|
Envoy Magazine is a Roman Catholic
apologetic publication dedicated to the following:
“Envoy is a bimonthly journal of Catholic
apologetics and evangelization. Its mission is to present
the truths of the Catholic faith in a fresh, contemporary
style, featuring today’s top Catholic writers, full-color
graphics, and an upbeat and innovative format” (pg.
2 inside cover of Volume 7.4).
In this rejoinder we wish to interact
with one of the articles found in this issue of Envoy
written by Tim Staples under the heading of Nuts
& Bolts entitled the “Top Ten”, According
to St. John.
The premise of Staples’ article is
to answer, from the Bible, a series of questions asked
by non-Catholics seeking to lead Roman Catholics out
of the Roman Catholic religion.
Produced below are eight of the ten
questions sent to Envoy Magazine, along with
Roman Catholic answers according to a Roman Catholic
interpretation of the Bible. We have chosen eight because
two of the questions are weak and not really pertinent
to the Roman Catholic religion. This exchange is important
for all of us since we are able to eavesdrop on a Roman
Catholic theologian giving a defense of the hope in
him.
We have set forth the questions
asked of Rome followed by the Roman Catholic response.
Then we have presented our answers to the Roman Catholic
answers. Hence, our title is Answers to Catholic
Answers.
“EXODUS 20:2-5 explicitly condemns images and
statues, yet Catholics have both in their churches.”
Why?
Roman Catholic response:
“THE TEXT READS: You shall not make for yourself
any graven image, or any likeness of anything
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…” (Emphasis
ours)
“The key is the phrase: bow down to them or serve
them. It’s obvious that God did not condemn statues
absolutely because just five chapters later he
commanded Moses to make two enormous statues to
be placed over the holiest of all places, the
Ark of the Covenant.”
CWRC- A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism
response:
The spin here is that Rome does not actually
worship or bow down before their statues so as
to worship the stone or relic or painting. Hence,
in Rome it is all right to have these sorts of
things as an aid to worship God. But this is
missing the point. Not even the pagan cultures
worshipped the material stone or carving or drawing.
The pagans worshipped the god behind the stone.
The same could be said of Israel and the golden
calf. It was the god behind the calf that they
began to worship. This god was a god of their
imagination. The imagination runs wild when anything
on earth is pictured for a god. This is the problem
with Rome’s spin on the crucial question of bowing
down to images and idols. The language of the
Council of Trent is very informative here.
“Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the
Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints
are to be placed and retained especially in the
churches, and that due honor and veneration
is to be given them; not, however, that any divinity
or virtue is believed to be in them by reason
of which they are to be venerated….” (Trent 25th
session).
The English dictionary uses the word veneration
and worship synonymously. There is not much difference
in the English. Take careful note that the Greek
translation of the OT (The LXX) translated the
Hebrew term (Shatah - English: bow down)
with proskuneo. This Greek word is given
this definition by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich,
a common Greek lexicon.
“used to designate the custom of prostrating
oneself before a person and kissing his feet,
the hem of his garment, the ground, etc. the Persians
did this in the presence of their deified king,
and the Greeks before a divinity or something
holy;…” (pg.723). (Emphasis ours)
A Greek reading the OT in his own language, which
was used extensively by the NT writers, would
have read “you shall not bow down (prostrate oneself
or kiss) them (the images).” Yet, this is exactly
the Roman Catholic practice.
Trent is clear that there is not to be a thought
of divinity or virtue in the images but yet veneration
of them is due. Trent says equally clear
that images are to be erected for the church and
that they are to have veneration and honor
given to them. The reason given for this by Trent
is that “…but because the honor which is
shown them is referred to the prototypes which
they represent, so that by means of images which
we kiss and before which we uncover the
head and prostrate ourselves, we adore
Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness
they bear (Trent 25th Session). (Emphasis
ours)
The text of Scripture forbids the making for
yourself an image that you would bow down to.
Yet, Rome insists that they can prostrate themselves
and kiss an image while giving the image veneration
simply because they say that they are truly worshipping
the one true God who is behind the image. How
does one worship the one true God by doing exactly
what the one true God forbids?
Moses was very exact in his exhortation to the
nation of Israel.
"'Do not make idols or set up an image or
a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place
a carved stone in your land to bow down before
it. I am the LORD your God (Lev 26:1, NIV).
Rome spins this to say, “It’s OK so long as you
do not worship or serve the idol.” But, since
stones cannot speak and pictures cannot talk and
relics cannot write notes it is left to the imagination
of the one giving veneration or prostrating himself
or kissing the stone to convince himself that
he is really worshipping Jesus Christ. How odd
when it is precisely Jesus who says to us in unambiguous
clarity that we are not to go down this road!
Christians know better. We hear the clear voice
of Jesus Christ and do not need to worship God
through an idol or a carved stone.
21 “Jesus declared, ‘Believe me, woman, a time
is coming when you will worship the Father neither
on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans
worship what you do not know; we worship what
we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when
the true worshipers will worship the Father in
spirit and truth, for they are the kind of
worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit,
and his worshipers must worship in spirit and
in truth’" (John 4:21-24, NIV).
Also, we abhor the RC practice of worshipping
the false god of Mary. To say that God is worshipped
by prostrating oneself and giving veneration to
a statue of Mary is a glaring example of how the
carved idol, so preeminent in RC culture, has
become such wretched idolatry!
“MATTHEW 20:20-28 condemns the human tradition
of hierarchy. There is no hierarchy in the Church
according to Jesus.”
Why does Rome have a hierarchy?
Roman Catholic response:
“THE TEXT READS: Then the mother of the sons
of Zebedee came up to [Jesus], with her sons,
and kneeling before him she asked him for something…Command
that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your
right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.
But Jesus answered… You know that the rulers of
the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great
men exercise authority over them. It shall not
be so among you; but whoever would be great among
you must be your servant… even as the Son of man
came not to be served but to serve…”
“This text doesn’t condemn hierarchy. It teaches
that the hierarchy who ‘are over [us] in the Lord
and admonish [us]’ (I Thess. 5:12, cf. Heb. 13:17) ought to govern in the image of Christ, who washed the feet of
the apostles. Jesus also said to the apostles:
‘As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so
do I appoint a kingdom for you that you may eat
and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’
Jesus is the King of Kings in a kingdom. And
he clearly established a hierarchy in the kingdom
as Ephesians 4:11 indicates: ‘And [Christ’s]
gifts were that some should be called apostles,
some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors
and teachers…’ The Church is called the Kingdom of Heaven/God’ scores of times (see
Matt. 13 etc.) in Scripture whose hierarchy is
endowed with the authority of Christ to speak
for him (see Matt. 10:40, 18: 15-18). That’s
hierarchy!”
CWRC response:
Matthew 20:20-28 perhaps is not the best choice
of Scripture to use to refute the Roman Catholic
hierarchy. This passage of the Bible speaks more
to the issue of servant leaders than to the governance
established for the Body of Christ. Hence, it
is easy for the Roman Catholic apologist to dismiss
any claims from this text that Rome’s hierarchy
is contrary to Scripture.
