Answering The Roman Catholic Church 9

“By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. … The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’ God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism … Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit. … From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant” (The New Catholic Catechism, 1994, #1263,1257,1265,1267).

David Cloud writes in his Way Of Life Encyclopedia of Christianity and The Bible,

Infant baptism is contrary to the New Testament teaching about baptism. Infant baptism uses the wrong mode—sprinkling rather than immersion. Infant baptism uses the wrong subject—infants unable to believe and be born again. Infant baptism has the wrong purpose—to impart salvation or spiritual blessings. (WOL Encyclopedia, Pg. 48, Way of Life Publications)

  • There can be found in the Bible zero verses in support of infant “baptism”.
  • There can be found in the Bible zero verses supporting “baptism” by sprinkling.

Here are all the verses in the New Testament which talk about sprinkling.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: Hebrews 9:13 (KJV)

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Hebrews 9:19 (KJV)

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. Hebrews 9:21 (KJV)

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22 (KJV)

28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. Hebrews 11:28 (KJV)

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. Hebrews 12:24 (KJV)

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:2 (KJV)

I’m sure you’re wondering, “How is he ever going to get out of this one? That seems pretty conclusive to me!” Okay, let’s try an exercise. Don’t skim the verses. Read them.


Did you spot it yet?

What word is missing? Baptize. Baptized. Baptism.

Baptism in the Old Testament is only by full immersion. All the uses of “Sprinkle” or “sprinkled” are for three things…

  • Oil – kind of rough on a person to immerse them in the anointing oil. It would take DAYS to get that off you! So they were anointed or sprinkled depending on the uses of it.
  • Blood – The Lord was merciful in that Old Testament saints were just anointed or sprinkled with the blood, not fully immersed. Again, kind of oogy and creepy if we had to be fully submersed in pools of blood. Ugh. Many people would vomit at the sight or smell of it – let alone get into it.
  • Water of cleansing – this is the water that had the ashes of the Red Heifer (Parah Adumah in Hebrew, for you language fanatics) mixed in it.

The water of cleansing was sprinkled on the tent of meeting, to avoid ruining it (both the water of cleansing, and the sanctuary!) and on those who were Za’arah. The za’arot is a skin disease no longer on the earth right now. The translators of the King James Bible preferred to render this as “Leprosy”. Why? It was a form of leprosy, but not the kind we currently are familiar with (Hanson’s Disease). Hanson’s disease cannot spread to clothing or earthen homes. The Za’arah Leprosy could.

The water of purification was sprinkled on the Za’arot. why? Because if you dunked the leper into it… it contaminated the water of purification, and it could no longer be used for anything else. And red heifer’s are in very short supply. The Parah Adumah had to be without blemish, all red with no white hairs. It’s probable that the same water of purification was used for centuries until another red heifer could be found… and more prepared.

And after the leper was cured, he was to… what?

9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean. Leviticus 14:9 (KJV)

Full immersion. The Jewish people have always understood Baptism to mean full immersion. The Mikvah (baptismal) was always one that one stepped into, and immersed your entire body three times, to ensure every part of your body went under the water.

So the New Testament operates under the understanding of what was taught in the Old Testament.

“This false sacramental gospel kept my parents from ever telling me that I was a sinner and needed a Savior. They thought that I had received eternal life in baptism. I am positive that there are millions of Lutherans believing the same thing my parents did and which I was taught and believed for many years. I was saved at age 45 when I finally heard the true gospel and believed it. We believe that millions of souls are at stake because of this false teaching” (The Berean Call, August 2001).

The baptism of John teaches full immersion…

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. John 3:22-23 (KJV)

If baptism were by sprinkling… all John needed was a flagon of water. Good to go! No need to go to the deep part of the Jordan. Notice Hebrews 10:22 uses “sprinkled” referring to blood, and “Washed” to refer to baptism. they are two different things, two different mediums, and tlaking about two different subjects – salvation and sanctification.

Baptism is not a “sacrament” or “Means of added grace”. It is a symbol, an outward sign. It should be the first act of a believer, showing his voluntary obedience to the word of God. If you depend on it to save, believe it or not, you have put the cart before the horse. You have the tail wagging the dog.

