Obvious Errors of Catholicism

According to the most recent Vatican estimates I have seen (the year 2023), there are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world today. The Pew Research group says around 20% of people living in the United States are Catholic. Roman Catholicism is much like Judaism was in Old Testament times. It is a religion where you may have converts (called proselytes in Judaism),  but the vast majority are what they are by birth, raised that way by their parents from birth. They are Catholic before they have any idea of what that means, Catholic by infant baptism.

Such was true under Judaism as well; you were a Jew whether you knew it or not, based on birth. Boys were circumcised at the age of eight days old, initiating them into the religion. I have often thought Roman Catholicism has more in common with Judaism than Christianity—the way you enter into it (generally by birthright), all the rites and rituals, all the new rules and regulations (rules instituted by the Pharisees under Judaism in the Old Testament, under the Popes, councils, etc. in Roman Catholicism), and the great emphasis on tradition in both religions.

Nothing evokes people's emotions like religion. Question a person's religion and their hackles rise instantly. They are ready to fight, to go at it. The Bible teaches that it is good to be zealous in a good thing always (Gal. 4:18), but when one is zealous in error, it results in evil. Paul, before he became an apostle, said he was zealous of the traditions of the fathers more so than many of his contemporaries (Gal. 1:14). That led him to imprison and persecute Christians (Gal. 1:13). Some were put to death.  He said when that happened, he gave his vote against them (Acts 26:10). The Catholics have a history of doing the same, of persecution, even to putting people to death.

This historical record should teach us that we ought not to act emotionally but consider rationally the propositions we are confronted with to differentiate truth from error. Put in the simplest terms, think before you decide or act, for once a person's acts become history, that is where they stay. One can be forgiven, but the historical record will remain and cannot be changed.

In this article, I want to give some obvious reasons why no one should be a Roman Catholic, and if you are one, why you ought to come out of that religion. I might add this listing is, as they say, only the tip of the iceberg. One could write for days on end on this general topic.

(1) Roman Catholicism has been a religion of violence, torture, terror, and murder; thus, it cannot be the religion of Christ and the New Testament. This is a strong statement, but the historical record backs it up. I ask no one to take my word for it. Read, read, and read some more, not what I write but what the historians have written.

I suppose a good place to start would be "Foxe's Book of Martyrs". Many criticize "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as biased, but none I have run across claim it is entirely inaccurate. The book covers more than just Catholic persecution of those of other faiths, but it does cover that extensively. One can read there, or elsewhere, about the Inquisition. Read about the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572. "Pope Gregory XIII celebrated the massacre — he had a medal struck and commissioned Giorgio Vasari to paint frescoes commemorating it in the Vatican" (sourced from Claude, the A.I.). Read about the burnings at the stake. Read about the Crusades.

I ask where in the New Testament does Jesus teach "kill the heretics," but Rome did that time and time again. It became mad with power and arrogance. That was not Christianity. It was Roman Catholicism. This history alone should keep one out of Catholicism.

(2) Another obvious error of Catholicism is that of transubstantiation, the word meaning a change of substance. In what Catholics call the Mass, most Protestants call the communion, or the Lord's Supper, Catholics claim the bread turns into the literal body of Christ and the fruit of the vine into the literal blood of Christ. If it does, why do we see no flesh as we observe the bread or blood as we observe the fruit of the vine? The answer is simple enough to the rational mind not blinded by emotionalism. You can't see what is not there.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper in Matthew 26, he said of the bread, "Take, eat; this is My body." (verse 26) He said of the cup (verse 27, speaking of the contents), "This is my blood" (verse 28). Did he mean it literally? As he made those statements, he was sitting before the twelve in his fleshly body, the body their eyes were observing. When he spoke of the cup being his blood, was not his literal blood flowing within the arteries and veins of his body at that very moment? Were the twelve supposed to take him literally and believe they were eating and partaking of his literal flesh and blood while their eyes were observing him in his physical body?

