A Welcome Correction: Vatican Backs Away From Mary’s Role In Salvation

For centuries, Protestants have stood firm on one simple, unshakable truth: Jesus Christ alone saves. His death and resurrection are fully sufficient for the redemption of the world. No saint, priest, or earthly mediator can add to what Christ finished on the cross.
That’s why many evangelicals found it remarkable — even heartening — to hear the Vatican finally echo that same truth this week. In a new doctrinal decree approved by Pope Leo XIV, the Vatican officially instructed Catholics not to refer to Mary as the “co-redeemer” of humanity. “Jesus alone saved the world,” the declaration said, settling a long internal debate that had divided Catholic theologians and even past popes for decades.
To Protestant ears, that sounds like a long-overdue echo of the Gospel itself: Christ alone — not Christ plus anyone else — brings salvation.
A Welcome Step Toward Truth
It would be wrong not to welcome this as a positive step. For years, Protestants have watched with concern as Marian devotion within Catholicism drifted from reverence into something resembling worship. From “Hail Marys” recited in confessionals to shrines and pilgrimages built in her honor, Mary’s image has at times overshadowed the very Son she bore.
Now, at least officially, Rome has clarified that she is not the world’s co-redeemer. That is no small statement. In theological terms, it’s a reaffirmation of one of the foundational truths of the Reformation — solus Christus, “Christ alone.”
The Vatican’s declaration even warns against language that “obscures Christ’s unique salvific mediation.” For Protestants, that’s a sentence straight from the heart of Scripture: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).
If this statement truly reshapes Catholic teaching and practice, it could mark one of the most significant doctrinal corrections in modern Catholic history.

Gratitude Without Naïveté
Still, evangelicals should rejoice with discernment. While we may welcome the Vatican’s reaffirmation that Jesus alone redeems, we must not lose sight of the many theological divides that remain unresolved — and, in some cases, unaddressed.
The Catholic Church continues to teach that salvation comes through the sacraments, mediated by the Church itself, rather than by grace through faith alone. The doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, and the authority of the papacy remain unchanged. The same goes for prayers to saints and intercession through Mary — practices that, from a biblical standpoint, place other names and powers between believers and Christ.
And even in this new declaration, while Mary is no longer labeled “co-redeemer,” she is still venerated as “Mother of the Church” and “Queen of Heaven.” Protestants can respect Mary as a woman of remarkable faith and obedience — “blessed among women,” as Scripture declares — but never as a queen to be invoked, nor as one who shares in the redemptive power of her Son.
That distinction matters profoundly. When even well-meaning reverence begins to edge toward exaltation, worship becomes misplaced. The danger of confusing devotion with deification has haunted the Church for centuries, and it’s one of the very reasons the Reformation happened in the first place.

The Ongoing Divide
It’s tempting to view this announcement as a bridge between Catholic and Protestant theology — and in some sense, it is. The Vatican’s statement shows that even within Rome, there is a growing recognition that Christ alone stands at the center of the Gospel. That should encourage us.
But the divide between biblical Christianity and the Roman Church is not about one title or one decree — it’s about the foundation of faith itself.
Evangelicals hold that salvation is a gift received by grace through faith, not earned or dispensed through ecclesiastical authority. We believe the Word of God, not the word of man, is our ultimate standard of truth. And while we can respect tradition, we test it against Scripture, not the other way around.
So when the Vatican affirms something true, we rejoice. But when it continues to hold doctrines unsupported by Scripture, we must lovingly but firmly disagree. The Gospel calls us not to compromise, but to clarity.


The Moment’s Deeper Meaning
There’s also something deeply symbolic in this moment. For the Vatican to publicly renounce a title long used by some Catholics — Co-Redemptrix — reveals how powerful truth can be, even when it contradicts centuries of tradition. It’s a reminder that the Church, in any age or form, must always be willing to humble itself before the Word of God.
If Rome can admit that Mary is not a redeemer, perhaps one day it will take the next courageous step — to confess that no institution, no hierarchy, no priest or pope stands between the believer and Christ.
Until then, this development serves as both encouragement and caution. Encouragement, because it affirms that the truth of Christ’s sole sufficiency cannot be silenced forever. Caution, because it reminds us how easily human tradition can obscure the purity of the Gospel.
Hope for the Future
So we give thanks — not to Rome, but to God — that truth has broken through. We can pray that this marks the beginning of a deeper return to biblical clarity, not only within the Catholic Church but across the global Christian world.
Because in the end, it isn’t about Mary or a pope or a decree. It’s about the Savior who hung on a cross, cried “It is finished,” and meant every word.
That declaration — not from Vatican City, but from Calvary — remains the only decree that saves.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES

If This Canadian Liberal MP Gets The Chance, He’s Coming For Your Bibles

Liberal Member of Parliament Marc Miller made it as clear as a Liberal can: if he gets the opportunity, he is coming for your Bibles.