You need to be born again first. admit you are a sinner, and that there is no way you can save yourself. You are doomed to Hell, now and forever, unless the Lord saves you.

Repent of your sins, confess to the Lord Jesus Christ you are a sinner. Tell Him you’re sorry for your sins and rebellion, and ask Him to save you from Hell.

If you do this with an honest and repentant heart, then the Lord will save you. There’l be evidence in your life, a changed nature. You’ll want to read the Bible, and attend a Godly church, one that teaches proper doctrine and Biblical truth. No changed nature? You weren’t born again.

Once you find that you are showing the evidences of a changed life, join a Godly church. Your baptism should be done from the motive of, “The Bible says i should do this. So I’m going to do it. I don’t want anything to stand in the way of it.” If you have any other motives for wanting to be baptized, go back to step one.

You’ll find that your attitude about your baptism by immersion was, “There. I did it. I obeyed the Lord.” You should feel… wet until you dry off. That’s about it. There’s no mystic sensation, no lightening of the spirit, no pins and needles (unless they left the baptismal warmer plugged in, and it has a short in it…). Baptism was just your identification with the death of the Lord and His bodily ressurection. “Buried with Him in death…raised to walk in the newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)

Getting back to infant baptism, the doctrine as taught by many churches is that the Church replaces Israel. This is incorrect. For starters, we need to understand that the Bible almost always refers to Churches, not to a universal church. Israel is Israel. Christianity is Christianity. Yes, all of Israel will eventually be born again believers, those that accept Christ while still alive. But the “Church” does not replace Israel.

Next, the Roman Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran Churches teach that since Israel had circumcision, this is replaced by Baptism.

That has no scriptural support whatsoever. Jewish males are circumcised on the eighth day. Jewish women are not. Is infant baptism for males only? No. So by practice they admit this is not true. It’s just an attempt to find a Scripture, ANYWHERE, that can justify an unBiblical practice.


Answering The Roman Catholic Church 8

Yesterday we discussed the beginning about Baptismal Regeneration. Now we’re going to briefly examine it, and again deal with – how are we saved? Today, I’m going to let the Bible answer you.

50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. Luke 7:50 (KJV) 42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. Luke 18:42 (KJV) 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Acts 15:11 (KJV) 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Romans 3:24 (KJV) 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Romans 3:28-30 (KJV) 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5 (KJV) 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Romans 4:16 (KJV) 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:Romans 5:1 (KJV)

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. Romans 9:30 (KJV)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Romans 10:4 (KJV)

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. Romans 11:6 (KJV)

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:16 (KJV)

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 (KJV)

He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Galatians 3:5-6 (KJV)

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24 (KJV)

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Ephesians 1:13 (KJV)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)

 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: Philippians 3:9 (KJV)

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)

We are saved by Faith, not by works, as Ephesians points out. Romans 11:6 points out if it be works it is none more grace. In other words, if you believe you must earn your salvation, then it is no longer grace.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Baptism saves. Nowhere. It is a misunderstanding of John 3:5 – and John 3:6 explains the meaning of John 3:5.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 (KJV)

When we examine John 3:6, the Lord explains the symbolism.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3:6-8 (KJV)

The water birth is the first, natural birth. You must be born again of the spirit. Although I have heard the interpretation that the Gospel is represented in this discussion by the term “water”, and I don’t have a problem with that, as the Bible does describe the Gospel as being “Living waters”. I hesitate to apply that usage, as it can lead one to spiritualize everything in the Bible, and that is the first error of Hermaneutics – “Seek the plain sense, lest any other sense make nonsense.”

David Cloud says in his Way Of Life Encyclopedia of Christianity and The Bible,

What Is the Purpose of Baptism? It is not for salvation, but is a public testimony of faith in Christ and a picture of the gospel. To interpret the Bible properly, the Bible teacher must “compare spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13). The false teacher, though, takes verses out of context and uses isolated verses to overthrow the clear teaching of the Bible as a whole. He puts one definition on a Bible word and then forces that definition into all passages, regardless of the context. That is what those do who teach that baptism is a part of salvation.