You do know the New Testament given by the Holy Spirit of God forbids any and all Christians from eating blood. "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." (Acts 15:28-29, see also Acts 15:20 and Acts 21:25) In the Old Testament, God said this about eating blood, "I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people." (Lev. 17:10 NKJV) "No one among you shall eat blood." (Lev. 17:12 NKJV)

Jesus often used figurative or symbolic language. He referred to himself as a door (John 10:9), and we see clearly that he is, but we know that language is not literal, and it does not refer to the physical or material. He said he was the vine (John 15:1), and again, we see he is, but not a literal botanical vine. The same can be said when he referred to himself as the bread of life, etc.

The Catholics go so far with their doctrine of transubstantiation that they worship the wafer, once consecrated, as God, and yes, I know what their response would be to my charge. I reject their response. The wafer is no more Jesus after the consecration than it was before. They worship the wafer despite any disclaimer on their part.

The Lord's supper was to be a memorial of the Lord's death, "in remembrance of Me," as the scriptures state it (1 Cor. 11:24-25 NKJV). With the Catholics, it is not a remembrance but rather another sacrifice. They say it is a non-bloody sacrifice, but the Bible teaches that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Heb 9:22 NKJV) A non-bloody sacrifice avails nothing. Besides, Christ's sacrifice was a once-for-all-time event sufficient to cover all past sins and all future sins of those who are of the faith. He "does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." (Heb. 7:27 NKJV, see also Heb. 9:12, 28, and Heb. 10:10)

I must move on, for I am drifting into the errors of the Mass when I only want to deal with the obvious error of transubstantiation. One could write a massive volume on the errors of Catholicism, but that is not my purpose here.

(3) The final obvious error of Catholicism that I am going to deal with is that of the Papacy. No one reads of a Pope in the Bible, and everyone knows that. It was and is a Catholic invention.

The claim is that Peter was the first Pope, and that is based on Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus' response to it saying, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church." (Matt. 16:17-18 NKJV) They say the church was built on Peter, Peter being the rock Jesus was referring to. Peter was thus to be the head of the church on earth after Jesus' ascension.

But the Bible says, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11 NKJV) No physical building can be built without a foundation to build upon. No institution can be built unless it has a purpose, a function to fulfill, its foundation, its mission. Paul says, as quoted in this Corinthian passage, that Jesus is that foundation.

"For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalms 18:31 NKJV) Jesus is specifically referred to as a "rock" in 1 Cor. 10:4, where Paul, talking about Israel coming out of Egyptian bondage, says, "all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (NKJV) Jesus is the rock the church was built upon. The church was not built upon Peter but rather upon the truth he confessed about Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16 NKJV) Jesus was "The stone which the builders rejected" that "has become the chief cornerstone." (1 Peter 2:7 NKJV)

Isaiah prophesied this hundreds of years earlier. He said, "Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.' " (Isa. 28:16 NKJV) When Peter in Acts 3 healed the lame man and he and John were thereafter brought before the Sanhedrin he answered them saying, "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' " (Acts 4:10-11 NKJV)

Perhaps the clearest passage, although those listed are perfectly clear, is found in Ephesians 2:20. It is a reference to the household of God, which is the church, and says, "Having been built on the foundation of the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." (NKJV) The church was no more built upon Peter individually than it was any of the other apostles individually, and all of them were first built upon Jesus.

The only primacy Peter had was that of being privileged to preach the first gospel sermon on the Day of Pentecost to the Jews and later to the Gentiles (to Cornelius and his household). He used the keys to the kingdom (the gospel preached) to open the door of salvation to both. But those same keys were given to all the apostles. The Great Commission was not given to Peter exclusively.

Why would God build the church on any man? Paul said, "Let no one boast in men." (1 Cor. 3:21 NKJV) The idea of a papacy goes against everything taught in the New Testament about the relationship of brethren to one another. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you." (Matt. 20:25-26 NKJV) "For who makes you differ from another?" (1 Cor. 4:7 NKJV) Christ is the head of the church both in heaven and on earth. (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18) Make no mistake about it, the office of the Pope, of an earthly fleshly superior after Christ, is an invention of men and is not of God.

