{"id":64213,"date":"2022-05-03T17:39:41","date_gmt":"2022-05-03T21:39:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=64213"},"modified":"2022-05-03T19:25:35","modified_gmt":"2022-05-03T23:25:35","slug":"response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html","title":{"rendered":"Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception & Assumption<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

After working full-time at a large non-denominational church, Austin Suggs<\/strong> fell in love with teaching people to love and live out the message of the Bible, and this drove him to attend Moody Bible Institute where he is currently a theology major (senior year). This love for teaching also led to the start of his YouTube channel, Gospel Simplicity<\/em><\/a>, where he has conversations about biblical and theological topics with people from across the spectrum of Christian traditions. His channel is known for its ecumenical outlook and the diversity of views represented.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

I am replying to Austin\u2019s video, \u201cProtestant Looks Into Catholicism: One Year Later\u201d<\/a> (10-21-21). As of this writing it has been viewed 118,323 times, and there are 4,103 comments in the combox.<\/p>\n

I appreciate the open-minded, charitable candor of this video and Austin\u2019s honesty about where is is, spiritually, and how he continues to struggle in understanding some things about Catholicism (whether he ultimately agrees or disagrees with it). I\u2019d like to first respond to Austin\u2019s comments regarding a certain amount of pressure being put onto him by Catholics to convert. In 2006, I wrote an article about this sort of thing. I noted:<\/p>\n

I never pester people about their possible or actual conversions, or use the situation of a person struggling through issues to \u201cgo in for the kill,\u201d so to speak. That\u2019s as\u00a0far<\/em>\u00a0from my method and approach to both people and apologetics as can be imagined.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t interfere or cynically speculate about people\u2019s faith journeys. That is between them and God. I\u2019ve been a convert myself [to Catholicism from evangelicalism, in 1990], so I know what that\u2019s like. One doesn\u2019t need folks coming in and acting like they have all the answers; judging souls and motives alike. I don\u2019t try to force God\u2019s hand or presume or denigrate the motives of potential converts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That said, Austin mentioned in this video three things in Catholicism that he struggled with: the papacy, and the Marian doctrines of\u00a0 the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Since I specialize in \u201cbiblical evidence for Catholicism\u201d in my apostolate, I thought Austin might be interested in the purely biblical arguments that I make for all three doctrines. All I intend for it is to be food for thought<\/em>. No pressure, no polemics, or proselytizing (though maybe persuasion . . .). Just something to consider . . .<\/p>\n

A Biblical Argument for the Papacy<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

There is much in the Bible about St. Peter\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0leadership<\/a> of the disciples (as virtually all Protestants would agree) and the early Church. He is the model for what popes were to be. See my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy.<\/a>\u00a0We see him as the central figure and leader of the Jerusalem Council (just as later Catholic popes presided over ecumenical councils). Protestants argue that James presided. This is my answer to that:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
From Acts 15, we learn that \u201cafter there was much debate, Peter rose\u201d to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that \u201call the assembly kept silence\u201d (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter\u2019s exposition, speaking about \u201csigns and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles\u201d (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what \u201cSimeon [Peter] has related\u201d (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter\u2019s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the \u201chost.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
St. Peter indeed had already received a relevant revelation, related to the council. God gave him a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). St. Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n