False teachers use John 3:5 to teach the heresy of baptismal regeneration, claiming that to be “born of water” refers to salvation. For the following reasons, we know this is not true: (1) The passage says absolutely nothing about baptism. (2) Jesus is contrasting the natural birth with the spiritual birth. Thus “born of water” refers to the tiny unborn baby enclosed in a sack of water in his mother’s womb; and when the water breaks he is born of water. (3) In this same passage, Christ taught that salvation is by faith alone and not by ritual or works (Jn. 3:14-18, 36). (WOL Encyclopedia, Pg. 46, Way Of Life Publications)

Again, as I pointed out in the beginning of the Roman Catholic series, Baptism is a work. Salvation must be of grace, not of works. I can boast, “I was baptized!” I cannot boast, “I surrendered my life to the Lord and asked Him to save me.

Even if salvation was by baptism (and I think I’ve proved pretty conclusively it is not), the Roman Catholic certainly cannot apply. Why? Because you must choose to be saved. And an infant cannot choose to be saved.

“What about the scores of Protestants that were baptized as babies? Doesn’t that mean you’re saying only Catholics can’t be saved by baptism???”

No, I’m saying that anyone that is “Baptized” as an infant has not been baptized. Nobody on earth is saved by baptism. We are saved by grace, by repentance and by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible makes that clear, abundantly clear. Any Protestant that rests on getting their forehead wet as their salvation is in for a horrible shock a second or two after death. Those flames are not a mythical purgatory. That’s hellfire. And you will be there forever, not until “your sins are paid for.” How many Roman Catholics are in eternal torment because the Roman Catholic “church” lied to them about salvation? And the horror sinks in when you realize that some of them may still be holding out in the hope that it will someday end when their “Penance” is completed. The truth will sink in eventually – this is not purgatory. This is Hell.

But we’ll deal with that soon enough as we deal with Purgatory.

So any Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Methodist, Roman Catholic, etc. who thinks “I’m saved because I was sprinkled as a baby”… you’re horribly mistaken.

Get a Bible, read it, study it. try to prove me wrong. But the point is, you must be prepared to believe exactly what the Bible teaches you. Not to look for proofs of your preconceived notions or to force it to conform to your doctrines, but rather to believe what it says.

History is full of men appointed by Lutherans, Episcopals, Roman Catholics, and Methodists who openly and honestly examined the Bible for proofs of infant Baptism… and who became Baptists as a result. Look it up. I’ve already listed most of the verses on this above.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 7

The subject of Baptismal Regeneration is one that most Christians are silent on.

Many protestant denominations and churches teach a modified form of Baptismal regeneration. Episcopals teach it, Lutherans consider it a means of “Added grace”, which again shows that most Protestant churches really only took a foot out of the Roman Catholic church , while leaving the other one fully planted in there! Baptist churches were never historically part of Rome, something else that annoys many protestants.

David Cloud writes, “The New Catholic Catechism (1994) dogmatically declares: ‘the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’ God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism…” (1257). (Is The Roman Catholic Church Changing? pg 60, David Cloud)

Billy Graham, an enthusiastic supporter of the Roman Catholic Church, once told the Lutheran Standard in an interview, “We cannot fully understand the miracles of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian, through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that’s all right with me” (Graham, interview with Wilfred Bockelman, associate editor of the Lutheran Standard, American Lutheran Church, Lutheran Standard, October 10, 1961).

That’s Ecumenism in action.

CARM, in their ‘Catholic Terminology’ writing defines Baptism as “Baptism – One of seven sacraments that takes away original sin and actual sin.” (CARM – Roman Catholicism E-Sword Module)

Salvation through Baptism, as I’ve already mentioned before, is a work. Again, to paraphrase CARM, Salvation is either by faith or by works. There’s no other option. You cannot say, “We are saved through faith, and then must maintain it by works.” That’s not salvation by faith. That’s Salvation by works and an unhealthy dose of lying to yourself.

You cannot say, “We are saved by faith and our works.” That is again salvation by works. Salvation is by faith, alone.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:14-19 (KJV)

There’s nothing in there about works, but obviously a born again experience.

23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:23-26 (KJV)

That’s a bottom line statement. “With men, it is impossible.” That’s the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Bottom line. We cannot save ourselves. “Who then can be saved?” “With God, all things are possible.” It is not possible to save ourselves.

We cannot earn our salvation. It must come from God.