Paul never deferred to Peter. In fact, he rebuked him in the book of Galatians, chapter two, for refusing to eat with the Gentiles. Paul said of himself, "I am not a bit behind the most eminent apostles." (2 Cor. 11:5 NKJV) That would certainly include Peter, the one the Catholics claim was the Pope. If he were the Pope, Paul did not seem to know it. And certainly, Paul did not address Peter as "the Holy Father," which is the way Catholics address the Pope. Jesus said we are to address no man as father (in a spiritual sense). He said, "Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matt. 23:9 NKJV) Catholics do it anyway.

The office of the Pope seems to be a desire to be exalted, to be seen like one of the original twelve, to speak unknown truths to the world through the Holy Spirit, and to rule. The trouble with that is multifaceted, but I will mention just one thing. The Bible says the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). If I could be saved in the first century by what was taught, believed, and practiced back then, what need do I have today of anything additional that a Pope could give me? Think long about that. Why is he needed? I hope it is not to keep heresy in check, for we have seen the torture and death that brought historically.

The only rule of the church the Bible gives us for today is that of elders in each local congregation of brethren who are to oversee the work God has given the church. You will find the qualifications for them in the books of 1 Timothy and Titus, and that was not a one-man rule. There were to be plural elders in each congregation, and they were to rule only over that single congregation of which they were members. Those who seek to exalt themselves to something higher than that sin.

But let's take this one step further. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Peter was given an office unique to him. What would that prove about any succession? The answer—not a single thing. The Bible nowhere speaks about a succession to any of the apostles. Apostolic authority in the first-century church required miraculous spiritual gifts. Certainly, we would expect that of a man who claims to be "the Holy Father" on earth and accepts the praise, adoration, and, one could even say, the worship of the crowds. Paul, as an apostle, said, "In nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds" (2 Cor. 12:11-12 NKJV), but the Popes show none of these signs.

Peter had these signs. He even raised the dead (Tabitha or Dorcas) in Acts 9:36-40. So, where are these signs among Peter's so-called successors? Those who are supposed to be even more exalted than ordinary apostles, in that they are the head of the church on earth, Christ's representative in that office, so it is said, and yet are powerless, unlike Peter or Paul or any of the other apostles.

Christ did not give any to be Pope in his church. "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13 NKJV) Strange Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, fails to mention the most eminent position of all in bringing God's people to the unity of the faith, the knowledge of Jesus, to the stature of the fullness of Christ - the Pope - if such an office existed. Paul never mentions a Pope in his writings, yet the Catholics tell us there was a Pope even while Paul lived; it was, they say, Peter.

I could write much more, but this will suffice for now. These errors are so obvious that one wonders why people do not see them, but history has taught us that people can easily be led astray and blinded to what is obvious to others. They get so caught up in false religions that it generally takes a total disaster to befall them before they are freed from them. The Japanese would never have rid themselves of Emperor worship had it not been for their near-total destruction during World War II. No one expects Islam to end before the second coming of Christ. No one expects the majority of Catholics to escape Catholicism, as obvious as its errors are. It is easy to be blinded, or so it seems, but much of that blindness is simply because we want it that way. We want to believe what we want to believe. We want it to be true. Often, we will have it no other way.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

The Spirit of Christ and Liberalism

As a result of an article I wrote in the past, I was accused of lacking the spirit of Christ in that I opposed adulterous marriages and gay marriage, and the accuser surmised correctly that I also opposed freedom of choice for women as pertains to abortion. It was implied that I was intolerant, unloving, and lacked the spirit of Christ. I determined then to write an article dealing with the spirit of Christ.

There are many people in America today who have built their own Christ. He bears only a vague resemblance to the Christ of the Bible, although those who built him refuse to see it that way. Building one's own God does have its advantage in that you can design him as you desire and make his character and nature out as best suits your fancy and your own concept of sin and righteousness. The only problem is the obvious one—it is all a facade. A manmade Christ can no more save than could Jeroboam's two golden calves (see 1 Kings 18:25-30).