However, the English word hierarchy means, “a
system of church government by priests or other
clergy in graded ranks” (Webster’s New World Dictionary,
second edition, pg. 661). This English word ‘hierarchy’
is not used in the Bible. As far as the principle
of a government by graded ranks is concerned,
this too is foreign to the text of Scripture.
When Rome says that the Bible does not “condemn”
something and therefore it is permissible we should
take careful notice. For the Bible does not condemn
each and every kind of nonsense. But this does
not make what is not specifically condemned appropriate.
Since the Bible does not introduce us to a hierarchy,
we would have to bring together the pages of Scripture
to make a good and necessary deduction that a
hierarchical form of governance for the Body of
Christ is inherently taught in the Bible.
Toward this end Rome labors in vain. We notice
that Rome assumes that the leadership pattern
established in the Body of Christ is a hierarchy
without one shred of biblical data to support
the hypothesis.
Tim Staples says simply, “This text doesn’t
condemn hierarchy”. It teaches that the hierarchy
who are “over [us] in the Lord and admonish [us]
…”etc. The trouble is that the New Testament
does not give to us the Roman Catholic hierarchy
of Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Archbishops and Priests!
The second problem for Rome and Staples is that
the Bible never refers to the simple Elder/Bishop
“MATTHEW 23: 5-7 condemns the use of clerical
dress, yet we see Catholics and some Protestants
who are in league with ‘the Whore’ doing exactly
what Jesus rejects.”
Why?
The Roman Catholic Response:
“THE TEXT READS: They do all their deeds to
be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries
broad and their fringes long, and they love the
place of honor at feasts and the best seats in
the synagogues, and salutations in the market
places, and being called rabbi by men.
The wearing of ‘clerical dress’ and ‘phylacteries’
was God’s idea according to Scripture. In Exodus
28, God gave explicit instructions to Moses regarding
the ‘clerical dress’ of the High Priest. God
calls them ‘holy garments’ in verse 2. And Deuteronomy
11:18 says:
You shall therefore lay up these words of mine
in your heart and in your soul; and you shall
bind them as a sing on your hand, and they shall
be as frontlets between your eyes…
Jesus is not contradicting these Scriptures.
Notice, he says, ‘They make their phylacteries
broad and their fringes long (emphasis
added).’ The problem was the Pharisees were doing
these things ‘to be seen by men.’ rather than
to signify their service to God and the People
of God. That’s what Jesus condemned.”
CWRC response:
It is perfectly clear that Jesus was not condemning
the dress code of the priests of the Old Testament.
Nor was He contradicting the cultic attire of
Old Testament saints. God gave these kinds of
things to the nation of Israel to set them apart
and serve as reminders of their unique status
before God. It is obvious that Jesus is decrying
the pride and arrogance of those who would parade
their religious pomp in apparel to be noticed
by men. But this kind of explanation does nothing
to advance the propriety of a New Testament dress
code to identify a New Testament priesthood that
is contrary to the very heart of biblical revelation.
What was good for Israel is not good for the New
Covenant in Christ. Christ came to bring a New
Covenant wherein priests are not necessary as
Jesus is now the one and only high priest for
His people. Hence, the garb of the Roman Catholic
cleric is worse than broadened phylacteries and
lengthened robes! At least in those cases phylacteries
and robes were appropriate reminders of the Old
Covenant. But what does the priestly dress of
the Roman Catholic religion stand for? It stands
only for the Roman Catholic insistence that God
has created another priestly class to stand between
Him and His people. But this is entirely foreign
to the Scriptures. There is most certainly not
a New Covenant priesthood. Hence, the garb of
Rome is an offence and not a reminder of anything
remotely concerned with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Since there is no need of a New Covenant priesthood,
there is no need for special attire as though
some were endowed with priestly functions. Yet,
this is exactly what the Roman Catholic priesthood
believes. It all folds together in that the RC
religion believes its priests are especially designated
by God to re-present the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
on a bloodless altar for forgiveness of sins.
When one examines the reason behind the special
dress of RC priests, it is clear that their dress
is but a symptom of a dreadfully misguided religion.
23 “Now there have been many of those priests,
since death prevented them from continuing in
office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he
has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he
is able to save completely those who come to God
through him, because he always lives to intercede
for them. 26 Such a high priest meets our
need-one who is holy, blameless, pure, set
apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not
need to offer sacrifices day after day, first
for his own sins, and then for the sins of the
people. He sacrificed for their sins once for
all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints
as high priests men who are weak; but the oath,
which came after the law, appointed the Son, who
has been made perfect forever” (Heb 7:23-28, NIV)
“MATTHEW 23:9 explicitly condemns calling anyone
‘father upon earth’ and yet Catholics call their
priests ‘father’ in direct violation of God’s
Word.”
Why?
The Roman Catholic Response:
“MATTHEW 23:9 READS: ‘call no man your father
on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.’
In context, Jesus condemns the usurpation
of the name Father as it is applied to God, not
the use the term ‘father.’ In Luke 16:24,
Jesus calls Abraham ‘Father Abraham’ as does St.
James in James 2:21 and St. Paul eight times
in Romans 4:1-18! St. Stephen calls the elders
of Jerusalem ‘fathers’ in Acts 7:1 and St. Paul
refers to himself as ‘father’ in I Corinthians
4:14-15. Remember, Jesus is speaking in the context
of a Roman Empire where the emperors were worshipped
as ‘Father’ of the Empire. Jesus warns both the
Jews of his day and us not to all into
the sin of thinking too highly of ourselves and
not to usurp honor that is due God alone.
Ephesians 3:14-15 (DRV) says, ‘Giving thanks
to the Father from whom all paternity in
heaven and on earth is named.” True fatherhood,
both in heaven (i.e. ‘Father Abraham’) and on
earth (i.e. ‘Father Paul’ – cf. I Cor. 4:14-15)
participates in the one, unique Fatherhood
of God; it does not usurp it.”
CWRC response:
We reproduce the text in question here for all
to see:
8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,'
for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for
you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor
are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one
Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you
will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself
will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will
be exalted (Matt 23:8-12, NIV).
It is readily conceded that the thrust of Jesus’
exhortation is to end once and for all the specious
practice of persistently placing man and his erroneous
religious convictions between God and man. Jesus
says a few verses earlier of the religious leaders
of His day, “They tie up heavy loads and put them
on men's shoulders…” (Matt 23:4, NIV).
So then the question should be asked, “What was
the intent of Jesus when He said to not call anyone
a Rabbi, father, teacher or master on earth?”
Rome misses the point with its notion that Jesus
was correcting only those who wished to “usurp”
the name of the Father as it is applied to God.
No one in Israel would dare make himself out to
be God or try to take the name of God or Father
to rob God of His rightful status. After all,
this is exactly the charge brought against Jesus
that He was making Himself out to be God or at
least the equal of God. No, the problem with
Israel’s religious establishment was that they
stood between God and man in a self appointed
position that demanded religious servitude. In
this passage Jesus is alluding to what is to come.
He will be the mediator of a New Covenant, and
all who come to the Father in heaven will come
directly through Him and not through earthly fathers.
Also, all who are His own will be blessed with
the Holy Spirit of promise Who will guide men
in the truth in things pertaining to God. Thus,
Jesus is promising direct access to God without
human mediation.
Now comes the Roman Catholic religion whose priests,
called “fathers”, are situated between God and
man in a similar posture as these Pharisees, masters,
fathers, teachers and Rabbis of the time of Jesus.
Nowhere will the New Testament use the term “father”
to set apart a class of priests to mediate between
man and God. Paul will not do so. His use of
Abraham as a father is historical and appropriate
by way of illustrating a man of faith who stood
before God alone without any human mediation.
Paul’s use of “father” is restricted to his unique
role as a bearer of the Gospel in the lives of
those he evangelized and is not to be confused
with the role the religious leaders of Israel
had assumed.
In Rome, her adherents are required to call those
hearing their confessions and performing priestly
rituals “father”. This religious and spiritual
context of the word ‘father’ is precisely what
the Lord Jesus Christ forbids. What could be
more evident than the fact that the Roman Catholic
“father” stands between God and man?
When modern day Rabbis, and masters and priests,
convince the illiterate and poorly schooled that
they are the ones to whom men should appeal for
religious truth, and create a dependency among
men on their assumed priestly crafts or esoteric
teachings; they fall under the same condemnation
as those of this text, and should not be called
“father” in any sense, especially a spiritual
one. Rome has consistently explained away this
passage of Scripture thinking that it is immune
to correction. Yet, in the final analysis Rome
has violated and continues to despoil the essence
of this teaching and stands under the condemnation
of God for ignoring the gist of Jesus’ teaching
to call no man your “father” here on earth, for
you have one Father and He is in heaven.
“1 TIMOTHY 2:5 teaches that Christ is the ‘one
mediator’ between God and men, yet Catholics teach
that both priests and saints in heaven are ‘mediators’
in violation of Holy Writ.”
Why?
The Roman Catholic Response:
“THE TEXT READS: ‘For there is one God, and there
is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus.’
Yes, Jesus Christ is our one mediator.
The Catholic Church agrees. However, not only
ordained priests, all Christians are called
to be mediators of God’s love and grace in
Christ as member of his body and members
of a royal priesthood (cf. Eph. 1:22-23,
I Peter 2:5-9). The definition of a priest is
a mediator between God and men, or an intercessor.
Hebrews 7:24-25 tells us:
[Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because
he continues forever. Consequently, he is able
for all time to save those who draw near to God
through him, since he always lives to make intercession
for them.
Intercessor and mediator are synonyms.
Yet, in the same text of I Tim. 2, St. Paul says
we are all called to intercede ‘for
kings and all who are in high positions…this is
good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God
our Savior’ (see verses 1-3).
An apostle is, by definition, ‘one who
has been sent’ with the authority of the one who
sent him. He is a mediator for the sender. Right
after St. Paul tells us that Christ is our ‘one
mediator’ he then says, in verse seven, ‘For
this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle…’
In other words, in I Tim. 2:1-7, St. Paul calls
us to intercede because Christ is our one
intercessor and for this reason St. Paul
was sent as an intercessor to the world!”
CWRC response:
The Roman Catholic spin here is a sleight of
hand spin that plays fast and loose with the New
Testament. The foolishness begins by the admission
that Jesus is our one mediator and then
proclaiming that all Christians and ordained priests
are called to be mediators. How can Jesus be
our one mediator with countless others
also being our mediators? No explanation is given.
Is Jesus a special mediator? Is Jesus just one
of the many mediators? Is the mediation of Jesus
different from all the mediators? Rome is silent
here. No wonder, because Rome cannot defend its
proposition that Jesus is one of many mediators.
In the first place, it is not true that all Christians
are called to be mediators of God’s love and grace.
This claim is not true. It does not even make
sense to say “that all Christians are called to
be mediators of God’s love and grace…” Love and
grace are not mediated. The word “mediate” means
to stand in the middle between two parties in
hopes of bringing them together. Rome twists
and invents a new nuance to the word “mediation”
because Rome wants us to believe that the word
mediator is just another word (synonymous)
for the word intercession. But this too
is false. The Greek word mesites (English:
mediator) is used all of six times in the New
Testament. In all cases, except Paul’s reference
to Moses as the mediator of the Law of God in
Galatians 3, the word is used of Christ and Him
as a unique mediator. There is another Greek
word that is translated intercession and is used
of those making intercession on behalf of others
to God (Greek: enteuxis - English: petition
or prayer). This word is found in 1Timothy 2:1
and 4:5. These two words (petition and mediation),
and the concepts they convey, are hardly synonymous.
They are in fact quite different.
All Christians may pray and petition and have
intercession in communication with God with the
idea of prayer and supplications to the Lord on
behalf of others. But Christians do not mediate
before the Lord on behalf of others. In short,
to pray is not to mediate!
The English word “mediate” means “to settle by
mediation; bring about conciliation…” and the
word ‘mediation’ in English means “the act of
mediating; friendly or diplomatic intervention,
usually by consent or invitation, for settling
differences between persons, nations etc.” (Webster’s
New World Dictionary, pg. 881).
The Word of God states plainly that Jesus Christ
is the one and only mediator completely qualified
to stand between sinful man and God the righteous
judge. He alone can bring the two parties together
through His perfect sacrifice.
15 “For this reason Christ is the mediator
of a new covenant, that those who are called may
receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that
he has died as a ransom to set them free from
the sins committed under the first covenant” (Heb
9:15, NIV).
“You have come to God, the judge of all men,
to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,
24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant,
and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better
word than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:23-24, NIV).
The question that is most pertinent in light
of Jesus Christ being designated as the one mediator
between God and man is whether one can approach
God through any other person or in any other way.
Rome says “yes,” for in their religion there are
many mediators who stand between God and man.
But the Word of God is sure and certain. Christians
may and must go directly to Jesus Christ as their
one and only mediator in all their prayers, supplications
and intercessions. Furthermore, access to Jesus
Christ is direct and unhindered. Unlike Rome,
which has many mediators to get to the one mediator,
Christians go directly to Jesus Christ.
“For it is declared:
‘You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.’
18 The former regulation is set aside because
it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing
perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by
which we draw near to God.
20 And it was not without an oath! Others became
priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest
with an oath when God said to him:
The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever.'
22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the
guarantee of a better covenant.
23 Now there have been many of those priests,
since death prevented them from continuing in
office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he
has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he
is able to save completely those who come to God
through him, because he always lives to intercede
for them” (Heb 7: 17-25, NIV).