The biggest error in false religions and denominations that hold to erroneous beliefs, is that of confusing Salvation and Sanctification. That’s the major problem. It is an error that is commonly made by both the unSaved, and also by new believers without enough Bible study. The more mature believer begins to leave that position almost immediately, having read through the Bible enough. The Roman Catholic Church makes that same error.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 6

It’s important, when dealing with the RCC, that we present all the data as clearly as we can. The Roman Catholic Church teaches things we don’t accept out of cults – so we should not embrace the Roman Catholic as a fellow Christian either.

  • When Jehovah’s Witnesses insist we are saved by works and not by grace through faith, we call them a cult.
  • When Roman Catholics believe we are saved by works and not by grace through faith, we call them Christians.
  • When Jehovah’s Witnesses insist you cannot be saved apart from the Watchtower Society, we call them a cult.
  • When Roman Catholics insist you cannot be saved apart from the Roman Catholic Church, we call them Christians.
  • When Jehovah’s Witnesses claim you cannot understand the Bible without their extra Biblical writings (Their weekly magazines), we call them a cult.
  • When Roman Catholics insist you cannot understand the Bible without their extra Biblical writings (The Magisterium), we call them Christians.

It’s time we stopped calling them Christians! It’s time we started calling Roman Catholics a cult… or we throw in the towel and just accept everybody.

Seventh Day Adventists? sure.

Mormons? Absolutely.

Jehovah’s Witnesses? The More the merrier!!!

House of Yahweh? Why not!!!

Because each and every one of these cults worships a different Jesus, follows a false Gospel, and dooms their followers to an unending torment in Hell. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists will be the most surprised, as they deny the existence of Hell. That’s not really the time to find out you were wrong!

Now, we looked at Roman Catholic commentaries yesterday on John chapter 3, which details the conversation on “What must I do to be saved?” between the Lord Jesus Christ and Nicodemus. We saw that there was quizzical wonderings and less than sure statements in this most important chapter. It left you with the feeling that the average Roman Catholic priest has absolutely no idea how to be saved. The phrase “Born Again” was skipped over, or wondered at, and concluded, “It is a mystery.”

However, this is the most important subject on the face of the earth. You shouldn’t be worrying about anything else after that when you don’t have the subject of salvation settled!

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Acts 17:30-31 (KJV)

What does it take to be saved? first, Repentance. That’s a good Biblical word, not in vogue any more. The fact that so many frown on the use of such a word suggests that the number of Pastors, Priests, Fathers, Brothers, Bishops, Reverends, Cardinals, and Orioles (sorry, couldn’t resist the baseball joke!) who have to pull a sheep’s costume over their wolf fur far outnumber the number of actual Pastors. It’s frightening when you begin to really think on this, and look at the timeline of apostasy.

32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Luke 5:32 (KJV)

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matthew 4:17 (KJV)

14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mark 1:14-15 (KJV)

5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Luke 13:5 (KJV)

These are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospels make it clear that the Lord preached Repentance as an important condition as being Born Again.

What does the Roman Catholic Church teach?

“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confdence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confdence alone that justifes us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justifcation, Canon 12).

“If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justifcation obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justifcation, Canon 24).

Huh. The Roman Catholic Church pronounces condemnation into hell for all eternity for all the New Testament writers, and the Lord Jesus Christ as well, as this clearly is the teachings of the Gospels. The 1909 Catholic Dictionary hems and haws and refuses to give a correct definition of the Greek term. The term means “accursed”, and the very context used in 1 Cor. 15:22 shows it is in reference to eventual damnation.

The Gospels, and the Epistles, clearly teach a salvation through grace by faith.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)

It’s kind of hard to argue with a verse like that. However, the Magisterium, the Roman Catholic teachings on this, reduce it to “The beginnings of faith are a gift of God.” Wait, that’s not what the verse says! The verse says, “By grace are ye saved through FAITH…”

The context is speaking of salvation.

It says it is not of works.

It says it is a gift of God, and not of ourselves, lest any man should boast.

Bottom line – if the Bible says one thing, and the Magisterium says another, which will you believe? The devout Roman Catholic will say, the Magisterium.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:22-23 (KJV)

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 5

As I searched through Catholic blogs and bulletin boards, I became aware of an amazing situation. Catholics tend to use words that have meanings to Baptists and Protestants (Catholics will deny that Baptists are not protestants – just as many Protestants will). I quickly found myself almost believing that a RC is a regular ol’ Christian after all! However, I know the FACTS.