It is said Christ loved all people, even those from the worst class of sinners, and that he associated with all. Well, who has ever denied that? Not me. But the idea is, from those who have built a Christ after their own fancy, that with Christ it is okay to continue on in sin as long as you believe in him, love him, and love your fellowman. Christ would and will forgive you anyway, and did not then or now demand repentance and reformation of life. He, it is supposed, just accepted people as they were in their sinful state. Really!

Matthew says Jesus began his preaching career preaching repentance. "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV) In Matt. 11:20 we read, "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent." (Matt. 11:20 NKJV) Furthermore, in the next few verses, he warns those cities of what lies ahead on the Day of Judgment for them. To give one example, he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for Capernaum, which he says "will be brought down to Hades." (Matt. 11:23 NKJV)

When Jesus sent the 12 out to preach, what were they sent to preach? Mark says, "So they went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12 NKJV) Jesus himself said, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (NKJV) He says this twice, in Luke 13:3 and then in Luke 13:5. Don't let anyone tell you that the spirit of Christ was such that he so loved people to such an extent that he would save them while they continued on in an impenitent state, unwilling to repent and render obedience to God the Father.

In the very first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, as soon as the crowd was convicted in their hearts, by Peter's preaching, that Jesus was indeed the Christ, they asked, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV) The first word out of Peter's mouth in reply was "repent." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) At Athens, Luke records Paul's preaching there, saying "God…now commands all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30 NKJV)

But one must beware of this crowd of people who have made a Jesus who does not require repentance but allows one to live on in sin and yet be saved. Some of them want to make Paul out to be a renegade, a rebel against Christ who preached a different theology, a different gospel than Christ taught. The idea they have is that you can live a life based on what Jesus said and did in the gospel accounts and pay no heed to Paul who was out there just doing his own thing—so they say and believe.

For them to be right about Paul, several things have to be proven true. (1) It must be proven Paul was a liar—a liar about his conversion experience (see Acts 9, 22, 26), a liar about how he received the gospel (Gal. 1:11-12), a liar about having the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.2:13, compare Eph. 3:5 with 1 Cor. 15:9 and 2 Cor. 11:5) and not just that he lied about having the Holy Spirit but that Ananias also lied about Paul receiving it (Acts 9:17).

(2) If Paul was uninspired and a rebel against God and Christ, just a man who had his own theology, then it destroys the book of Acts written by Luke for the reason that Luke would then become an unreliable historian, a man no one could believe, because he writes about Paul's conversion three times as historical fact and mentions that one of the purposes of Ananias' visit to Paul was that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) which would be untrue. Paul's miracles, recorded by Luke, then come into question. If the book of Acts is unreliable history, then what about the book of Luke itself? Why should it be considered reliable? The same man wrote both books.

(3) If Paul was not a Holy Spirit inspired man but only a rebel against Christ with his own theology what does this say about Peter who wrote of Paul saying, "Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16 NKJV) Peter says Paul's writings are scripture—"as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

If Paul's writings are not from the Holy Spirit, then please tell us how one could twist his writings to their own destruction. If he was uninspired you could twist his words a thousand different ways and it would have no bearing whatsoever on your salvation. Paul had the spirit of Christ, his detractors to the contrary notwithstanding.

Those who want to pit Paul against Christ and claim that Paul's teaching was not of Christ will need to delete Luke's writings from their Bibles, as well as Peter's and all of Paul's, and I hope to soon show that they need to get rid of John's writings also. How?

Have you ever read Gal. 2:9, Paul speaking? "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (NKJV) If John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, a man who taught falsely about the commands of God, what does that say about John and his writings? If Paul deceived John, how can we believe the things John wrote, for he might have been deceived about those things as well.

Furthermore, if this James, who is mentioned in Gal. 2:9, is, as scholars think, the James who wrote the book of James, then he too was deluded in giving Paul the right hand of fellowship and his writings, as well as John's, then come into question. I guess, of course, one could say Paul was lying about this since he wrote the book of Galatians, but the book of Acts teaches that Paul was in good standing with the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.

You do see, do you not, where all of this business leads about Paul having his own doctrine separate and apart from the Lord's? You end up having to delete every book of the New Testament Paul wrote, that Luke wrote, that John wrote, that Peter wrote, and that James wrote. That leaves but little of the New Testament. Only a liberal could believe it.

