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

By -
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: