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

Ken Ham's Illustrations on Spiritual Warfare Against Humanism

Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis made these beautiful illustrations to show what's wrong with the church today. Let's take a look at the two illustrations on how Christians engage their spiritual warfare. 
The first illustration reveals the following:
One member is asleep when he should be doing something.Another person is firing at the balloons because the person who's supposed to fire it is asleep on the job.Somebody is focused on deflecting cannon balls than hitting the source of the cannon balls.Somebody is treating the whole situation like a game.  
By doing so, humanism is victorious whenever the local church is asleep. This is the problem to why Christians tend to fall down in battle at times:
Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
In short, if you're not going to stand in the gap on behalf of the land then who will? It's the…

The Ridiculous Roman Catholic View That Marriage Must Be Done Inside Their Church or It's Invalid

I remembered reading through the seven sacraments or ordinances of the Roman Catholic institution in a catechism. One of the teachings is that marriage must be treated as a sacrament. What it also implies is that if your marriage is done in a civil court that even if it was duly registered, that both couples were in a sexually pure union then it's not a marriage. So does that mean that a person can marry in a civil court, get divorced and marry his next spouse in the Roman Catholic institution?

Let's address the issue of civil marriage that is pure and holy. In short there was no incest, no adultery and it was between two people who are eligible for marriage. So why should the Roman Catholic institution even think that two people who got married with the sexually pure prerequisites in the eyes of God should be rejected. Is it because unless it's a priest who performs the marriage then the marriage can't be validated? It's a problem with how Roman Catholics have thei…

Don't Forget That the Roman Catholic Institution Has a Very Long History of Inciting Sedition

The Roman Catholic institution has its long fraudulent history of claiming to be the "One True Church that was founded n 33 A.D. - Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". The word catholic is a synonym for universal but the disciples were never first called Catholics in Antioch but Christians (Acts 11:26). Catholic was used as an old world for universal which some people today are allergic to that word because Catholic has been used to describe people who are members of the Roman Catholic institution. What can be talked about now is the fact that the Roman Catholic institution has had a long history of inciting sedition in governments. While they claim it to be doing the "work of God" or as the Jesuits say "Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam" or "For the greater glory of God." but is it really?

Doing some study of the history of the Vatican has it shown that the Inquisition and later the Jesuit Order have a lot of bloody rags to answer for. Did you know that many ki…

Understanding Ignatius of Antioch's Statement on the Eucharist

It's already expected that Roman Catholicism takes Scriptures out of context and/or purposely misreads it. If they can't even handle the Word of God with reverence then I don't expect them to handle anything else with reverence except it be the writing of the past Popes and the Roman Catholic priests. One such man is the Christian bishop or overseer. In case Roman Catholics want to argue that the term "bishop" would prove he's one of their kind then they are mistaken. To be a bishop according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is to be a church leader. Besides, the same passage says that bishops must be family men of moral dignity which is impossible for a Roman Catholic priest who's bound to celibacy. Please note 1 Corinthians 7:35-37 is not a command for priests to stay single all their lives!
Now here's a popular misquote from the very passage of Ignatius of Antioch to justify the doctrine of transubstantiation: They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, bec…

Testimony of Former Jesuit Priest Victor J. Affonso

To Follow Jesus Without Compromise by Victor J. Affonso
Why I joined the Society of Jesus
At the age of 23, I was a successful commercial artist on the verge of going abroad where a job was awaiting me. I was happy at the prospect of leaving India and thereby also escaping the terrible anguish caused of seeing the misery of the poor in the streets of Bombay.
Political saviors like Gandhi and Nehru had failed in giving true freedom and justice to India’s poor majority. Murder and divisions assailed “independent” India, and so it still is today. All the social works were but a few drops of water in a desert. Yet there was still one solution left: The words of Jesus kept coming to me during prayer, “…For with God ALL things are possible” (Mark 10:27). “Don’t run away!” On another day I heard the words, “Follow My Son — Jesus!” This word finally led me to leave the world and join the Society of Jesus, a missionary order that promised by its very title, its “Spiritual Exercises” and its C…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

God's Curse Upon Gambling!

One of the greatest hypocrisies that people are facing right now is the sin of legalized gambling. Why do I dare say it is hypocritical? It's because for one legalized gambling promotes all type of filth. We have laws against adultery but not against pornography, we have laws against stealing but not against gambling which is really a sin. Today, Christians must voice out not only against legalized prostitution and legalized pornography, they must also voice against legalized gambling. 1 Timothy 6:10 is true that in these days, the love for money is the root of all evil in the secular world plus gambling is mainly rooted upon the love for money. We ought to think that in every way, money is not evil but the love for it is really evil. Gambling in itself is fed because of the love of money. Pastor Mike Stahl a Baptist preacher had also revealed the ill effects of gambling, in truth it is a very lucrative business that sadly destroys lives. To be honest, gambling has been one of th…