The First Epistle of Peter is directed towards a wide audience, and reads like pastoral guidance of the leader of the Church to the whole Church. Peter humbly calls himself a \u201cfellow elder.\u201d But it doesn\u2019t follow that he has\u00a0no more authority<\/em>\u00a0than the other bishops. In fact, he\u00a0assumes authority<\/em> throughout his epistle: \u201cgird up your minds\u201d (1:13); \u201cbe holy yourselves in all your conduct\u201d (1:15); \u201clove one another earnestly from the heart\u201d (1:22); \u201cSo put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander\u201d (2:1); \u201clong for the pure spiritual milk\u201d (2:2); \u201cabstain from the passions of the flesh\u201d (2:11); \u201cMaintain good conduct among the Gentiles\u201d (2:12); \u201cBe subject for the Lord\u2019s sake to every human institution\u201d (2:13); \u201cHonor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.\u201d (2:17); \u201d wives, be submissive to your husbands\u201d (3:1); \u201cLikewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman\u201d (3:7); \u201chave unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.\u201d (3:8); \u201cDo not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling\u201d (3:9); \u201cin your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense\u201d (3:15: apologetics!); \u201d keep your conscience clear\u201d (3:16); \u201ckeep sane and sober for your prayers\u201d (4:7); \u201chold unfailing your love for one another\u201d (4:8); \u201cPractice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another\u201d (4:9); \u201cAs each has received a gift, employ it for one another\u201d (4:10); \u201cTend the flock of God that is your charge\u201d (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); \u201cyou that are younger be subject to the elders\u201d (5:5); \u201cHumble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God\u201d (5:6); \u201cBe sober, be watchful\u201d (5:8); and \u201cResist him, firm in your faith\u201d (5:9).<\/p>\n

Although it\u2019s not a biblical argument, the following argument does show papal succession before 100 AD. 1 Clement, which was written by St. Clement of Rome, an early pope, is of the same nature. Strong central authority is expressed. St. Clement writes (I use the standard [Protestant]\u00a0Schaff translation<\/a>):<\/p>\n

If, however, any shall\u00a0disobey<\/em>\u00a0the words spoken by Him through us<\/em>, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . . (59, my italics)<\/p>\n

Joy and\u00a0gladness\u00a0will you afford us, if you become\u00a0obedient\u00a0to the words written by us and through the\u00a0Holy Spirit<\/em>root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63, my italics)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: \u201cwhy<\/em>?\u201d What\u00a0sense<\/em>\u00a0does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they obey the bishop from another region? Not only does Clement assert strong authority;\u00a0he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking \u201cthrough\u201d him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

That is\u00a0extraordinary<\/em>, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (\u201cFor it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things\u201d: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It\u2019s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to\u00a0infallibility<\/em>\u00a0(divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God).<\/p>\n

Catholics maintain that the Jerusalem Council is an exercise of conciliar authority in conjunction with the pope (Peter), and that 1 Clement is analogous to a papal encyclical (a pope authoritatively acting on his own).<\/p>\n

A Biblical Argument for Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Neither the notion nor the fact of a sinless created being is impossible. The angels (excepting the fallen ones, or demons) are sinless and always have been. They never sinned. They never rebelled against God. They\u2019re creatures as we are, with a free will to sin or not sin. Adam and Eve were originally sinless and could have remained so had they not rebelled against God\u2019s commands.<\/p>\n

Babies in the womb are without actual sin (though not without original sin), and even after birth they cannot sin mortally (with full subjective awareness necessary for mortal sin) for quite some time, until they attain the age of reason.<\/p>\n

The Immaculate Conception was not, strictly speaking, absolutely necessary for God to do. God could possibly have gone about things a different way, just as He could have saved mankind with just His word, without a bloody cross and Jesus\u2019 agonizing suffering, had He chosen to do that.<\/p>\n

That is freely granted in Catholic (as well as in most non-Catholic Christian) theology. That said, we contend that the Immaculate Conception is a completely\u00a0plausible\u00a0<\/i>act of God, and most fitting and proper and should not be at all \u201csurprising,\u201d in light of several analogous variables in Scripture.<\/p>\n

Another biblical argument can be made from the \u201cproximity to God\u201d: in other words, \u201cthe closer one gets to God, the more holy one must be.\u201d I developed this at some length in my first book,\u00a0A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\u00a0<\/i><\/a>(pp. 178-185). The presence of God imparts holiness (Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:19; Jeremiah 2:3). The temple site was sacred and holy (Isaiah 11:9; 56:7; 64:10), and the Holy of Holies where God was specially present above the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:22), was the holiest place of all within the temple. When we are ultimately with God in heaven, sin is abolished once and for all (1 John 3:3-9; Revelation 14:5; 21:27).<\/p>\n

