Skip to main content

Refuting the False Accusation From Some Roman Catholics that Born Again Christians Reject the Sacraments

There's some Roman Catholic apologists that claim born again Christians supposedly reject the sacraments. First, let's define sacrament. This is what Theopedia has to say as the definition of the word sacrament:
A sacrament is a rite or ceremony instituted by Jesus, and observed by the church as a means of or visible sign of grace. The English word sacrament is from the Latin sacramentum, which means to make holy, or to consecrate. 
Sacraments are ceremonial in nature, which separates them from other things that Jesus instructed believers to do (e.g. "go and make disciples of all nations," Matthew 28:18).

The claim that born again Christians reject the sacraments is very unfounded as the claim that sacraments save the soul of the person. No, Roman Catholic priests don't save anyone's souls because they themselves need saving. The issue is not about sacraments but what the Roman Catholic institution teaches about sacraments.

There's a big difference between what Roman Catholics and born again Christians teach on the sacraments. The Roman Catholic institution views the sacraments as the means of grace to receive forgiveness of sins. The born again Christian view of the sacraments is that they're ordained not to maintain salvation but as proof and part of sanctification.

The sacrament of baptism

Baptism in the Bible was meant for believers. Acts 2:41 says that first they believed then they were baptized. Baptism by default was done by immersion. It's really stupid to laugh at baptism by immersion when the Bible gives us examples of baptism by immersion. While there can be certain exemptions like water scarce areas or very sick people but baptism is usually by immersion. There's no excuse not to get immersed unless you're given situations where it doesn't make sense. But if you're not in a desert, there's a lot of clean water there, you're not bedridden then you don't have an excuse not to get immersed.

What's the proof baptism in the Bible started by immersion? Please read the account of Jesus' baptism. Matthew 3:16 says Jesus went into the water and out of the water. If baptism by immersion were heresy then Roman Catholics should consider condemning John the Baptist and even the Lord Jesus Himself. Jesus allowed Himself to be immersed into the water and out of it. The same happened in Acts 8:36-38. There's much water. Don't tell me that Philip was just sprinkled. They both went into the water and out of it. Too many verses get misquoted to condemn baptism by immersion and defend the idea that babies need to be baptized.

A severe misinterpretation of Acts 2:38 makes you think baptism is needed for salvation. The word "for" is "eis" which stands for "because of". Baptism took place because they already believed the message. Every new believer in Christ are already entitled to the sacrament of baptism. If you take things into context, Peter preached the message, called for repentance and asked people to get baptized immediately.

While some Protestant groups do practice infant baptism but it differs from the Roman Catholic view. Presbyterians practice infant baptism as a form of infant dedication and by no means taught that the infant needed it to be forgiven of one's sins. The problem is that Roman Catholicism has taught infant baptism as something necessary to gain forgiveness of sins for people below the age of accountability.

The sacrament of the Lord's supper

The other is the sacrament of the Lord's supper. Born again Christians don't reject the sacraments per se but they reject the idea of transubstantiation. If the bread and the wine literally become the Body and Blood of Christ is not biblical. Jesus didn't always mean everything literally. While Hell is indeed literal and that's where fire literally doesn't quench and the worms don't die but there are times He's using a figure of speech. Knowing when He does is important. 1 Corinthians 11:28-30 doesn't talk about the literal body and blood but it's what some call the spiritual presence. The bread and the wine don't become literal flesh and blood or gain divinity but it's symbolism and spiritual presence is still there.

Jesus was pointing to both the bread and the wine symbolically. The ceremony happened during the evening as the Lord's supper. What was passed around involved both the bread and the wine. The Roman Catholic way has deprived the laity of drinking the wine and only partaking of the bread. As the question should be raised is about the wine. The other question that could be raised is why is supper served as breakfast and snacks? Nobody serves supper any time of the day except during the evening.

Roman Catholics do have a big problem. They misquote John 6:51-57 to justify their false doctrine of transubstantiation. The problem is that they say that you must eat the flesh and drink the blood. If the doctrine were true they don't have eternal life for this reason. Roman Catholics only partake in the bread but not in the wine. Born again Christians may not share the same cup but they partake of the wine through small cups containing the wine. 1 Corinthians 11:26 says that you eat of the bread and drink of the cup. In their case only the priest has eternal life. Born again Christians who eat both the bread and drink of the wine every time it's Lord's supper have eternal life according to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Is the word sacrament still applicable in Christian langunage?

Note that many Christian creeds have used sacraments and ordinances as synonyms. The Westminister Confession of Faith by Presbyterians use the term sacraments. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith uses the word ordinance. Both words are synonymous. To argue that the word sacrament doesn't exist in the Bible doesn't mean it can't be used. We can't see the word Trinity in the Bible but its synonym Godhead is found in the Bible as another term for the Trinity. It's best to remember language definitions may change overtime like like thou and thees aren't used in the English language but they used to be use as a singular form of yours and you. The King James uses thou for singular and you and yours for plural. So the word sacrament is still applicable though it can also be very misleading to some but it could still be used as a synonym for church ceremonies related to both baptism and Lord's supper.

See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Do Feminists Ever Realize That Women Shouldn't Use Acts of Violence Against Men?

It's irritating to be told that men shouldn't use violence on women but the other way around is okay. No, it's not okay to hit anyone regardless of gender out of anger or frustration. If men shouldn't hit women except in acts of self-defense then the other way round should apply. But you have to remember the stupidity of selective justice and selective outrage of feminists. They think men should respect them while they think discriminating against men is okay. Their quest for "equality" is nothing more than a big joke.

Why is it usually a big fuzz when a man hits a woman but not so many people react if a woman hits a man? That kind of hypocrisy is worth addressing. They say men shouldn't hit women because they are "weaker" but is it okay for a person of lower rank to attack a person of higher rank? The word submission doesn't exist in the feminist dictionary unless it's men submitting to them. Whether they like it or not the husband is t…

You Can't Preach About God's Love For Sinners Without Preaching About His Wrath Against Sin

It's a problem that so many quack preachers love to preach God's love for sinners but not about God's wrath against them because He must punish both the sin and the sinner. Everything from God's love to His wrath is dictated by the fact that He is holy and you are not. The message about God's love for sinners will make no sense if you don't preach about God's wrath against sin first. I remembered listening to "Hell's Best Kept Secret" and "True and False Conversion" by Ray Comfort. There was this point where Kirk Cameron talked about what if I sold my property to save someone from a disease. If the person doesn't know anything about the disease then my selling of all my property to pay for the badly needed treatment won't make sense. Another illustration was all about the flight. You have to tell the person that the parachute is not meant to improve the flight but to tell the person that it's for emergency reasons. If you…

It's Not Okay to Be Blindly Loyal to the Pope and His Army of Pharisees

Some rabid Roman Catholics keep sensationalizing the sins of fraud pastors (as if true born again Christians ever support them) while they keep hiding the sins of their priests or Pharisees. They also say that born again Christians are blindly loyal to the pastor never mind that they are blindly loyal to the Pope and his Pharisees. Blind loyalty towards a a prosperity gospel pastor, a so-called successor of a so-called last messenger or any quack preacher is no different than blind loyalty towards the Pope and his Pharisees. Worse, Roman Catholics believe that their Pharisees are instruments in saving their souls or that the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands never mind all the priestly scandals are telling them otherwise.

I could remember how often Bible reading is discouraged (and yet some of these rabid Roman Catholics tell me I should read the Bible and I can't get wrong with it) because it could drive me crazy from reading it. Some Roman Catholics I've met &quo…

Don't Even Think About Legalizing Prostitution or Sex Trade

There's some people who seek to legalize prostitution. Some "rational" atheists are already talking about prostitution should be legalized so it could be controlled by the government. The claim that "studies" show that prohibition doesn't work is a lie straight from the pits of Hell. The Israelites were doing sin not because God forbade it but because they were disobedient and the rulers did nothing to prevent those sins. It's not surprising is that the same people who seek to legalize prostitution also want to legalize narcotics and hard liquor all in the name of "succeeding in the war against them".

The logic behind legalizing prostitution is that so the government can control them and tax them. But the problem with the quest to legalize prostitution is that it encourages the sin rather than discourage it. The problem is not the war against prostitution but ignoring Ecclesiastes 8:11. Do you know why the war against prostitution isn't wo…

Is Salvation in Peter's Hands (As Well as the Popes) Because Jesus Supposedly Gave Him the Literal Keys of Heaven?

According to a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologist (who I'll probably dub as Mr. Whistle when I mention him) he claimed that salvation is in the hands of Peter because Jesus gave the former the keys of Heaven. The guy is clearly taking things out of context with what he says. I wonder does he even bother to check out the idioms of the Bible since some passages use a figure of speech instead of speaking everything literally?

If he can't get Matthew 16:18 correctly where he said that Peter the Rock even when the Good News Translation for Roman Catholics says otherwise (and worse for them Peter is differentiated as a rock and the Rock is clearly not him) then he also misinterprets Matthew 16:19. Let's try to understand Matthew 16:19 with the keys and what they really mean. In his interpretation he's already telling everyone that born again Christians should just go back to the Roman Catholic institution because the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands. I don&…

Atheists With Abusive Mindsets Do Exist

It's a myth over the modern world that there's no such thing as an atheist with an abusive mindset. I can see atheists who claim that abuses only come through theism. I don't deny that there's such a thing as religious people with an abusive mindset such as Roman Catholic fanatics, Islamic extremists and any form of religious extremism. The problem of the claim is that it denies the reality that there's such a thing as atheists who have an abusive mindset. One such person is the late Christopher Hitchens who claims that he has the right o treat religion with ridicule, hatred and contempt. Isn't that an example of an atheist with an abusive mindset? Sad to say, Hitchens himself is still cursing God from the pits of Hell. Christians should pray that Richard Dawkins wouldn't make the same wrong decision as Hitchens.

One horrible atheist blogger claimed he was indeed one of the most scientific people on Earth. Just reading his blog alone is so tiresome that I&…

Why This Ministry DOES NOT Support the Westboro Baptist Church

The Westboro Baptist Church is a so-called Baptist institution founded by Fred Phelps who is a lawyer and a theologian. Is it your average Baptist assembly or is this another of Satan's brain children? I would like to present my stand why this ministry does not support the Westboro Baptist Church and why as a Baptist, I do not support them either:
The founder Fred Phelps who serves as its pastor. I do find it disturbing he says that he supports sound doctrine of good Christian preachers of the past like John Calvin and Charles Haddon Spurgeon but his doctrine is not sound at all. His preaching is definitely not balanced. While I do appreciate him attacking the Great Whore of Revelation, apostasy, ecumenism, homosexuality, abortion, pornography and a lot of sins however he is no better than the Roman Catholic institution which he frequently criticizes. Although he claims to be a Calvinist and a Spurgeon fan, however many of those who are Calvinist preachers like Paul Washer, John …