvation.
The second topic is drawn from the Gospel reading, Luke 4:1-13, which recounts Jesus’ temptation in the desert. A key apologetical question emerges: Does Jesus’ use of Scripture against the devil validate the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura—that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith?
Join us as we delve into these powerful Lenten readings, unpack their theological significance, and examine their implications for apologetics.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In today’s episode, there are two details that I want to focus on that are relevant for apologetical discussions. The first is found in the second reading, which is taken from Romans 10:8-13. The relevant topic is whether faith in Christ alone saves, as opposed to receiving such salvation through the sacrament of baptism. The second detail, which is more of a cluster of details, comes from the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 4:1-13, which is the story of Jesus’ temptations by the devil in the desert. The apologetical topic that comes to the fore is whether Jesus provides us an example of the sola scriptura model, where Scripture alone is sufficient as a rule of faith.
Let’s start with the second reading, which, again, is taken from Romans 10:8-13. Here’s what Paul writes:
What does Scripture say?
The word is near you,
in your mouth and in your heart
—that is, the word of faith that we preach—,
for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved.
For one believes with the heart and so is justified,
and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.
For the Scripture says,
No one who believes in him will be put to shame.
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek;
the same Lord is Lord of all,
enriching all who call upon him.
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
The detail that I want to highlight is Paul’s general teaching that we are justified/saved by belief in Christ and confessing him as “Lord.” Some Christians appeal to this passage as evidence that baptism doesn’t save us. Their reason for this conclusion is that if Paul envisioned baptism as being the means through which we are saved, then he would have mentioned that. Since he doesn’t, it follows that baptism doesn’t save us. Rather, it’s faith in Christ alone that saves.
How might we respond?
One response is that Paul elsewhere in his writings does teach us that baptism saves. Take, for example, Romans 6:3-4. Paul teaches that through baptism with die with Christ and rise to a newness of life. Then, in verse 7 of the same chapter, Paul teaches that in the baptismal death we are “justified” from sin. The word “justified” is often translated as “freed.” But the Greek word is dikaoo, the verb that Paul uses to describe Abraham’s justification throughout his epistle to the Romans.
But this leaves us with the question? Why would he speak of faith in and confession of Jesus as Lord as that which saves if he believed baptism saves us?
Well, he could have been using a metonymy, which a figure of speech whereby a concept is referred to by the name of something closely associated with that thing or concept. In this case, it’s possible that Paul speaks of the initial confession of Jesus as Lord as that which saves because it leads to, and is a necessary condition for, using the instrument that in fact saves: baptism. Even in philosophy we describe an action of motion by way of the term to which the motion finds its completion.
Finally, the context, verses 1-5, reveals that the reason Paul emphasizes justification/salvation by faith in Christ is because he’s contrasting it with seeking to be righteous by obedience to the Mosaic law. The reason is that the law finds its fulfillment in Christ. In fact, Paul says, “Christ is the end of the law” (v.4).
Paul’s intention is to persuade his readers not to give in to the temptation of the Jewish converts who were arguing to be a true Christian you must continue holding to the Mosaic law. Paul’s counter is simply the general emphasis that it’s faith in Christ that saves, not the Mosaic law. Such a counter doesn’t demand yet that he specify the precise means through which that salvation is appropriated for the individual who believes in Christ. So, the affirmation that belief in Christ justifies doesn’t negate baptism as the means through which such justification is given.
Okay, let’s not turn to the Gospel reading, which recounts the temptations of Jesus in in the desert, taken from Luke 4:1-13. Here’s what we read:
Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan
and was led by the Spirit into the desert for forty days,
to be tempted by the devil.
He ate nothing during those days,
and when they were over he was hungry.
The devil said to him,
“If you are the Son of God,
command this stone to become bread.”
Jesus answered him,
“It is written, One does not live on bread alone.”
[quote from Deuteronomy 8:3]
Then he took him up and showed him
all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant.
The devil said to him,
“I shall give to you all this power and glory;
for it has been handed over to me,
and I may give it to whomever I wish.
All this will be yours, if you worship me.”
Jesus said to him in reply,
“It is written [quote from Deuteronomy 6:16]
You shall worship the Lord, your God,
and him alone shall you serve.”
Then he led him to Jerusalem,
made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him,
“If you are the Son of God,
throw yourself down from here, for it is written:
He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you, [Ps. 91:11]
and:
With their hands they will support you,
lest you dash your foot against a stone.” [Ps. 91:12]
Jesus said to him in reply,
“It also says,
You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”
[quote from Deuteronomy 8:3]
When the devil had finished every temptation,
he departed from him for a time.
The thing that I want to highlight for our purposes in this episode is Jesus’ thrice appeal to Scripture to refute the devil. Some Christians appeal to this as evidence for sola scriptura, the belief that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority and infallible rule of faith.
Protestant apologist Ron Rhodes makes this argument in his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics. He writes, “Following Jesus’ lead, Scripture alone must be our supreme and final authority” (pg. 58).
Protestant scholar W. Robert Godfrey follows suit in his essay “What do we mean by Sola Scriptura?” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.
The first thing we can say in response is that just because Jesus affirms Scripture to be an authority, doesn’t mean it’s the only authority. For example, we can agree as Christians that Scripture is a source for knowing things about God and morality. But that doesn’t mean philosophy isn’t also a source of knowledge about God and morality. The reason is that the affirmation of Scripture as a source of knowledge for God and morality isn’t logically identical to the denial of philosophy as such a source.
Similarly, affirming the authority of Scripture doesn’t entail the denial of an authoritative Tradition because the two are not logically identical, such that the affirmation of one entails the denial of the other. Rhodes and Godfrey, therefore, along with any others who might follow suit, fall prey to fallacious reasoning with this argument.
A second response is that Jesus isn’t referring to all of Scripture. Rather, he’s referring to a specific book, and then only parts of it. We can’t extract sola scriptura from an appeal to a few passages.
Now, a Protestant might counter here and say that Jesus at least provides us a model as how to refute the devil. So, whatever ends up belonging within the category of “Scripture,” we can appeal to it as our ultimate authority.
This leads to a third response to the argument in general: an appeal to Scripture to refute something doesn’t mean Scripture is the ultimate and sole infallible authority. For example, Catholics appeal to the Bible all the time to defend their beliefs and refute some Protestant doctrines. Does that mean that Catholics believe in sola scriptura? Of course not. If an idea can be refuted by the Bible, then it’s perfectly legit to appeal to the Bible to refute such an idea.
But that doesn’t mean the Bible is our sole infallible authority any more than me appealing to philosophy to refute an atheist’s objection means philosophy is my sole infallible authority.
Yet again, this argument ends up being entangled in fallacious reasoning.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that brings us to the end of this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming 1st Sunday of Lent, Year C provides us with great opportunity to reflect on a few apologetical topics:
• The relation between faith and the salvific efficacy of baptism, and
• Whether the Scriptures are our ultimate and sole infallible authority.
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.
You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast, and Tim Staples “1 on 1 with Tim,” all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.com
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed 1st Sunday of Lent, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.