In order to be such a magnificent vessel for the Incarnate God Himself, it stands to reason that God would make the Blessed Virgin Mary an exceptional human being: not only full of grace and therefore sinless (Luke 1:28), but ordained as completely free from original sin, from the moment of her conception: to be preserved by a special act of grace from God, from all sin whatever: original and actual.<\/p>\n

Now, the challenge at this point is to show how and why one would posit the Immaculate Conception, based on the biblical data alone (since our Protestant brethren put the highest emphasis on Scripture, and regard it as the only infallible authority in Christianity). Is it possible to do that? Can some semblance of an argument be made from the Bible: if not directly (as we grant), at least from analogy, plausibility, and indirect deduction? I think so.<\/p>\n

A sinless Mary is a completely biblical concept: even a fairly explicit one: once one examines Luke 1:28 very closely (the meaning of the Greek word involved:\u00a0kecharitomene<\/i>) and realizes the inexorable deductions based on the nature of grace and its relation to sin (about which the Bible has\u00a0much\u00a0<\/i>to say). I made this argument in my book,\u00a0The Catholic Verses\u00a0<\/i><\/a>(pp. 181-190), and consider it a rather strong one. In a nutshell, the reasoning works as follows:<\/p>\n

\n

1) Grace saves us.<\/p>\n

2) Grace is the antithesis of sin and gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.<\/p>\n

3) To be full of the grace (Luke 1:28) which gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin, is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I flesh this part of the argument out quite a bit in my paper, Luke 1:28 (\u201cFull of Grace\u201d) & Immaculate Conception.<\/a><\/p>\n

Now we must make some connection between Mary\u2019s conception or (failing that) at least sanctity from the womb, to provide some biblical rationale for her Immaculate Conception. The Bible doesn\u2019t\u00a0directly\u00a0<\/i>reveal anything in this respect about Mary. It informs us (through the mouth of the angel Gabriel) that she is \u201cfull of grace\u201d and that this state was present at the time of the Annunciation.<\/p>\n

From that information alone, however, we can\u2019t tell how\u00a0long\u00a0<\/i>Mary had been full of grace and without sin. Therefore, that particular aspect has to be argued from analogy and plausibility. And I think that can be done as well.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s fairly easy to find examples of holy people who have been sanctified or made righteous from the womb, and even (in terms of God\u2019s foreordination or predestination) from before they were ever conceived. The Bible does refer to holiness being imparted even before birth; indeed, even before conception.<\/p>\n

Before we pursue that line of thought, let\u2019s step back a bit and note that the biblical writers are fully aware of the notion of conception itself. And this presupposes that a person (with a soul; otherwise he or she is no person) is in existence from that time (e.g., Genesis 25:21; Numbers 5:28; 2 Samuel 11:5; Job 3:3; Psalm 51:5; Song of Solomon 8:2; Luke 2:21; Romans 9:10).<\/p>\n

Does the Bible, moreover, refer to people being called from the womb for His purposes? Yes; Samson was one such person:<\/p>\n

\n

Judges 16:17<\/b>\u00a0(RSV)\u00a0And he told her all his mind, and said to her, \u201cA razor has never come upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother\u2019s womb. If I be shaved, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A Nazirite was a person who separated himself and was specially consecrated to God: one who made special vows that went beyond the ordinary requirements of the Law. But we know that Samson was not without sin, so his example suffices only to show that being called by God before birth is not unknown in Holy Scripture. The same notion occurs in relation to Isaiah the prophet:<\/p>\n

\n

Isaiah 49:1, 5\u00a0<\/b>. . . The LORD called me from the womb, . . . [5] And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength \u2013<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

We find the same in the book of Job:<\/p>\n

\n

Job 31:15, 18\u00a0<\/b>Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? . . . (for from his youth I reared him as a father, and from his mother\u2019s womb I guided him);<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

We also observe in Sacred Scripture that God has plans for His servants from even\u00a0before\u00a0<\/i>they were conceived (God being out of time in the first place):<\/p>\n