Now, the RCC has doctrines that make it clear their doctrines are not Biblical doctrines. We’ve dealt pretty conclusively with the concept of the Magisterium, asked harsh questions, and come to the conclusion that the Magisterium has no basis in fact, Scripture, or otherwise. Indeed, we proved that the words of Scripture teach otherwise!

Let’s briefly talk about some of the terminology shared by Christians and Catholics.

What does it mean to a Catholic when they read, “Ye must be born again.”?

in “A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture” by Bernard Orchard, Fr. Orchard simply addresses the question in John 3:3, concludes the translation of “Born Again” is correct… then simply drops the subject.


If it’s that important. that we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven without being Born again, You don’t just drop the subject! You deal with it, right here, right now!

It is mysterious, but one must not deny its reality because one does not know the whence, and the how and the whither of it. (“A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture” by Bernard Orchard)

Hold on. Stop right there. The Bible states specifically in John 3:3, if you are not born again, you will not enter heaven. The Council of Trent, which Fr. Orchard appeals to in his commentary on this verse, maintains that this is Baptism. This interpretation is a violation of Scripture, because Scripture maintains that Salvation (which is what in context we see John 3 is talking about) is a gift of God…

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)

Baptism is a work. The thief on the cross was told he would be in Paradise that very day with the Lord. He was not baptized. If Baptism is being Born Again, then the thief could not enter heaven. The Lord did not say, “So sorry, buddy, you never obeyed my commandments and joined the Catholic Church by means of Baptism. Tough luck, fella. Oh, by the way, you’re about to start burning in hell for all eternity. Shouldn’t have held back on that baptism thing!”

I did a work of obedience and was baptized in Believer’s Baptism. My body went under the water, and came out. That did not make me born again. If that saved me, it was a work I did, and could boast about it. “I know I am saved, because I was Baptized into the church!” You see how the Lord is not in that sentence at all? It’s a boast, bragging about my works. However, my baptism did not save me, any more than it will save the Roman Catholic. We are saved by being born again.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6 (KJV)

Salvation through spiritual birth is not a work. The very act is one of surrender. “I surrendered to the Lord. I repented of my sins, asked the Lord to forgive me, and be the Lord of my life, and He saved me!” You see how this sentence is all about the Lord? Not me – I admitted I couldn’t do it. I turned to the Lord, and He did it.

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. Galatians 6:14 (KJV)

John chapter 3 is not talking about Baptism. It is talking about Spiritual Birth.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 4

The RCC is in a bit of a quandry. They have multiple doctrines and heresies they claim are supported by the Magisterium. Yet none of them can be found in Scripture.

The RCC finds itself needing a myth of a Magisterium to be able to defend these doctrines and heresies. So what do they cite as proof of the magisterium? The very heresies that require the magisterium!

If this is not circular logic, I don’t know what is.

Last time, we conclusively proved:

  1. one needs only the written Bible.
  2. If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible.
  3. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  4. The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  5. The RCc has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  6. The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.

This now places the RCC in an untenable position. They now have no defense against charges that their doctrines are unBiblical.

THe RCc tries to cite several Scriptures in support of the Magisterium. Here’s the premise – any place that they find the word “Heard” in reference to the Bible, they instantly claim is a proof of the Magisterium.

Again, I refer to yesterday’s answer about the Talmud. I’m going to use a slightly modified version of the same, as the RCC presents a modified version of the argument.

Yesterday, I proved that the commandments in the NT were so simple, they did not require a Magisterium to explain them. Today, I’m going to say…

Okay, now wait. you’re trying to tell me that Paul was giving the teachings invented by a Pope that lived 1,800 years later??? That makes about as much sense as saying that the teachings of Rabbi Akiva (AD 70) were given to Moses 1,500 years prior.

Pope Leo the whatever lived in the 1800’s. I believe his compilations were released in 1890. How can the work of Pope Leo be retroactively the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter, John, Jude, James?