Miller is the chair of the House Justice Committee, and last Thursday he wondered whether Canada’s Criminal Code allows too much space for people to defend “hate speech” when they refer to the Bible. As LSN reported previously, the context was a discussion about Bill C-9, the government’s “Combatting Hate Act.”

Miller, in responding to several witnesses on the committee, pushed back against the idea that “good faith” defenses of “hate speech” were defensible under Canadian law. In a revealing moment, his go-to example was passages from Scripture.

“In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans–there’s other passages–there’s clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals,” Miller claimed. “I don’t understand how the concept of good faith can be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible–there are other religious texts that say the same thing–and somehow say that this is good faith.”

“Clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful,” he added, directing his question at Derek Ross of the Christian Legal Fellowship. “They should not be used to invoke, be a defense, and there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges. I just want to understand what your notion of good faith is in this context where there are clearly passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful.”

Miller was asking for context, but his own remarks are badly in need of context. He spent much of the weekend attempting to add context on X, asserting that he himself is a Christian; emphasizing that he is not referring to the quotation of Scripture itself as “hate speech,” but using the Bible as a means of “publicly inciting hatred”; and responding to Conservative MP Jamil Jivani’s statement that “Liberals want the power to decide which Bible verses you can read at church by stating that people “shouldn’t be able to invoke them as a defense to the crime of public hate speech.”

The Liberal government’s view of what precisely constitutes “public hate speech” is very much in question here. Miller, in his remarks, stated quite unambiguously that “there are clearly passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful.” His cited examples, although he delicately allowed that there are other religious texts that would fall into the same category, were all from the Bible. So would citing those texts publicly constitute “public hate speech”? What if a pastor or priest cited those texts in a sermon condemning LGBT ideology?

Even if we were to take Miller at his very murky word, neither he nor the government can be trusted on this file, as MP Andrew Lawton made crystal clear recently.

Consider the fact that the Liberal Party has presided over a country in which over 100 Christian churches have been vandalized or burned to the ground in the past five years, and has responded primarily by launching new initiatives to combat Islamophobia. In fact, the Liberal government funded a study recently titled the “Rainbow Faith and Freedom Report,” which systematically made the case for targeting places of worship that are not LGBT-affirming, and recommended concrete action be taken against these churches.

Indeed, Jamil Jivani sounded the alarm last December about increasing discrimination against Christians in Canada. Garnett Genuis, an Edmonton MP, has also been drawing attention to a progressive campaign to remove charitable status from Christian institutions, including churches–a threat that, despite being included as a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Finance last fall, has gotten very little attention, despite the fact that studies like the “Rainbow Faith and Freedom Report” were conducted to build the government’s case for doing so.

When someone makes claims about the Bible–especially that it contains “hate speech”–it is important to analyze not just what is being said, but who is saying it. Considering the Liberal track record, we should treat Miller’s words like the threat that they are. It is also worth noting that the Liberal government is justifying the need for their “hate speech” bill in part because they wish to combat antisemitism–and yet, two of the three books of the Bible cited by Miller as constituting “hate speech” come from the Torah.

Miller rather gave the game away when he retweeted on X, as a defense and explanation of his words, a famous clip from the American political drama The West Wing in which the president mocks a Christian radio host for her condemnation of homosexuality by portraying the Old Testament as blatantly immoral. It is a clever and well-crafted piece of propaganda, and it reveals precisely what Miller’s state of mind is and what he actually thinks of Christians who happen to believe what Christians have believed for 2,000 years. We should take Marc Miller at his word.

When Politicians Talk About Demons: The Rising Debate Over UFOs

In recent months, public fascination with UFOs and extraterrestrials has taken an unexpected turn–from late-night talk shows to the halls of Congress. Lawmakers like J.D. Vance, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Senator Marco Rubio have openly discussed the possibility that what many call “aliens” might, in fact, be something spiritual–perhaps even demonic.

To some, that may sound absurd or fringe. But the question of UFOs and “non-human intelligence” has leapt from science fiction into serious discussion at the highest levels of government. Declassified military footage, whistleblower reports, and Pentagon briefings have made the topic unavoidable. Yet as Christians, we must ask not only what is being seen, but who might be behind it–and why.

The Bible gives no mention of alien life. Genesis 1 describes the creation of the heavens, the earth, and all living creatures upon it–but nowhere are “otherworldly civilizations” included. Yet Scripture does reveal another class of beings–spiritual entities–who interact with mankind and seek to influence human affairs. The Bible calls them angels and demons.

From the serpent’s deception of Eve in Genesis 3 to the possession of men during Jesus’ ministry, the Bible describes fallen spiritual beings who manifest in physical form, deceive humanity, and draw worship away from the true God. Jesus warned, “False Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). The Apostle Paul echoed this in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, saying that in the end times “God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false.”

Could the modern obsession with UFOs and “aliens” be part of that coming deception?

Ancient Parallels: The Nephilim and “Visitors from Heaven”

Genesis 6:4 records one of the most mysterious and disturbing passages in Scripture: “The sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days.” Many theologians interpret “sons of God” as fallen angels who took human wives, producing hybrid offspring–the Nephilim, a race of mighty beings described as violent and corrupt.

While this may sound like myth or science fiction, it’s an ancient biblical reality. And interestingly, similar stories appear in ancient cultures. The Sumerians spoke of the Anunnaki–“gods” who came down from the heavens and imparted advanced knowledge to humanity. Many of these accounts feature serpent-like figures, reminiscent of the biblical serpent who deceived Eve.

Could these ancient myths be distorted memories of demonic encounters–fallen angels masquerading as heavenly visitors? Scripture consistently portrays demons as imitators of light, offering forbidden knowledge and power in exchange for allegiance. From Eden to Babylon to modern occult movements, the pattern repeats: spiritual deception packaged as “higher wisdom.”

A Modern Deception in Alien Form?

If the “sons of God” once deceived ancient civilizations by appearing as heavenly beings, could the same strategy reappear in the last days?

Modern UFO phenomena share eerie similarities with spiritual encounters described throughout history–entities that defy physical laws, appear and vanish at will, communicate telepathically, and preach anti-biblical messages of “universal oneness” and “self-divinity.” Many so-called alien contactees report being told that Jesus is “just one of many ascended masters” or that humanity must “evolve” spiritually beyond religion. These are not new ideas–they are the same lies the serpent told Eve: “You will be like God.”

From a biblical standpoint, such teachings are not harmless–they are the core of demonic deception. Whether the “alien” phenomena are real beings, psychological manifestations, or military mysteries, the worldview they promote often undermines the Gospel.

And therein lies the danger.

If, as Scripture warns, the final deception will unite the world under a single false savior–the Antichrist–then what kind of revelation could unite atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, and even nominal Christians under one banner? A “divine visitor” from beyond this world could accomplish what centuries of religion could not: global unity under a false light.

The Spiritual Battle Behind the Mystery

For the believer, the real question is not “Do aliens exist?” but “What spiritual forces are at work behind the scenes?” Ephesians 6:12 reminds us: “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

If UFO phenomena are manifestations of these powers, we should not marvel–but remain vigilant. Just as the serpent disguised himself as something alluring in Eden, demonic forces may disguise themselves as “advanced beings” in the last days.

But Christians need not fear. The same Scripture that warns of deception also assures us of God’s absolute sovereignty. Even the demonic locusts described in Revelation 9 are under divine command–they cannot act beyond what God allows. As Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

The Hope Beyond the Headlines

As talk of UFOs fills the airwaves and even congressional hearings, Christians have an opportunity–to remind the world that not everything unexplained is extraterrestrial, and not everything supernatural is divine. The Bible tells us plainly that deception will come. The key is not to speculate endlessly about what we see in the sky, but to fix our eyes on the One who reigns above it.

No matter what strange manifestations the last days bring–whether in the form of “aliens,” “ascended masters,” or new spiritual revelations–believers must cling to the eternal truth: Jesus Christ is Lord, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

In a world increasingly fascinated with otherworldly beings, perhaps the most urgent question isn’t whether we’re alone in the universe–but whether we truly know the One who made it.

GOG AND MAGOG UPDATE

Hezbollah Seeks To Take Over Lebanon Politically As It Rearms Against Israel

Since Nov. 27, 2024, Israel and Hezbollah have officially been in a state of ceasefire, but not a day goes by without the Iranian-sponsored terror faction seeking to violate the arrangement by trying to rebuild its battered capabilities, triggering Israeli airstrikes. 

Simultaneously, Hezbollah is pursuing a political strategy to take over the Lebanese parliament, and the Lebanese state is largely helpless in stopping its activities, leaving Israel to do the heavy lifting, according to former senior Israeli security officials.

Col. (ret.) Jacques Neriah, an analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs and a former deputy head for assessment of Israeli Military Intelligence, told JNS that Hezbollah is receiving digital cash flowing from the Shi’ite diaspora and “Qassem’s money”–a reference to Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem, who replaced Hassan Nasrallah–coming in from Iraq. According to some estimates, the total of these funds amounts to nearly 500 million dollars. 