\n

Psalm 139:13-16\u00a0<\/b>For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother\u2019s womb. [14] I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; [15] my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. [16] Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thus, the idea that a person is somehow spiritually formed and molded by God and called from the very time of their conception (and before) is an explicit biblical concept. But we can produce even more than that: having to do also with holiness. The prophet Jeremiah reported the Lord\u2019s revelation to him (as confirmed by another writer of Scripture):<\/p>\n

\n

Jeremiah 1:5\u00a0<\/b>\u201cBefore I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.\u201d (KJV: \u201csanctified thee\u201d)<\/p>\n

Sirach 49:7\u00a0<\/b>. . . he had been consecrated in the womb as prophet, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cConsecrated\u201d or \u201csanctified\u201d in Jeremiah 1:5 is the Hebrew word\u00a0quadash\u00a0<\/i>(Strong\u2019s word #6942). According to Gesenius\u2019\u00a0Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament\u00a0<\/i>(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979 reprint, p. 725), in this instance it meant \u201cto declare any one holy.\u201d Gesenius applies this particular meaning also to the temple:<\/p>\n

\n

1 Kings 9:3\u00a0<\/b>And the LORD said to him, \u201cI have heard your prayer and your supplication, which you have made before me; I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here are a few more related appearances of the word:<\/p>\n

\n

Exodus 29:42-43\u00a0<\/b>. . . the door of the tent of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet with you, to speak there to you. [43] There I will meet with the people of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by my glory;<\/p>\n

Isaiah 5:16\u00a0<\/b>But the LORD of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.<\/p>\n

Ezekiel 20:12\u00a0<\/b>Moreover I gave them my sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I the LORD sanctify them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Jeremiah was thus consecrated or sanctified from the womb; possibly from conception (the text is somewhat vague as to the exact time). This is fairly analogous to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It approximates it. We know Jeremiah was a very holy man. Was he\u00a0sinless<\/i>, though? Perhaps he was. I don\u2019t recall reading accounts of Jeremiah sinning.<\/p>\n

We know, after all, that the Bible is very frank about exposing sins where they existed (David\u2019s adultery, Noah\u2019s drunkenness, Moses\u2019 murder, Isaiah\u2019s \u201cunclean lips,\u201d Elijah\u2019s and Jonah\u2019s lapses of faith, Doubting Thomas, Peter\u2019s betrayals, Paul\u2019s persecutions, etc.). Therefore, though the lack of such an account of sin does not\u00a0prove\u00a0<\/i>sinlessness, it is\u00a0consistent\u00a0<\/i>with its\u00a0possibility<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The retort at this point might be that there is a lack of such a notion in the New Testament. But that\u2019s not true. We have the example of John the Baptist:<\/p>\n

\n

Luke 1:15\u00a0<\/b>for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother\u2019s womb.<\/p>\n

Luke 1:41, 44\u00a0<\/b>And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. . . For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

We know that John the Baptist was also a very holy man. Was he sinless? We can\u2019t know that\u00a0for sure\u00a0<\/i>from the biblical data. I don\u2019t recall any mention of a sin from John the Baptist, in Scripture. St. Catherine of Siena, for one, believed that he never sinned (A Treatise of Prayer<\/i>). But we know that he was sanctified from the womb. And that forms some plausible analogy to the Immaculate Conception. Lastly, St. Paul refers to being called before he was born:<\/p>\n

\n

Galatians 1:15\u00a0<\/b>. . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Therefore, by analogy and plausibility, based on many biblical cross-references, we can and may conclude that it is \u201cbiblical\u201d and reasonable to believe in faith that Mary was immaculately conceived. Nothing in the Bible\u00a0contradicts\u00a0<\/i>this belief. And there is much that suggests various elements of it, as we have seen. It does require\u00a0faith<\/i>, of course, but based on the biblical data alone it is not an unreasonable or \u201cunbiblical\u201d belief at all.<\/p>\n