The Magisterium concept was not invented until 1546, at the Council of Trent. This was AFTER the Protestant Reformation, and about 1,517 years AFTER the Baptists had begun (AD 29). If it had existed prior to that time, it was not elevated to the level of Scripture until that time.

If there truly is a magisterium, it should be the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, James, John, and Jude – taking down the very words of the Lord, or communicating those words.

And if there was a Magisterium, why was it not written down, as part of the Canon of the New Testament? Pope Leo wrote down his. The other Popes wrote their notes on Scripture – if these were all Oral Teachings as the Catholics claim, why do we not see one Pope bringing in another, and teaching him all of the oral teachings by rote over several years…

Instead, we usually see one pope die, and another chosen, similar to the Dalai Lama. So – when and how were these oral teachings passed on?

Answer – they weren’t. There’s no oral teachings. It’s the lame excuse of a boy found with his hand in the cookie jar. “I knew you’d want one, so I was getting you one!”

Here’s the real situation. The Church kept the laity illiterate, so that they could not read the Bible themselves. When that failed, they kept it in Latin, so that the people could not understand it. (Which may also be why the Mass used to be done in Latin, so that if a Catholic managed to get a Bible, they wouldn’t be able to spot the unScriptural nature of it!)

When the Baptists began giving away copies of the Bible in the Vernacular, the RCC:

  1. banned reading the Bible in the Vernacular language
  2. Passed a decree of damnation on anyone translating the Bible into the vernacular
  3. passed a decree of legal punishment (read: torture, imprisonment, and usually death) for anyone possessing a copy of the Bible in the vernacular.
  4. instituted the concept of Imprimatur (“may be printed”) that continues to this day.
  5. and confiscated any Bible found not in Latin and burned it.

Realizing they were fighting against the tide at Trent, they instituted the concept of the Magisterium, claiming equal status as Scripture.

sixteen years after Trent, the Mass was declared to be propitiatory. Prior to that time, it was only a “sacrament”, the same as the other six “sacraments”. At Trent, only Baptism was declared to save. Now, the Mass was supposed to do the same.

Here’s the death knell of the Magisterium: If these TRULY are the teachings of the Lord, why was the Mass not declared in Trent’s writings (1,246 years AFTER the ressurection and ascenscion of the Lord) to be propitiary at that time???

Why did it take another 3 centuries for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility to be ruled Canon? Why was the Assumption of Mary not entered into the record at Trent? Don’t tell me they had a teakettle on the fire and had to get back! If The Magisterium is truly the Magisterium, why was it not all written down in AD 38 when Matthew first completed his Gospel? Or AD 60 when Acts, Luke, and Mark all written? Or AD 69 when Hebrews and the Gospel of John was written? Or AD 95 when Revelation was compiled? Again, it reminds me of the lame excuse of the Rabbi’s – “Well, the Oral Torah should never have been written down. And it wasn’t written until the Romans began murdering dozens of great Rabbis, and we were afraid some of it would be lost.”

It’s like a bucket full of holes – it doesn’t hold water. There’s nothing in the Bible about the Oral Torah. There’s nothing in the Bible about a Magisterium. And if there was – it would have been written along with the rest of the New Testament.

Why does the Magisterium contradict written Scripture? If they are equal, then which takes precedence over the other? We see the practice of the RCC is that – when Magisterium contradicts written Scripture, they rely upon the Magisterium.

Why was the Immaculate Conception of Mary not expressed prior to 1854? Or the Assumption of Mary until 1950? We’re talking over 1,845 years AFTER the Canon of Scripture was completed. Don’t tell me it slipped their mind!

The RCC insists that the Magisterium is to be taken as Gospel, that it too is Holy Scripture, and that Baptists are Anathema (damned) because they don’t accept the Magisterium. Catholic apologists (amateur and professional) all insist on it.

In doing so, they literally take away any chance of credibility the RCC could have had.

If Pope Francis really is the “Pope of Hope” (What idiot coined that phrase???), then he should address the Magistierum. He should announce they are NOT Scripture. He should announce that the RCC is going to accept the Bible, sola Scriptura. That indeed would be the death knell of the Roman Catholic Church – but it would result in the eventual salvation of hundreds of millions of devout Catholics. I’d be glad to point the Pope to many good Bible teachers who could help teach correct Bible Doctrine.