This liberal crowd that wants to make Christ out as a God made after their own image err in another way as well. They define love for God the way they so desire rather than the way God has defined it. Here is God's definition, the definition that they will not accept. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:2-3 NKJV)

Their desire is to override any concern about keeping the commandments of God, thus keeping the door open for continuing on in adulterous marriages, homosexuality, open the door for gay marriage, and keep it open for abortion. This was not the spirit of John the Baptist, "For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.'" (Mark 6:17-18 NKJV) There had been a divorce and remarriage but God did not recognize it for he said through John that Herodias was still Philip's wife. John was going to break up an adulterous marriage. No need to worry about that among those who have made their own Christ, for their Christ does not demand repentance and reformation of life for salvation.

Their claim is that God is satisfied with adulterous marriages, homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, etc., because it would be intolerant not to be, and it is an act of love to accept those things in people, accept them without repentance. Passages like 1 Cor. 6:9-10 mean nothing to them (Paul wrote it after all). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV) They do not believe what their eyes read. They claim Christ is on their side, and Paul was a renegade and a rebel. Who do you think had the spirit of Christ? Was it Paul or the modern-day liberal?

Now, how about the spirit of Christ in his own being? Did Christ have the spirit of obedience to the Father or the spirit of disobedience? First, let it be known that Christ was assuredly under commandment from God just as much as you and I are. Jesus said, "This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:18 NKJV) "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49 NKJV) "As the Father gave Me commandment, so I do." (John 14:31 NKJV) "I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." (John 15:10 NKJV)

Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38 NKJV) "I always do those things that please Him." (John 8:29 NKJV) "I do know Him and keep His word." (John 8:55 NKJV) Finally, in Rom. 5:19, Paul speaking of Jesus said, "So also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." (NKJV) One cannot obey unless one has something to obey, a commandment.

Now I ask again, after quoting these passages, was the spirit of Christ one of obedience to God's commandments or one of disobedience? Let my liberal friends answer. Let them answer this question also—who gave them the right to decide what commands of God love can override? Are not all of God's commandments based on love? When a man says this command can be overlooked or ignored (disobeyed), is he not saying that the commandment lacks love? Is he not saying God gave a commandment here that has no love in it, that is, in fact, unloving? Does he really want to stick his neck out on the chopping block like that?

Why does not Mark 7:9 apply to those who so approach the Bible as do these liberals? "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (NKJV) As long as I think I know more about sin and righteousness than God does, as long as I believe my love and my way of showing love is purer than God's way, just that long do I prove myself, not Paul the apostle but myself, the true rebel against God. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Circumcision and Baptism

Many believers in Christ teach that baptism is just a sign of salvation that has already been received and thus whether or not one is baptized is of no great consequence as pertains to the soul’s salvation.  Many see baptism in the same light they see circumcision in the Old Testament, as just a sign.  Is baptism just a sign of salvation by faith that is already in one’s possession? 

In the Old Testament long before the Law of Moses it was said of Abraham, “He believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness.” (Gen. 15:6 NKJV)  Certainly, no Bible believer would doubt Abraham’s salvation at that point in time.

Many years later the Lord appeared to Abraham and commanded him and all the males in his household to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-14).  The Lord declared it to be “a sign of the covenant between me and you.” (Gen. 17:11 NKJV)

Even though circumcision was just a sign it was not unimportant.  The male child that was not circumcised “shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Gen. 17:14 NKJV)  How seriously did Abraham take this command that was but a sign?  Abraham obeyed it immediately, “that very same day.” (Gen. 17:23-27, see Gen. 17:23 specifically)

In Romans 4 Paul talks about this event and again reiterates that circumcision was a sign (Rom. 4:11) and makes the declaration that Abraham was saved, prior to circumcision, by his faith (Rom. 4:3-12, specifically v. 9-10, NKJV).

In thinking about this specific command of God to Abraham, his household, and his descendants one must keep in mind the relationship of faith to obedience.  Without faith, believing God, Abraham would never have obeyed.  Faith had already obtained a righteous standing before God but it was a living active faith that willingly obeyed God that kept Abraham’s standing firm before God.  No one ever seems to ask the question, “what if Abraham had not obeyed?”

Faith is primary in the lives of God’s people whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament.  Faith always has primacy for without it nothing else follows.  Men do not obey nor follow after one, unless coerced to do so, without belief in the one they follow.  Atheists do not seek to follow God and looking at it from their point of view we readily understand why.  Why would they?  Abraham obeyed because Abraham believed.

Well, how about baptism?  Is baptism just the New Testament’s version of circumcision?  There is no doubt about there being some similarities but just because two things are similar does not mean they are equivalent serving the same purpose.  Horses and mules share similarities but it is error to not distinguish between them for there are some real differences.  Mules do not race at Churchill Downs for a reason.

Circumcision and baptism share the necessity of faith for either act to have spiritual meaning.  Circumcision itself had no spiritual significance for man until God gave the command at which time man (Abraham) had the option to either trust and obey or disobey.  Would Abraham honor God by obedience or would he rebel?   In that sense, baptism shares a similarity with circumcision.  As a man of faith Abraham obeyed.  Because of faith, his descendants had their sons circumcised on the eighth day after birth. 

One Hollywood actor can baptize another on film but it amounts to nothing before God.  One can be baptized to please mom or dad, husband or wife, or even the church community but it amounts to nothing other than getting wet until such a time as the person does the act out of faith in God in obedience to God’s command.

Those who talk about people believing in water salvation are generally in error in doing so.  I never knew a person who believed just going down into the water and coming up out of it saved the person who lacked faith in the command giver, faith in the God who commanded it.  Without faith nothing can save a man.  “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.” (Heb. 11:6 NKJV)

Faith leads to things that accompanying faith make faith alive and active versus the dead faith that James says cannot save (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).  Faith leads to repentance and where is the man who would deny that repentance is required for salvation?  There is no motive for repentance toward God outside of faith.  “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness…” (Acts 17:30-31 NKJV).  “Unless you repent you will all likewise perish!” (Luke 13:3, 5 NKJV)  

Peter, in the first gospel sermon ever preached, in Acts 2 tied repentance with baptism, “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38 NKJV)  He repeated himself years later in regards to baptism when he wrote 1 Peter saying, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) 

Peter certainly did not mean to say water will save you without faith and repentance, water salvation, but was merely making the point he desired to make regarding baptism.  Baptism is a part of God’s plan for mankind in the age of Christianity as much as circumcision was a part of God’s plan for his people in Old Testament days.   The failure to be circumcised in Abraham’s day and afterwards would cut a man off from God’s covenant.  In the Christian era baptism is the initiatory rite by which man comes into covenant relationship with Christ for man is “baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV, see also Gal. 3:27, 1 Cor. 12:13)  

While the Bible speaks of circumcision as a sign it nowhere speaks of baptism as being a sign.  I searched the concordances for the word sign in seven major Bible translations in a context where baptism was also mentioned.  Not one translation yielded a result.  Man may call baptism a sign but that is man, the Bible does not do so.  

The one passage in the New Testament that relates circumcision to baptism is found in Col. 2:11-13:  “In him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.  And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” (NKJV) 

Paul wrote this Colossian passage and provides the best commentary on it in something else he wrote back in Rom. 6:2-4:  “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?  Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?  Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (NKJV) 

Paul makes it clear that there is a “circumcision made without hands.”  It is Christ’s circumcision.  This is a circumcision that is performed on a person spiritually dead in sins, one whose sins have not yet been forgiven.  That spiritually dead person is buried in baptism into death to sin but arises from his burial with Christ a new creation (Gal. 3:27, 2 Cor. 5:17), “raised with Him through faith” (Col. 2:12) to “walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4)  The circumcision of Christ is the cutting off of the person’s sins which is done in baptism when preceded by faith and repentance.  Only Christ (God) can forgive sins thus it is the circumcision of Christ. 

