Ok, so we’ve gone through five of the seven Catholic sacraments so far. These last two that I will be addressing would be considered “heavyweights” in the world of Catholic sacraments. Today, I will deal with the sacrament of baptism and next time, the Eucharist. Catholics would probably consider these two to be the most important of all the sacraments.
Anyway, I
have dealt with the topic of baptism before, so you can go to these links to first get a good foundation:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html
Differing Views
Of course,
we (Protestants, Catholics and others) all recognize baptism as a very
important and meaningful ritual.
Most Protestants see baptism as a profound profession of
faith. It is an ordinance (not a
sacrament) within the church, a symbol
of what happens to a person when he first believed. In the ceremony of baptism, he is
immersed/buried in a “watery grave” in which he “dies to self.” The “old man” (old self) is put to death, and
coming up out of the water, the “new man” is resurrected to a new life:
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).
With (most) Protestants, the idea is that a person is first
saved and given a new heart from God… then, and ONLY then, should he be
baptized, this being a symbolic gesture to declare to the world that he has voluntarily
chosen to identify with the Lord Jesus Christ and thereafter, to live for Him.
Catholics,
on the other hand, also see the ritual of baptism as a profession of faith to
identify with Christ, but also as a sacrament in which a person is “meriting
grace” from God. To them, it is a
sacrament of regeneration. It is not only symbolic to them, but it also
“accomplishes what it signifies” (CCC #1155; 1215; 1234). It is supposedly a “visible sign of a hidden
reality.” When the Catholic is baptized,
he is literally having his original sins washed away. According to the Catechism of the Catholic
Church:
“Holy
Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the
Spirit… and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through
Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become
members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers
in her mission: ‘Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the
word.’” (CCC #1213 – Emphasis added)
Notice the underlined portions of the
quote above. The Catholic Church is
specifically saying that this event
(baptism) is what saves them. According
to them, it is water baptism that makes them eligible to enter Heaven.
What About Infant Baptism?
Most people know that the Catholic
Church baptizes babies, more so than adults.
But is this practice scriptural?
Can a mere infant make a profession of faith and identify with
Christ. No, he can’t.
You won’t find any specific biblical
examples where little children are baptized.
But some will argue that this concept is implied in the text of certain
passages, for example Acts 16:33, where the Philippian
jailer and his whole household were
baptized. But that is simply
speculation. We just don’t know if there
were infants in this family or not.
But Catholics (and even some
Protestants) claim that baptism is valid for infants because it is based on the
parents’ faith. They will point to passages like 1
Corinthians 7:14, which says that the faith of the believer sanctifies
(sets apart) the children and shows that you intend to raise your children in
the Lord, but this doesn’t ultimately save
them. The child still has to become mature
enough to understand what is going on.
An infant certainly can’t do that. Until that time, he is innocent.
But even if it were true that they did
baptize babies and little children (those who were not accountable due to their
age/state/understanding), we would still have to deal with the concept of biblical salvation – where one is saved
by faith, apart from works.
One might argue that baptism is not a
work, and that the infant being baptized is doing nothing at all, since he is
incapable. But this does nothing to help
the Catholic case. Since the child is
incapable, neither can he make a decision to follow Christ, a decision which is
absolutely necessary for salvation. As I
just said, very young children are simply innocent (and safe) in the eyes of
God, at least until the child can make such decisions in his life.
The concept of infant baptism leans heavily
toward the idea that baptism saves a person.
And I believe that’s why the Catholic Church teaches this. But whether this notion is promoted by Catholic,
Protestant, or anyone else, this denies the biblical teaching of faith (apart from the merits of work) for
salvation (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; 11:6).
It denies that Christ’s work on the cross was sufficient. In fact, any sacrament, ritual or celebration
that claims to “merit grace” contradicts and denies the finished and perfect work
of Jesus Christ.
An Oxymoron
So, once again, the question is, does
baptism save a person? You know, any unsaved person can potentially get
baptized, but it does nothing to change his heart. His heart has to be changed before he ever decides to get baptized.
Being a believer is synonymous with
being saved. There are no saved
unbelievers, nor unsaved believers. That
would be an oxymoron. If you are
unsaved, then (by definition) you are not a believer, and if you are saved, you
already are a believer.
So, if it is true that baptism saves
you, then aren’t you (by definition) an unbeliever until the point that you are
baptized? Yes, you would be. But the truth is, baptism is for believers
only (Mark
16:16), and there are absolutely no unbelievers in Scripture who were
baptized. The point is, you must be born
again BEFORE you are baptized, therefore baptism doesn’t save anyone.
Conclusion
Another oxymoron in the Catholic
Church is, as I mentioned before, the concept of “meriting” grace.
This is supposedly what sacraments do, but not only is this unbiblical,
it is also illogical. No one can “merit”
grace, since, by definition, grace is the unmerited
favor of God (Romans 11:6). Even
Catholics agree with this definition (CCC #1996).
In the Catholic Church, baptism is one
of the seven sacraments, and they certainly claim special power in these
sacraments. But I am sorry to tell my
Catholic readers that sacraments do not “make present” the “graces” necessary
to be saved, as the Catholic Church teaches (CCC #1131). This is totally unscriptural.
To be sure, baptism is an important
and significant ritual to all of us, rich in meaning for all who claim to
follow Christ. But again, Catholic
sacraments do not and cannot do what Catholics claim they can do.
Certainly, one cannot prove in any non-circular manner that the Magisterium is infallible, but that's not the problem in the first place. I've only ever seen anyone use the argument as an internal critique of Protestant ideas. In effect, if you accept that the Bible canon contains all and only those God-breathed books, and that this is an infallible truth, you must accept the authority of the body that told us what books belong in it. Arguments that "work backwards" shouldn't be critiqued as if they were "working forwards." Worse, knowing that the Magisterium is infallible really isn't a problem in itself. We can attain a reasonable degree of certainty for that belief on independent grounds, which should suffice for any reasonable person. But we can't say the same for his implied belief that the Bible canon was not assembled by any infallible body, especially if we take his Protestantism into account. After all, the Church was supposedly in error about a number of extremely important theological claims for centuries! If God didn't preserve the Church from teaching error during that whole time, how could anyone in his right mind think the Church was so protected when it was judging all of those books in the Bible? He can't really ignore that problem - the Bible cannot help us if we misunderstand it, and so there's no reason to preserve the Bible, or even the historical Church, if the teachers are going to fail so spectacularly.
ReplyDeleteGreetings Anonymous,
DeleteThe norm when posting comments on a blog is to post comments relevant to the article. But I said absolutely nothing about the canon, circular arguments, the "infallible" Magisterium, or any kind of infallibility at all here. You neither dealt with my addressing the weaknesses of Catholic teaching on baptism, their unscriptural practices, nor the Catholic Church's inconsistencies in the article. I'm left wondering whether you read the article at all, or if you simply injected unrelated comments without consideration of the topic.
If you want to know about my thoughts on the canon, or the "infallible" Magisterium, you can click on the upper left corner search bar of this blog page and type in those topics. I would appreciate if you'd actually read them first, though, before posting your comments.
Good points.
Delete*Red* in the cheekcs Russell
ReplyDelete