There is no Biblical evidence for the Magisterium. The Baptists have been able to prove historical succession from the Apostles until now. If there had been a Magisterium, we’d have known about it – and yea, it would have been written down as “Thus sayeth the Lord” prior to AD 95. Baptists would be doing the mass, the other sacraments, the priesthood,Mary worship, all of that. Because it would have been in the Bible.

But it’s not. And you’re deliberately lying to yourself if you really think that contradictory writings of various Popes are Holy Writ, originally taught by Paul to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, and passed down word of mouth from the previous deceased Pope to the Current Pope, before finally being written down! One at a time. Over centuries.

Were the Cardinals and Bishops who opposed Papal Infallibility in the 19th Century opposing God? Were they opposing Holy Writ? Were they taking a stand against oral teachings of the Apostles, passed down word of mouth orally from Pope to Pope as Catholic Apologists maintain? Didn’t they know this was Holy Writ? Or (as the case really is…) it was the action of a manipulating, possibly deranged Pope trying to make himself to be God, and forcing a vote through cronyism and intimidation, with threats of excommunication to any Cardinal who opposed him? History records that massive amounts of intimidation and corruption accompanied that vote – and some Bishops and Cardinals were forced to flee for their lives. This wasn’t the Middle ages – this was the 19th century. You know, just over a century ago!

The Magisterium case falls apart upon a cursory application of logic, and falls apart rapidly and conclusively.

So, what about those proof texts of the Catholic Apologists?

And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. Acts 13:15 (KJV)

It is the habit of the Jewish people to read the Scriptures aloud when 10 or more Jews assemble. The Early Church out of habit carried this on for at least 3 centuries. One of the most common form of ancient Greek New Testament Manuscripts is in the form of Lectionaries, books of Bible readings arranged throughout the year. You know, like Catholics and Episcopals still do.

Since the time of Ezra up until the end of the first century, it was also the habit of the Jews to give a discourse on the application of doctrine. It’s continued to this day among Baptists, except we call it a sermon, and it’s no longer tied to the public reading of the Word. (Indeed, the public reading of the word began to dissipate in the 19th century, due to the availability of Bibles for the common man. It was no longer needed to read large sections of Scripture.)

THIS is what Paul was talking about in 1 and 2 Thess.

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (KJV)

Because we now set up a logical impossibility. If this is referring to the Magisterium, why was not the perpetual virginity of Mary taught in the Epistles? Paul greets her at least once in the Epistles. She was still alive until around the time of Paul’s martyrdom. Why was the office of the Pope never specifically mentioned, let alone Papal infallibility? Celibacy of the priesthood? Indeed, in 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically states that the Apostles had the right to have their wives to accompany them! Why not the Mass, transubstantiation, liturgy, the wafer, etc? Why didn’t John the Beloved write about Mary’s Assumption?

The evidence speaks so far AGAINST there being a Magisterium, we can come to no other conclusion – it was an invention of the RCC, when it became apparent as the Waldenses and Albigenses gave away free Bibles that the doctrines of the RCC could not be found in the Bible.

Next, let’s look at the terminology of the Catholics. Why does it seem to so many well meaning but uninformed and innocent Christians that Catholics are saved?

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 3

The RCC holds strongly to the doctrine that one may not read nor interpret the Bible without the Magisterium. We proved this pretty authoritatively last time – nor would any knowledgeable Catholic argue with us.

It will come as a shock, however, to believing Christians and Protestants to know what Catholics believe about the Bible. And it will come to a shock to the untrained Roman Catholic.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?

This is the same argument the Pharisees used about the teachings and opinions of their own Rabbi’s – “These obviously came from God!” A quick and impartial look reveals the fallacy of the argument:

“Rabbi Zusya said…” “Rabbi Akiva said…” “Rabbi Judah the Prince said…”

And never a “Thus sayeth the LORD…”

Well, if God gave the Oral Torah, why did He not make reference to it in the Written Torah? Indeed, why did He say…

58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; 59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance. Deuteronomy 28:58-59 (KJV)

“All the words of the Law that are written in this book…” The Oral Torah, it is demonstrated, did not exist. The Lord said all the words were written in the Bible. And a single verse was all it took. The Orthodox Jews are left with citing what they believe to be errors in the Bible, and thus triumphantly they cry the existence of an Oral Torah from that. Again, a quick look reveals it to be the constant bickering of Rabbis, pausing to toot their own horns about how great they are. One of the things that troubled me the most about the “Oral Torah” a few years ago when I was studying the Talmud was how much it read like a group of men sitting and examining the Scriptures who had absolutely no idea what it meant, and trying to figure it out. In other words, it reads like what it is.