Tim Staples would have us believe that Paul was
a mediator because he was an apostle. This too
is a leap of illogic. He confuses one sent with
a message of the one and only mediator with mediation
itself! Paul confirms his ministry of preaching
and teaching the Word as an apostle because he
was given the responsibility of announcing the
good news of the mediation of Jesus Christ. Paul
did not mediate anything. He announced the glorious
Gospel of Jesus Christ and proclaimed Christ as
the one and only mediator!
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and
prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made
on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who
are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil
and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God
our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved
and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For
there is one God, and one mediator also between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave
Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given
at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed
a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the
truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the
Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim 2:1-7,
NASV).
“MATTHEW 26:28 explicitly says that everyone
is to drink of the cup of communion, yet Catholics
have withheld the cup from the laity for centuries
and often keep it from the laity even to this
day! Once again, Jesus’ word takes second place
to the Pope’s traditions.”
Why?
The Roman Catholic Response:
“THE TEXT READS: And he took a cup, and when
he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying,
‘Drink of it, all of you.’
In context, Jesus only gave the host and
the cup to the twelve apostles (see verse
20). This is one reason why it is necessary
for the priest at Mass to receive both
the host and the precious blood. However, when
St. Paul teaches the faithful in Corinth
about receiving Jesus Christ, truly present in
the Eucharist, he says:
‘Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or
drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner
will be guilty of profaning the body and
blood of the Lord’ (I Cor. 11:27, emphasis added).
According to St. Paul, if the faithful receive
one species – that is, either the host or
the cup – they have received the entire body and
blood of Christ.
There is certainly nothing wrong with receiving
both species. The Catholic Church, in fact, encourages
the practice today. It has a fuller symbolic
value. But according to the Bible, it is not
necessary for the faithful to receive both
for them to receive Christ in communion.”
CWRC response:
Let us begin where Rome begins. They say that
their priests deserve (“it is necessary”) to receive
both the bread (Catholic: host i.e., actual body
of Christ) and the wine (Catholic: actual blood
of Christ) because Jesus Christ, at the last supper,
gave the bread and wine only to the twelve. By
what stretch of the imagination does a Roman Catholic
priest become one of the twelve to whom Christ
personally gave the elements of the last supper?
Such logic and reasoning defies all rationale
biblical interpretation. Why not give the bread
and wine only to twelve selected Cardinals administered
by only the Pope at Rome? At least this might
follow the logic of Rome’s insistence that the
Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Cardinals
his closest followers. One cannot possibly strain
simple logic far enough to contain such an unwarranted
assertion much less try to prove it biblically.
Yet, like so many things of Rome, here it is stated
boldly as though anyone could see plainly that
this sort of biblical interpretation is natural
and ordinary!
It is not natural and ordinary at all. It is
just the opposite. It is contrived and made up
to fit the practice of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
This kind of interpretation leads to the defense
of giving only half of the elements prescribe
by the Lord to the Roman faithful.
Trying to defend this practice of giving only
the bread at their communion, Rome appeals to
the apostle Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 11:27.
27 “Therefore whoever eats the bread or
drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner,
shall be guilty of the body and the blood
of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself,
and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and
drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks,
eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does
not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason
many among you are weak and sick, and a number
sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly,
we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged,
we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will
not be condemned along with the world” (1 Corinthians
11:27-32, NSAU).
In a hopeless attempt to add meaning to the apostle
Paul, Rome seeks to separate the elements of the
Lord’s Table by interpreting the text to be actually
sanctioning the eating of the bread only or drinking
of the wine only. They take Paul’s words, “whoever
eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in
an unworthy manner,” as insinuating that it is
perfectly fine to receive one or the other. Also
they take Paul’s words, “shall be guilty of the
body AND the blood of the Lord,” as insinuating
that taking only the bread or wine is the equivalent
to taking both. This is clever, but is this the
teaching of the text? No, it is not.
On the night of His betrayal the Lord gave both
the cup of wine and the bread to all of His disciples.
This established the giving of both elements to
all within the Body of Christ. To withhold one
or the other as if it did not matter is to deny
the clear cut command and example of the apostle
Paul.
23 “For I received from the Lord what I also
passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night
he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had
given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my
body, which is for you; do this in remembrance
of me.’ 25 In the same way, after supper he took
the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant
in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in
remembrance of me.’ 26 For whenever you eat this
bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's
death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:23-26, NIV).
A Christian cannot “do this in remembrance of
me” if the cup is deliberately withheld. The
two fit together. Both the bread and the cup are
essential to complete the example and obey the
command. In the passage used by Rome to prove
the opposite the rest of the verses are left out.
1 Corinthians 11:28 states emphatically: “But
a man must examine himself, and in so doing he
is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
Rome spins madly here to get around a clear cut
command and example. Why? Like most things in
Rome, their religious practice seeks some sort
of validation from some part of Scripture. They
have failed again and again. This is no exception.
“EZEKIEL 18:20 condemns the human tradition of
original sin. This heresy that teaches people
are punished in Hell for the sin of our first
parents has infected most of the so-called ‘Protestant’
world as well as Catholic, but its roots can be
found in the ‘whore of Babylon’, the Catholic
Church.”
Why?
The Roman Catholic Response:
“THE TEXT READS: “The soul that sins shall die.
The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the
father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity
of the son; the righteousness of the righteous
shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the
wicked shall be upon himself.’
This text condemns sons being put to death for
the sins of their fathers (see verses 10-19).
The Catholic Church agrees. She has never approved
of the death penalty for the innocent. If we
apply this text in a spiritual sense to Hell,
the Church again agrees. No one has ever or will
ever go to Hell for anyone else’s sin; including
original sin.
God predestines no one to go to hell; for this,
a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin)
is necessary, and persistence in it until the
end.
Although original sin ‘is proper to each individual
[it] does not have the character of a personal
fault in any of Adam’s descendants.’ This sin
resulted in Adam and Eve’s loss of original holiness
while it also ‘affected the human nature
that they would then transmit [to all of us] in
a fallen state.’
Original sin is taught in the New Testament as
well. Sin, death, decay and concupiscence are
not what God created us to experience. In fact,
God could not be the source of such imperfection.
He can only create perfect natures because he
is infinitely perfect. According to Gen. 1:31,
God made us in perfect happiness and harmony.
The fall was the result of the abuse of God’s
perfect gift of free will. This fall from
grace is described in Romans 5:12, 15, 18-19:
‘therefore as sin came into the world through
one man and death through sin, and so death spread
to all men because all men sinned…For if many
died through one man’s trespass…Then as one man’s
trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one
man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal
and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience
many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience
many will be made righteous.’
Our intellects are darkened (cf. Col. 1:21),
our wills are weakened (cf. Romans 7:19) and we
experience decay and death because of this fallen
nature we have inherited. But we still merit
eternal reward or eternal punishment by our
free choices. We can be made ‘partakers of
the divine nature having escaped the corruption
of concupiscence which is in the world’ (II Peter
4:1) through faith in Christ. Or, apart from
grace, we can remain, “by [fallen] nature children
of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). But, according to Scripture
and the Catholic Church, no one will be
punished with death – physical or spiritual –
for anyone’s sins, except their own!”