Peter says in the passage quoted earlier, the passage talking about baptism, that he now has, “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV)  He is a new creation, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV)  He was “baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) 

It is only through faith that one arises from baptism with an answer of a good conscience.  Only through faith can such a person believe that old things have passed away and all is new in his life.  Only through faith can he believe he has been forgiven of all trespasses. 

When a person submits through faith to be baptized into Christ he is submitting himself to accept in that act of faith Christ’s circumcision.  It is not a sign; it is the reality itself. 

As a final note one should not confuse the “circumcision…of the heart” in Rom. 2:28-29 with the “circumcision of Christ” in Col. 2:11-13.  In Romans, Paul is making the point that physical circumcision alone without obedient faith accompanying it was of no avail to the Jew.  God cares about a man’s heart toward God.  “He is a Jew who is one inwardly.” (Rom. 2:29 NKJV)  In Romans it is man who circumcises his own heart, it is man’s circumcision, that which he is responsible for.  In Colossians it is Christ’s circumcision, what Christ does for man when man complies with God’s will by faith.  Man can circumcise his heart as he possesses free will; man cannot forgive his sins.  That is God’s dominion, Christ’s circumcision.

This is a teaching that was found in scripture long before Paul’s time or writings.  Moses spoke of the need for the Jews to circumcise their hearts in Deut. 10:16 and the Lord spoke of the same need in Jer. 4:4.  This did not mean physical circumcision was unnecessary but that more was needed than just the physical act.

There is much more that could be said on this subject and perhaps I will tackle that at a later date. 

[This article can be downloaded and/or printed out by clicking here.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seeking Repentance

Awhile back I received a response (a comment) on an article I had posted online entitled "The Hardening of the Human Heart" from an individual who seemed to be truly troubled after reading the article. I quote the comment I received in its entirety below.

"The sermon i heard was true hard and direct from god i long disobeyed now its too late there is no way to easily deal with this how do i how can i simply ignore what i was told knowing what i choose to do without the power of repentence you can't simply repent i don't want to accept its too late for me to be saved i feel fear and terror knowing its too late for me knowing there is nothing in heaven i can do or anyone can do to help me i am trying to grasp it but its hard for me to understand even i honestly i don't have any words but the pain i am left with . what do i say god remember me"

The above paragraph is a direct quote but it will be easier to understand if you put in the proper punctuation, as I take it that English is a second language for the commentator. First of all, I want to say that while I always try and write the truth from God's word, or about God's word, nothing I write is "direct from God" as per the commentator's words. I hope I write the truth and try my best but in the end, only the Bible can be relied upon.

With that out of the way, it is obvious the writer is in turmoil and needs help. Since the writer publicly used his/her name in commenting on my article, I will use it here as well since it is easier than referring to him or her, he or she. The name was Jamie. Is Jamie's case hopeless? Jamie seems to feel as though it is. I do not.

A case is hopeless when one has totally rejected Christ, is no longer a believer, and is not the least bit concerned or worried about sin or his ultimate destiny. Even then, some tragic event or experience in life may turn him or her back to Christ and the gospel. The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) gives us some insight into how such a thing can happen. I think we all know that the father in the parable represents God and the younger son who goes off into prodigal living represents a sinful man who, at least for a time, rejects God.

Jesus in giving the parable says in verse 13 of the prodigal that he "wasted his possessions with prodigal living." (Luke 15:13 NKJV) The word "prodigal" (Luke 15:13) is used to describe his manner of life in the New King James Version but other translations use words like "riotous living" (ASV, KJV), "wild living" (NIV, NLT, CEV, ISV), "reckless living" (ESV), "loose living" (NASB), "dissolute living" (NRSV), and the NET Bible says "wild lifestyle." His older brother says he had devoured the father's money with harlots (Luke 15:30 NKJV). This gives us a pretty good idea of the kind of life he had chosen to lead.

We all know the story if we are familiar with the Bible. The son becomes destitute to the point of hunger (Luke 15:16) but the Bible says "when he came to himself" (Luke 15:17 NKJV) and began to reason, he determined to return to his father and confess his sins, with the implication being he had repented. This took a great deal of humility and involved shame for the failure his life had become. All pride was destroyed and gone from his life. He had nothing to be proud of and he knew it. He had played the role of the fool and had made a complete failure of things but in doing so it brought him to his senses—"he came to himself." (Luke 15:17 NKJV) He went back to where he belonged—to his home with his father.