Hold onto your seats – I’m about to dismiss the same claim from the Roman Catholic Church, and with just about the same lack of effort.

The Council of Trent, even while implying in its decisions and anathemas the authority of the living magisterium (which the Protestants themselves dared not explicitly deny)…

I don’t know about that. I’ve seen several Protestant authors do just that. And… I’m a Baptist. David Cloud is a Baptist. We’re not Protestants. Protestants left the RCC – Baptists were never part of it. And I explicitly deny the Magisterium.

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)

“The Scripture alone is given by inspiration of God and is able to make the man of God perfect. Obviously nothing else is needed, then, beyond the Scripture. Catholic tradition is not Holy Scripture, is not therefore inspired by God, and is not therefore necessary to make the man of God perfect. I say this on the authority of 2 Timothy 3:16-17”. (Is The Roman Catholic Church Changing? David Cloud, Pg. 66)

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)

Notice it says the word of God. There is no reference to anything else. The written word of God is this powerful – why need we anything else?

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jude 1:3 (KJV)

The faith was once delivered to the Saints. David Cloud writes,

“The faith” refers to the body of New Testament truth delivered by the apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The term “once delivered” tells us that this body of truth was given during one particular period of time and was completed. It refers to the New Testament Scriptures that was completed during the days of the apostles. Jude 3 singularly refutes the idea that the Christian faith has been progressively given through the Roman Catholic Church. (Is The Roman Catholic Church Changing? David Cloud, Pg. 67)

David Cloud correctly further points out that the Canon of Scripture was sealed with the promise of a Curse to anyone who adds to, or takes away from, the word of God.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV)

So, if the Canon was once delivered to the saints (given until the Canon was sealed), and if the Canon was sealed in AD 95 with the completion of Revelation, then the RCC is built upon a curse, as they rely on, indeed demand that the Catholic follow the very words of the Popes as if they were greater than Holy Scripture.

I save for my last weapon this – There would be far more evidence to the RCC’s argument, had the Bible only been the Old Testament. Why? Because Judaism is defined by,

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Matthew 19:16 (KJV)

The commandments in the Bible bring one to a quandry right away, “How do I do these things?” We who are saved by Grace understand we don’t have to do these things, but if we did, it would be simple. Just do it. “Well, is there a ritual? Is there a special way you have to attach the fringes to the corners of your garment?” “Naw, just do it.”

The Commandments in the New Testament are very simple. “Lay up an offering for the first day of the week, when I willl visit you.”

QUICK! Check the Magisterium and see how we do this!!!

Well, actually, it’s very simple. Everyone puts aside a little extra for missionaries. “Well, is there a special collection?” Yeah, you could do it that way. Or you could have everyone write on a piece of paper “For missionaries” and wrap the money in it. Or write a check and designate what of it is to be given to Missionaries. Or… C’mon, it’s not really that hard. We don’t need a Catholic version of the Talmud to tell us how to do this.

We’re under Grace. There’s no external ritual needed, no boy with a bell to ring at the appropriate moment to let us know this is the time to give the special offering, no clouds of incense, etc. Just do it!

Am I picking on the RCC, here? No. I’m simply choosing a commandment at random, and examining whether or not a magisterium is required, based upon Prima Facae evidence. The Gospel does not require an elaborate explanation, nor a set of codes on how to observe.

But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 1 John 2:20 (KJV)

Here’s the key – one clear sign you are not saved, is that you simply cannot read and understand the Scriptures. 1 John 2:20 tells us that we don’t need a magisterium, we can simply read and understand, if we are saved. The Holy Ghost giveth understanding.

Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. 2 Timothy 2:7 (KJV)

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 1 John 5:20 (KJV)

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, Ephesians 1:17-18 (KJV)

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 2 Peter 1:3-6 (KJV)

Next, we will examine why the RCC claims it needs the Magisterium.