Her sinlessness is taught in Luke 1:28, so we need only extrapolate the sinlessness back into the womb (which is easy to do), and with regard to original sin as well (not as easy, assuredly, but not\u00a0impossible\u00a0<\/i>to imagine, either).<\/p>\n

If God calls and predestines people for a specific purpose from all eternity, from before they were ever born, as David states and as Jeremiah strongly implies, then what\u00a0inherent\u00a0<\/i>difficulty is there in His sanctifying a very important person in salvation history, centrally involved in the Incarnation, from conception?<\/p>\n

The possibility simply can\u2019t be ruled out. And if God can call Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb and (possibly) from conception, why not Mary as well? The one case is no less plausible than the other, and so we\u00a0believe\u00a0<\/i>it, by analogy.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not foreign to biblical thinking, and makes perfect sense. According to the Catholic Church, God restored to Mary the innocence of Eve before the Fall, and filled her with grace, in order to prepare her for her unspeakably sublime, sanctified task as the Mother of God the Son. Why should He\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>do so?<\/p>\n

A Biblical Argument for Mary\u2019s Bodily Assumption<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Catholics believe that all Catholic and Christian doctrines must be in\u00a0harmony<\/i>\u00a0with Scripture; must not\u00a0contradict<\/i>\u00a0it; also, that some doctrines are able to be supported only indirectly, implicitly, or by deduction from other related Bible passages. All Catholic doctrines have scriptural support in\u00a0some<\/i>\u00a0sense (this is my main specialty as an apologist). We also believe in Sacred Tradition: itself always in harmony with Scripture. Sometimes (as in the present case), a doctrine is \u201cstronger\u201d in Tradition.<\/p>\n

I agree that there is no\u00a0direct\u00a0<\/i>\u201cproof\u201d of Mary\u2019s Assumption in Scripture. But there is strong deductive and analogical evidence. The deductive argument has to do with the \u201cconsequences\u201d of Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception: a doctrine more directly indicated in Scripture (e.g., Lk 1:28). Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the fall of man (Gen 3:16-19; Ps 16:10). An absence of actual and original sin would allow for instant bodily resurrection. It\u2019s as if Mary goes back to before the fall (for this reason the Church fathers call her the \u201cNew Eve\u201d).<\/p>\n

Jesus\u2019 Resurrection makes possible universal resurrection (1 Cor 15:13, 16), and redemption of our bodies as well as souls (1 Cor 15:20-23). Mary\u2019s Assumption is the \u201cfirst fruits,\u201d sign, and type of the general resurrection of all (created) mankind; she exemplifies the age in which death and sin are conquered once and for all (1 Cor 15:26).<\/p>\n

The analogical argument is a second line of approach: biblical examples that have strong similarity in important respects to Mary\u2019s Bodily Assumption. Here are five such analogies:<\/p>\n

\n

2 Kings 2:1, 11 <\/b>. . . the LORD was about to\u00a0take Eli\u2019jah up<\/i>\u00a0to heaven by a whirlwind, . . . [11] . . . And Eli\u2019jah\u00a0went up<\/i>\u00a0by a whirlwind\u00a0into heaven<\/i>.<\/p>\n

2 Corinthians 12:2-3\u00a0<\/b>I know a man in Christ [i.e., Paul himself] who fourteen years ago was\u00a0caught up to the third heaven<\/i>\u00a0. . .\u00a0[3]\u00a0And I know that this man was\u00a0caught up into Paradise<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 whether\u00a0in the body<\/i>\u00a0or out of the body I do not know, God knows \u2014<\/p>\n

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17<\/b>\u00a0. . . And the dead in Christ will\u00a0rise<\/i>\u00a0first; [17] then we who are alive, who are left, shall be\u00a0caught up together with them in the clouds<\/i>\u00a0to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.<\/p>\n

Hebrews 11:5\u00a0<\/b>By faith Enoch was\u00a0taken up<\/i>\u00a0so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had\u00a0taken<\/i>\u00a0him. . . . (cf. Gen 5:24)<\/p>\n