CWRC Response:
The text of Ezekiel reads as follows:
19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share
the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done
what is just and right and has been careful to
keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The
soul who sins is the one who will die. The son
will not share the guilt of the father, nor will
the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness
of the righteous man will be credited to him,
and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged
against him” (Ezek 18:19-20, NIV).
From this it is instantly recognizable that the
righteous son of an unrighteous man will not share
the guilt of his father’s sins. This is without
exception since the fall of Adam. No man will
carry the burden of guilt or be punished for what
his father has done. Likewise, no man can expect
to gain the praise, respect, love, and character
value of his father. He will be judged upon his
own sins and merits. Neither shame nor fame will
be attributed to him by what his father has done.
This being said, it is quite another matter when
it comes to our first parents, Adam and Eve.
Ezekiel cannot be applied to override the equally
clear teaching of Scripture that Adam has a lot
to do with the condition of mankind.
Rome does not give much of an answer to this
charge that people are punished in hell by the
sin of their first parents. Tim Staples seems
lost in trying to lay to rest this accusation.
He seems to try to find a middle ground between
such a stark allegation and his own Roman Catholic
dogma. In this case it is essential to give a
good biblical reply. In so doing, the Roman Catholic
answer and the objection given in the question
will be dismissed. Here are Staple’s counter points
followed by a biblical rejoinder from CWRC.
STAPLES: “No one has ever or will ever
go to Hell for anyone else’s sin; including original
sin.”
CWRC: The use of the term “original sin”
is not found in the Bible. The concept of original
sin, as applied by Rome, can only find its connection
with Scripture by identifying it with the sin
of Adam. The text of Scripture mentions two antecedent
sins prior to the sin of Adam. Eve was first
beguiled and prior to her there was a catastrophic
sin in the heavenly places culminating in the
casting out of Satan. So, the assumption is that
original sin references only Adam’s disobedience
to the command of God. The theological question
then is “what connection does Adam’s sin have
on the rest of mankind?” In Tim Staple’s opinion,
Adam’s sin cannot be conceived of as the cause
of condemnation. This presents insurmountable
problems for Mr. Staples. In the first place
his own Roman Catholic baptism is designated as
a sacrament that removes original sin. It is
the original sin of Adam, passed along to his
descendants, that is alleged to be washed away
in the waters of Roman Catholic baptism. If no
one will ever go to hell for anyone else’s sin,
then why demand an infant and adult baptism to
take away original sin?
“For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down
from the apostles, even infants who could not
yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this
reason truly baptized for the remission of sins,
in order that in them what they contracted by
generation may be washed away by regeneration.
If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the
guilt of original is not remitted, or says that
the whole of that which belongs to the essence
of sin is not taken away, but says that it is
only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema”
(Council of Trent, 5th Session).
In the second place, the Bible is very clear.
Condemnation does come through the sin of one
man. It is the singular sin of Adam that
condemns all to hell. Each and every person born
into the human race shares the guilt and sin of
Adam. Adam was our Federal Head and when he sinned
we all were condemned in him. This is the thesis
of the apostle Paul in Romans, chapter five.
Notice the text with appropriate highlights given
below.
12 “Therefore, just as through one man sin
entered into the world, and death through
sin, and so death spread to all men, because all
sinned — 13 for until the Law sin was in the
world, but sin is not imputed when there is no
law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until
Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the
likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type
of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression.
For if by the transgression of the one the
many died, much more did the grace of God
and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus
Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not
like that which came through the one who sinned;
for on the one hand the judgment arose from
one transgression resulting in condemnation,
but on the other hand the free gift arose from
many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one,
death reigned through the one, much more those
who receive the abundance of grace and of the
gift of righteousness will reign in life through
the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there
resulted condemnation to all men, even so
through one act of righteousness there resulted
justification of life to all men. 19 For as
through the one man's disobedience the many were
made sinners, even so through the obedience
of the One the many will be made righteous. 20
The Law came in so that the transgression would
increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded
all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death,
even so grace would reign through righteousness
to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”
(Rom 5:12-21, NASB).
STAPLES: “God predestines no one to go
to hell; for this, a willful turning away from
God, (a mortal sin), is necessary, and persistence
in it until the end”
CWRC: The spin is on here as well. Rome
uses carefully selected terms to persuade the
ignorant of God’s ways, which always leads the
person to Rome’s doorstep. In reality, while
it is true that the word “predestine” (Greek:
proorizo) is not used in a context of predestining
someone to hell; it is used on four occasions
in context to describe God predestining His elect
to heaven. Election and predestination to Heaven
are reserved by God, in His infinite mercy and
sovereignty, to those whom He has determined to
give to His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. The Word
of God is lucid on this matter although very humbling.
3 “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly
realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
4 For he chose us in him before the creation
of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his
sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with
his pleasure and will- 6 to the praise of his
glorious grace, which he has freely given us in
the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in
accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that
he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will
according to his good pleasure, which he purposed
in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times
will have reached their fulfillment-to bring all
things in heaven and on earth together under one
head, even Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been
predestined according to the plan of him who works
out everything in conformity with the purpose
of his will, 12 in order that we, who were
the first to hope in Christ, might be for the
praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included
in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you
were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy
Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance
until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to
the praise of his glory” (Eph 1:3-14, NIV).
STAPLES: “Although original sin “is proper
to each individual [it] does not have the character
of personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”
CWRC: Mr. Staple’s does not speak for
his own religion here. Rome does not teach an
absence of the guilt of original sin.
Rome teaches that guilt and the whole of that
which belongs to the essence of sin is taken away
in baptism. Listen to the Council of Trent:
“If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the
guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that
the whole of that which belongs to the essence
of sin is not taken away, but says that it is
only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema”
(Council of Trent, 5th Session).
Without the spin of the modern Roman Catholic
apologist, it is evident that the guilt of Adam’s
sin needs to be washed away in the waters of Roman
Catholic baptism. Where there is guilt there
is fault.
STAPLES: “This sin resulted in Adam and
Eve’s loss of original holiness while it also
“affected the human nature that they would then
transmit [to all of us] in a fallen state.”
CWRC: This sentence does not make any
sense. It can only be assumed that the sentence
“affected the human nature that they would then
transmit [to all of us] in a fallen state” means
that Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants
a human nature from their fallen state. But this
says nothing of the guilt and condemnation of
the nature transmitted to their descendants.
Mr. Staples has avoided the issue. It means nothing
to say that Adam and Eve transmitted a human nature
that was affected by their sin if the nature of
the affectation is not explained. The Bible is
unmistakable in that the sin of Adam carries with
it both guilt and a fallen nature that are transmitted
to his descendants. The resulting state of depravity
in Adam’s descendants includes the guilt of Adam’s
sin and the sin nature. Men sin because they
are born sinners. This is the natural state of
all of mankind. It comes from Adam and is pandemic
to the world in which we live.
From the wrong assessment of sin and depravity
come a number of useless statements mentioned
by Mr. Staples in his attempt to answer this particular
question. Here are some of them with refutation.
STAPLES: “Original sin is taught in the
New Testament as well. Sin, death, decay and concupiscence
are not what God created us to experience. In
fact, God could not be the source of such imperfection.
He can only create perfect natures because he
is infinitely perfect. According to Gen. 1:31,
God made us in perfect happiness and harmony.”
CWRC: The original sin of Adam is indeed
taught in the New Testament. It is taught as
being the source of man’s corruptions and the
ground of the condemnation of all mankind. The
fruit of Adam’s sin is exhibited in the never
ending torrents of sin produced by mankind. Also,
Genesis 1:31 does not inform us that God created
perfect natures. If Adam and Eve were perfect
they would not have sinned against God. Here
is what Genesis 1:31 says.
31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was
very good. And there was evening, and there was
morning — the sixth day” (Gen 1:31, NIV).
Rome spins “very good” into perfection to take
God off its alleged hook. But there is no need
to do so here. God created angels with the capacity
to fall. God created Adam and Eve with the capacity
to fall. God does not have this capacity. Only
God is perfect. His creation will always be less
than God. God chooses to preserve what He desires
for His purposes. In Heaven the redeemed in Christ
will be preserved eternally from falling into
sin.
STAPLES: “Our intellects are darkened
(cf. Col. 1:21), our will are weakened (cf. Roman
7:19 and we experience decay and death because
of this fallen nature we have inherited. But
we still merit eternal reward or eternal punishment
by our free choices”
CWRC: If ever there was proof for the
claim that the Roman Catholic religion and Christianity
stand at eternal odds with each other, it is lies
here in this short little quip asserted by the
Roman Catholic apologist.
Rome believes essentially that the will of man
was affected by the fall of Adam but not taken
prisoner to the fallen nature of man. Hence,
Rome denies the bondage of the will to the sinful
nature of man. Rome believes that man can, with
aid from the Holy Spirit but not enabled
by the Holy Spirit, make a completely free
and unbiased choice for Heaven or for Hell.
Let two things be perfectly clear to the reader.
The first is that the sin of Eve and Adam did
not take God by surprise as though He did not
know that they would sin. Their sinning was according
to His will which cannot be surprised or stultified
(rendered ineffectual by events). The second
is that the ability to disobey God in the Garden
of Eden comes from the nature of their beings.
They could have sinned and they did sin. They
could have been beguiled and they were beguiled.
In their human state they were susceptible to
influences from without and within. They made
an un-coerced choice but not an unbiased choice.
We are convinced there is no perfect free will
except that of God. All of created order is subject
to God’s inscrutable will and pleasure.
What of mankind after the fall of Adam and Eve?
The Scriptures ignore man’s claim of a free will.
Scripture is clear that God must regenerate a
man from above to give him any hope of spiritual
life. The biblical doctrine of total depravity
sobers man’s avowal of his hoped for “free will”
unbiased by his corrupt nature and unfettered
by his sins. On the contrary, it is only the
supernatural work of God which frees the bound
will to see and surrender to the savior, our Lord
Jesus Christ. This regeneration from above in
turn brings a sure and certain change in life.
This “born again” experience is the work of God
in the heart of fallen man that brings life to
those whose will is held captive in sin and utter
depravity.
Christian theology shudders at the thought of
“meriting eternal reward or eternal punishment
by our free choices.” This is man-made religion
at its best and worst. This is hostile to the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians know better.
They know that their hearts were wicked and deceitful
by nature and that they were slaves of unrighteousness
unable to effect a change or get their sins forgiven
until God freed them to believe in the perfect
atonement of a perfect savior.
In man’s fallen condition he is by nature (his
own) a child of wrath. He is only free to do
what he wants to do and he never wants to repent
and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospel
is foolishness to the natural man and he is unable
to grasp it let alone believe it. Rome insists
on teaching that man has a free will to come to
Christ and then offers religious rituals in an
empty hope to keep man with God. The Bible cuts
through all of this and tells it like it is. Man
in his natural estate hates God and would kill
God if he could. His will is bound in iniquity
and in total bondage to his sinful nature. Man
is as incapable of recognizing his need for a
savior as a fish is of recognizing that he is
wet! The myth of free will is the cornerstone
for all auto soteric (self made and self
saving) religions of which Rome is the chief.
“Mark 16:16 says faith is necessary before baptism
for salvation. Catholics, and again, some Protestants
who follow ‘the whore’ baptize infants who cannot
have faith.”
Why?
The Roman Catholic Response:
“Before is not in the text. It simply
says that both faith and baptism, as a universal
norm, are necessary for salvation. However, both
are required only of those who have the ability
to believe and/or be baptized.
The thief on the cross (see Luke
23:42-43) was never water baptized in Scripture,
yet Christ said he would make it to heaven. He
did not have the physical ability to be baptized;
therefore, his desire for Christ was sufficient.
In the case of a child before the
age of accountability, he cannot believe
because he doesn’t have the faculties to do so.
Does that mean he would go to hell if he dies
before believing in Christ? Of course not! If
he is not baptized, we ‘can only entrust [him]
to the mercy of God.’ But we’ve already seen
that he cannot be punished with eternal
death.
So for the one who can believe,
it is necessary for salvation. And for the one
who can be baptized, baptism is necessary
for salvation.
The question is: can a baby
be baptized? Certainly. Let’s look at the analogy
of faith and circumcision from the Old Testament.
Faith was certainly necessary for salvation in
the Old Testament according to Hebrews 11:2ff,
just as in the New. But this necessity of faith
did not preclude circumcision as the covenant
sign used by God to bring a child into a covenant
relationship with himself long before that child
could believe. The parents had a responsibility
for the spiritual well being of their infant children.
Baptism is called ‘the circumcision
of Christ’ in Col. 2:11-12. If babies were circumcised
at eight days in the Old Testament, there should
be no question that babies are to be baptized
in the New Testament! Baptism takes away all
sin (Col. 2:13, Acts 22:16, I Peter 3:21), including
original sin that is on the soul of every child
(cf. Romans 5:12) and initiates us into the body
of Christ (Romans 2:27-28, 6:3-4).
Further, baptism is part of the promise
that St. Peter explicitly says is for ‘your children’
in Acts 2:39. Speaking to a crowd of thousands
of Jews, they would have known exactly what he
was talking about because they had been circumcising
their children for 2,500 years! Religion was
a family affair for them!
Also, baptism as the fulfillment
of circumcision fits right in with the notion
of ‘household salvation’ that we see all over
the New Testament. When a parent comes to the
Faith, they have the authority to bring their
entire ‘household’ to the Faith (see Acts 11:14,
16:15, 31, I Cor. 1:26). There is no reason to
believe children would be excluded.”