“I think that right now Hezbollah is busy organizing its forces, although it has more or less completed filling the missing ranks, appointing commanders who were killed, training [elite] Radwan forces anew, operating factories for assembling precision missiles and assembling UAVs, deploying observation posts in southern Lebanon, bringing in weapons from Syria and other places into Lebanon, through the illegal crossings of which there are close to 377, and of course the flow of digital funds,” Neriah said.

Despite its losses in the war–according to Israeli assessments, it lost more than 80 percent of its pre-war arsenal by November 2024–Hezbollah still possesses a considerable arsenal, Neriah assessed. “In today’s data, they also say it has something like 30,000 projectiles left, which is not a small amount. Some of these are long-range projectiles and most are short-range rockets,” he said.

He warned that this military buildup is paired with a sophisticated political strategy to seize control of the Lebanese state. “The next mission is to take over the parliament. How? During the time of Michel Aoun, the previous Lebanese president, they passed a law that the Lebanese diaspora abroad will not vote for the 128 parliament members that exist on the various lists, but they will vote for six separate additional seats,” Neriah said.

Why is that? Because most of the Lebanese who are abroad and vote are anti-Hezbollah. Meaning, if you let them vote for parliament, they [Hezbollah] will never be able to take over the parliament, and this is the next goal.”

He described Lebanon as a “failing state” and its military as a “failing army” that has no real power to implement reforms or confront Hezbollah. “It is a sectarian army, 60% of which is Shi’ite; these are all people who have family in south Lebanon, no one will raise a rifle or a finger against Shi’ite villages in southern Lebanon, so what kind of army is this?” Neriah stated.

Given this reality, he argued that the U.S. has resorted to using Israel as its proxy, he added, to pressure Beirut to take action against Hezbollah’s weapons. Ultimately, Neriah said, a large-scale Israeli air operation will be needed to further weaken Hezbollah and to enable the Lebanese government to break free of its grip. He noted that during Operation Northern Arrows by the Israeli Air Force on Sept. 23, 1,600 sorties flown by the IAF over several days were extremely effective against Hezbollah’s capabilities. 

Maj. Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan, who served as deputy chief of staff and head of the National Security Council, told JNS, “Hezbollah will do its utmost to return and recover, this is true militarily, from a terror perspective, and it is also true politically. The Lebanese government wants to weaken Hezbollah as much as possible, but the main problem for it is that it is, as usual, weak. Hezbollah will direct its build-up towards the south of Lebanon, both because it has a wide Shi’ite base there, and also because it’s far from Beirut.”

Dayan outlined a multi-stage strategy for Israel in dealing with this threat. “One, always prepare operationally according to the enemy’s capabilities and not according to his intentions, because in assessing his intentions, history is full of mistakes in trying to understand, guess the intentions, or rather predict the enemy’s intentions. It is better to prepare according to its capabilities.”

A second, non-negotiable component is maintaining a permanent buffer area, said Dayan. 

“The international border in Lebanon today is in some places tens of meters from [northern Israeli] communities. This is true for Metula, it is true for Misgav Am, it is true for Shlomi, also for other places, and therefore, defense must be in a security zone. The ideal is what the Americans call a ‘death zone,’ as they did between South Korea and North Korea,” he said.

Dayan argued that any significant violation by Hezbollah should be used by Israel to expand its current narrow security zone in southern Lebanon.

Third, Dayan argued that Israel must shed its reluctance to strike first.  Thwarting Hezbollah’s attempt to recover, he said, must also allow, under certain conditions agreed upon in Israel, include a pre-emptive counter-attack. “That is, there are places where you have no choice but to hit him before it hits you, and this is something Israel has refrained from doing for many years.”

Dayan dismissed the Lebanese Army as a credible force, noting that it is infiltrated by Hezbollah loyalists and that its basic functionality is “nonexistent.” 

In many areas, he said, “Lebanon is state that has no street names, no house numbers, nothing state-like, no state education system, no social security, and what is more troubling on the practical side, is that the salary, for example, of a soldier in the Lebanese army is about one-eighth of the salary of a terrorist in Hezbollah.” 

He also characterized the U.S. role as one of economic, not military, pressure. “The Americans are doing a kind of peace. Their peace is economic, and utilitarian,” he said. When it comes to threatening military force in the region, the U.S. will always rely on Israel.”  

Therefore, he added, “this is a situation that will happen quite a lot, because we also do not intend to conquer Lebanon.”

Ultimately, Dayan concluded, “We are saying, there will be no peace that does not pass through the liquidation of terror. If this is true in Gaza, it is true in Lebanon, and it is true in Syria.”