Revelation 11:11-12<\/b>\u00a0But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, . . . [12] Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, \u201cCome up<\/i>\u00a0hither!\u201d And in the sight of their foes\u00a0they went up to heaven in a cloud<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In three of these instances, the person didn\u2019t die (in one the person even came\u00a0back<\/i>); in two they died first. The Church hasn\u2019t declared whether Mary died or not. All of these events occur by virtue of the\u00a0power of God<\/i>, not the\u00a0intrinsic ability\u00a0<\/i>of the persons.<\/p>\n

Jesus ascended by His own power, but the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed by the power of her Son Jesus\u2019 victory over death. Hers was an \u201cimmediate resurrection.\u201d One day\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0who are saved will be bodily resurrected. Mary was the first after the Resurrection: quite appropriately (and even, I submit, \u201cexpected\u201d), since she was Jesus\u2019 own Mother.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

***<\/p>\n

Photo credit:<\/strong> Austin Suggs, from his<\/span> \u201cAbout Page\u201d<\/a> on his YouTube channel, Gospel Simplicity<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Summary<\/em>: Inquiring Protestant Austin Suggs (YouTube channel \u201cGospel Simplicity\u201d) mentioned three Catholic doctrines he struggled with. I offer biblical arguments for \u2019em.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception & Assumption After working full-time at a large non-denominational church, Austin Suggs fell in love with teaching people to love and live out the message of the Bible, and this drove him to attend Moody Bible Institute where he is currently a theology major (senior […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":64215,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45,138],"tags":[16110,16107,16116,3176,1119,508,8,16113,2867,16119,758],"class_list":["post-64213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blessed-virgin-mary","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-austin-suggs","tag-bible-marys-assumption","tag-bible-the-immaculate-conception","tag-bodily-assumption-of-mary","tag-catholic-church","tag-catholic-mariology","tag-catholicism","tag-gospel-simplicity","tag-immaculate-conception-of-mary","tag-inquiring-protestant","tag-the-papacy"],"yoast_head":"\nResponse to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary's Immaculate Conception & Assumption After working full-time at a large non-denominational Inquiring Protestant Austin Suggs (YouTube channel "Gospel Simplicity") mentioned three Catholic doctrines he struggled with. I offer biblical arguments for 'em.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary's Immaculate Conception & Assumption After working full-time at a large non-denominational Inquiring Protestant Austin Suggs (YouTube channel "Gospel Simplicity") mentioned three Catholic doctrines he struggled with. I offer biblical arguments for 'em.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-05-03T21:39:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-03T23:25:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/SuggsAustin.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"750\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"422\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html\",\"name\":\"Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-05-03T21:39:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-03T23:25:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary's Immaculate Conception & Assumption After working full-time at a large non-denominational Inquiring Protestant Austin Suggs (YouTube channel \\\"Gospel Simplicity\\\") mentioned three Catholic doctrines he struggled with. I offer biblical arguments for 'em.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)","description":"Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary's Immaculate Conception & Assumption After working full-time at a large non-denominational Inquiring Protestant Austin Suggs (YouTube channel \"Gospel Simplicity\") mentioned three Catholic doctrines he struggled with. I offer biblical arguments for 'em.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)","og_description":"Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary's Immaculate Conception & Assumption After working full-time at a large non-denominational Inquiring Protestant Austin Suggs (YouTube channel \"Gospel Simplicity\") mentioned three Catholic doctrines he struggled with. I offer biblical arguments for 'em.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2022-05-03T21:39:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-05-03T23:25:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":750,"height":422,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/SuggsAustin.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html","name":"Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-05-03T21:39:41+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-03T23:25:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary's Immaculate Conception & Assumption After working full-time at a large non-denominational Inquiring Protestant Austin Suggs (YouTube channel \"Gospel Simplicity\") mentioned three Catholic doctrines he struggled with. I offer biblical arguments for 'em.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/05\/response-to-an-inquiring-protestant-austin-suggs.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64213\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/64215"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}