CWRC Response:
We set forth first the entire text of the passage
in question.
9 “[Now after He had risen early on the first
day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene,
from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10 She
went and reported to those who had been with Him,
while they were mourning and weeping. 11 And when
they heard that He was alive, and had been seen
by her, they refused to believe it.
12 And after that, He appeared in a different
form to two of them, while they were walking along
on their way to the country. 13 And they went
away and reported it to the others, but they did
not believe them either.
14 And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves
as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached
them for their unbelief and hardness of heart,
because they had not believed those who had seen
Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them,
‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to
all creation. 16 He who has believed and has
been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved
shall be condemned. 17 And these signs will
accompany those who have believed: in My name
they will cast out demons, they will speak with
new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and
if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not
hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and
they will recover.’
19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to
them, He was received up into heaven, and sat
down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went
out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked
with them, and confirmed the word by the signs
that followed”] (Mark 16:9-20, NASB).
This text is bracketed because the earliest manuscript
evidence does not contain verses 9-20 in the Greek
Text. The King James includes these verses with
no asterisk. The NIV leaves them out entirely
with a note explaining that they are not in the
earliest manuscripts. So, we have a disputed
text of Scripture and we must be careful.
We shall go forward with the assumption of the
question that Mark 16:9-20 is a part of the inspired
text. We do so because in this scenario it gets
us to the point of the question.
It is unwise to frame the question to Rome in
the manner in which it is stated. The way the
question is declared gives the strong impression
that baptism is necessary for salvation if one
gets the order between faith and baptism correct.
Evidently, the questioner has only a problem with
baptizing infants who cannot believe rather than
the entire concept of baptism being necessary
for salvation.
Rome answers by agreeing that baptism and faith
are both necessary for salvation as a universal
norm. Rome and the questioner are in agreement.
But we must strongly disagree with this implicit
accord. Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Baptism is the response brought about by conversion
to Jesus Christ. It is the effect of salvation
but not the cause of salvation. The only instrumental
cause of salvation is faith. Baptism has its
place as a beautiful picture of identifying with
the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ
but is never given the purpose of bringing about
salvation in the Bible.
We argue that baptism never stands alone as the
event which brings about salvation or receptivity
of the Holy Spirit. We find the indwelling ministry
of the Holy Spirit given on the condition of faith
without water throughout the Bible. We find that
water baptism occurs after the event of faith
in each and every recorded salvation experience
in the Bible. The question is this. “Is Baptism
necessary for salvation?” We argue that it is
not. Baptism does not bring about salvation.
Nor is it one of several conditions without which
there can be no salvation. Nor is it the final
step to effect salvation. Salvation is by grace
through faith alone. It is conditioned upon repentance/faith
with baptism as the ensuing event, which expresses
the heart’s desire of the saved to be identified
with Jesus Christ.
In Acts 16:29-34 we are given a narrative of
a conversion experience. The jailer at Philippi,
given charge to guard Paul and Silas, ultimately
asked them, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul
told him “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will
be saved- you and your household.” We read in
the next verse that they spoke the Word of the
Lord to them and to all the others of his household.
After washing the wounds of his prisoners, the
jailer and his household were baptized that very
evening. We first notice the order of events.
The message of salvation is spoken. “Believe
in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved¼” This
message is followed up by the Word of God spoken
to the Philipian jailer and his household. Then
follows baptism.
Rome would argue that those baptized had received
the sacrament of baptism and it was necessary
for their salvation. Yet, that is not the message
pronounced here in Acts 16. Also, Rome would
argue for infants to receive Baptism in light
of the fact that the household was baptized.
However, against this is the text, which affirms
that those who believed were baptized.
“¼he was filled with joy because he had come to
believe in God –he and his household” (Acts 16:34).
Even more compelling is the testimony of Acts
10 wherein the Holy Spirit falls upon all those
who heard the message of Peter. What was Peter’s
message?
“All the prophets testify about Him that everyone
who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins
through His name” (Acts 10: 43, NASB).
While Peter is still speaking, the Holy Spirit
falls upon those listening and they begin giving
evidence by speaking in tongues. Upon seeing
this, Peter asks, “Can anyone keep these people
from being baptized with water?” “They have received
the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47 NASB).
Clearly we see both faith and the coming of the
Holy Spirit precede water baptism. This is the
order repeated again and again in the early conversion
reports recorded in Acts. We find Lydia’s heart
opened by the Lord and then baptized in Acts 16.
We find the Ethiopian eunuch baptized after having
heard the good news explained to him by Philip.
We find the apostle Paul baptized after coming
to faith in the Lord. In no case does Baptism
bring about salvation and in no case is baptism
necessary for salvation. It does not stand alone.
Baptism is always coupled with belief-repentance-turning
and trusting Jesus Christ and His finished work
at the cross.
Rome wants to make certain that there are exceptions
to its faith/baptismal formula for salvation.
Rome admits that the thief on the cross was not
baptized and that children before the age of accountability
cannot really believe. In both cases they are
safe because they have not the “ability” on the
one hand to be baptized and on the other hand,
they have not the ability to believe. This is
all summed up as follows:
“So for the one who can believe, it is
necessary for salvation. And for the one who can
be baptized, baptism is necessary for salvation.”
Rome is simply wrong here. Baptism is not necessary
for anyone’s salvation. It is the response of
those who have already been saved. It is not
a condition of eternal life. A refusal to be
baptized exposes an unbelieving heart but baptism
adds nothing to the true heart of faith. The
apostle Paul refused to confuse the preaching
of the gospel with baptism while at Corinth.
17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize but
to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom,
lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power”
(I Cor. 1:17, RSV).
We now turn our attention to the Romish practice
of infant baptism. Initially, Mr. Staples resorts
to the commonly mistaken and misapplied association
between the OT practice of circumcision and the
NT command to baptize. The argument so commonly
reiterated is that because Israel circumcised
her babies into the Old Covenant, then Christians
ought to baptize their babies into the New Covenant.
It is argued that baptism takes the place and
form of circumcision in the Old Testament. This,
of course, is a superficial treatment of both
baptism and circumcision. Circumcision was given
to Abraham as a sign and seal of his faith in
God. Circumcision was given to the nation of
Israel (the physical seed and household of Abraham,
including Ishmael) as a sign of a covenanted nation.
Those who wish to treat the two as one replacing
the other tend to depict and classify circumcision
with NT terminology reserved for baptism. They
also explain the meaning of baptism with OT terminology
reserved only for circumcision. This mixing of
apples with oranges serves only to abuse the proper
place of both. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant
in Christ and is set aside for those who are believers
in Christ. Circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant
with a nation and was given as a national marker
to those in the nation as well as their children.
The circumcision of the OT did not serve as a
suitable sign of being in Christ. Thus, the apostle
Paul, along with all other believers in Christ,
was baptized despite carrying on his body the
mark of circumcision. The two are simply not the
same nor do they signify the same realities.
To make them the same and use this imaginary identicalness
as the reason for infant baptism is foreign to
the text of the New Testament.
Let us listen to the mighty assertions of Rome:
“Baptism is called ‘the circumcision of Christ’
in Col. 2:11-12. If babies were circumcised at
eight days in the Old Testament, there should
be no question that babies are to be baptized
in the New Testament! Baptism takes away all
sin (Col. 2:13; 11-12, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21),
including original sin that is on the soul of
every child (c.f. Romans 5:12) and initiates us
into the body of Christ (Romans 2:27-28, 6:3-4).”
Let us answer these sweeping statements one at
a time:
- Is baptism called the circumcision of Christ
in the same sense as circumcision was performed
in the Old Testament? The answer is no! Here
is the text of Colossians 2.
8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through
philosophy and empty deception, according to the
tradition of men, according to the elementary
principles of the world, rather than according
to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fulness of Deity
dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have
been made complete, and He is the head over all
rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were
also circumcised with a circumcision made without
hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh
by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been
buried with Him in baptism, in which you were
also raised up with Him through faith in the working
of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col.
2:88-13, NASB).
We have underlined the portion of the text used
by Rome to prove its position. We point out that
the circumcision spoken of here is not the circumcision
of the Old Testament. It is useful for the apostle
to utilize circumcision language to illustrate
a greater and new line of reasoning. In Christ
all are made complete. In Christ all are circumcised
with a special spiritual circumcision made without
hands. This special circumcision is the removal
of the body of flesh (elsewhere the destruction
of the old man and liberation of the Christian
from the bondage of sin and corruption) by the
spiritual circumcision of Christ. As the OT demanded
a cutting away of a portion of the flesh to identify
with the Covenant God made with Israel, so the
NT calls for a new and more significant “cutting
away” of the “flesh” i.e. spiritual bondage by
Jesus Christ. The picture of being buried with
Christ in baptism (either at the point of belief
i.e. spiritual baptism of being baptized into
Christ and His Body, or physical baptism in response
to conversion) is presented as occurring through
faith. The language of being buried with Christ
and being raised up with Christ is symbolic of
the spiritual realities of being in Christ through
faith. It has nothing to do with making NT baptism
the same thing as OT circumcision.
2. Does baptism take away all sin? The answer
is no! Circumcision did not take away any sins
in the OT and baptism does not take away any sins
in the NT. Both signs are significations of the
realities they represent, but they are not sin
forgiving events in the lives of those under whose
jurisdiction they fall (OT citizens of Israel
for circumcision and NT saints in Christ for baptism])
It is common for Rome to throw around Bible verses
in an effort to add legitimacy to its claims.
In this case, Rome appeals to the words of Ananias
as repeated by the apostle Paul in the recounting
of his call to Christ. But also, Rome throws
in I Peter 3:21 as a proof text that baptism takes
away all sins.
We point out instantly that the baptism of Paul
and the subsequent statements by Peter in 1 Peter
3:21 are not referring to infant baptism. Rome,
and others, find it convenient to take a verse
dedicated to adult believer’s baptism and use
it as a proof for infant baptism. There are no
infant baptisms recorded in the New Testament.
Not one!
But what about Paul in Acts 22:16. Did he have
his sins washed away in baptism? The answer to
this comes in layers. First, water cannot wash
away sins. The formal act of baptism has no power
of its own to carry off sins. Second, there is
no evidence in the New Testament that a power
is given to a priestly class that has the capacity
to make the waters become efficacious to forgive
sins. Thirdly, Paul had been converted already
to Christ and had been so recognized as a believer
in Christ. The waters of baptism are not for
the unbeliever but for the believer. The apostle
Paul is no exception to this. Hence, it is the
blood of Christ, gained by faith, which brings
forgiveness of sins to the believer. Fifthly,
and this is the most difficult to understand,
the NT is not written as a systematic theology.
Hence, there are statements made and events recorded,
especially in the book or Acts, which beg for
clarification in light of the rest of the NT.
It is best to understand that in the historical
context of the establishment of the church baptism
and the formal expression of faith are almost
indistinguishable. To believe is to be baptized
and to be baptized is to believe. They are not
quite synonymous but they are so closely knit
that they are often used for each other. There
are no un-baptized believers in the New Testament.
All who believe are baptized. Baptism is the
signature of faith in the NT and sometimes it
is written in blood for those who joyfully come
forward to publicly profess their faith in the
waters of baptism. The moment of baptism is so
tied into the moment of faith that, in the event
of baptism itself the forgiveness of sins and
the blood of Christ are so richly presented, that
the NT puts the thing signifying (baptism) for
the thing signified (faith) all in one breath.
Later in the development of the Body of Christ
the event of baptism is set off from the moment
of faith lest baptism be given supernatural powers
and men abuse the baptismal font with unsanctioned
and evil intent to gain spiritual ascendancy over
others in the same vein as Simon Magus who, in
ill-found zeal, sought to purchase the power of
the Holy Spirit. Such is the case of Rome. Rome’s
magicians make magic of the water and apply it
to both adults and unbelieving infants. This
kind of abuse forces us to make doubly certain
that the events of faith and baptism are not to
be confused as one and the same.
3. In response to our stand, Rome appeals to
1 Peter 3: 21. Rome claims that baptism stands
alone as the cause of salvation. The text is
as follows:
“And corresponding to that, baptism now saves
you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but
an appeal to God for a good conscience-through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (I Peter 3:21).
This one little sentence, “baptism now saves
you” is seized upon by Rome to prove that baptism
stands alone as the cause of salvation. Again,
we must emphasize that the verse says too much
if Rome takes it in this manner. For, if baptism
saves then there is no necessity for the remaining
Roman sacraments, which also are said to be necessary
for salvation.
However, contra Rome and the modern church
of Christ baptismal regenerationists,
1Peter 3:21 does not teach baptism is necessary
for salvation. Peter pictures baptism as corresponding
to the waters into which Noah and his family passed
safely at the time of the flood. As Noah and
his family passed through the water safely in
the Ark, so we pass through the waters symbolically
in the New Covenant Ark of Jesus Christ. Baptism
is a wonderful picture of passing through the
waters of judgment safely having been put into
Christ through faith. Noah and his wife, sons
and daughter’s in law were ceremonially cleansed
by the waters of the flood and brought safely
through the waters all at once. Baptism pictures
our cleansing in Christ as well.
We thus depart for now from the “spin zone of
Rome” and ask that all who are in Rome and out
of Rome to be very, very careful with the Scriptures
so as to put them together rightly. This often
times is difficult and great effort and patience
is needed to be a workman approved. But in the
end these matters are of an eternal weight. Someone
is right and someone is wrong. Someone has the
gospel right and someone is eternally mistaken.
May the Lord give Roman Catholic people a conviction
and a deep desire to search the Scriptures to
see if these things are true.
By all mercy, in Christ, by faith alone,
RMZ
|