We thus have a parable that shows people like Jamie that there is hope of going back to God from a sinful lifestyle. In fact, Jesus says, "I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance." (Luke 15:7 NKJV) He again says, "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:10 NKJV) Man has it in his power to bring joy to heaven. Jamie has power to bring joy to heaven. Heaven cares about us. Just thinking about that is powerful, someone cares. That is powerful for sometimes we all are inclined to get to thinking "who cares." Well, heaven cares. God the Father, Christ the Son, the Holy Spirit, the angels, all of heaven cares. The creator cares.

Hear the Holy Spirit as he spoke in the Psalms:

"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart-- these, O God, you will not despise." (Psalm 51:17 NKJV) From the tone of Jamie's comments, I think he/she has just such a heart, one God will not despise.

"The Lord is near to those who have a broken heart, and saves such as have a contrite spirit." (Psalm 34:18 NKJV)

I would say to Jamie it is not too late. God cares about you and you care, or else why are you reading religious articles? You even say, "i don't want to accept its too late for me to be saved." You care, and for anyone who still cares, it is not too late. The person who is lost because of a hardened heart does not care. You are not in that category.

Jamie seems to think he or she, as the case may be, cannot repent. Anyone can repent who wills to do so badly enough. If we are honest, we all know sin can be addictive and pleasurable, at least for a season (Heb. 11:25), and very hard to quit. Add to that the circumstances in which we can at times find ourselves can make it additionally hard to repent. Let me give some examples.

Drunkenness is a sin but it is also an addiction for some, a physical addiction and quite possibly a psychological one as well, although I am not a psychologist. Gossip, a sin, can be addictive. What would life be for some without being able to gossip? Some are addicted to adultery (they are in an adulterous marriage they refuse to repent of and leave, and admittedly it would not be easy to do); some have their own personal idols they are addicted to, whether it be money, pleasure, or whatever; some are addicted to "selfish ambitions" (see Gal. 5:20 NKJV); some seem to be addicted to judging others, and the list could go on and on.

I think most of us have a sin or set of sins that tempt us greatly, our own particular weaknesses, that are a real battle to deal with. They are sins we are drawn to. I think the Hebrew writer may be talking about this when he says, "Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us." (Heb. 12:1 NKJV) Note the writer says of this sin or sins that it "easily ensnares us." The CEV translation says, "So we must get rid of everything that slows us down, especially the sin that just won't let go." (Heb. 12:1 CEV) The Bible commentator Albert Barnes says in reference to this verse, "Every man has one or more weak points in his character; and it is there that he is particularly exposed." I believe Barnes is right. The sin that just won't let go, as per the CEV translation, is the sin we are drawn to that tempts us continually and which, because of that, we have to battle against day in and day out.

It is not at all easy to resist the temptation directed toward our weakness but we can gain victory over temptation and sin through faith in Christ and his strength. While it is very hard, we all know that there have been many who were drunkards, addicted to alcohol, who have successfully been rehabilitated, but they fight the battle continually against the urge to drink.

I personally know of a Christian couple who ended their adulterous marriage because of their dedication to Christ and doing what is right. I think they were married before becoming Christians and one or the other of them did not have a scriptural divorce, thus when they married they entered into a state of adultery. Upon learning the truth about marriage and what constitutes adultery, they saw what they must do and did the right thing, unlike Herod and Herodias. They remain friends and are members of the same congregation. They no longer are married nor do they live together.

Repentance can certainly be very hard. It had to be terribly hard for the two Christians I just mentioned, but here is another example, a Bible example, showing how difficult repentance can be. Remember the rich young ruler of Mark 10:17-22 (see also Matt. 19:16-22 and Luke 18:18-23)? He truly wanted to inherit eternal life. The Bible also says Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). Even so, when Jesus told the young ruler he lacked one thing (knowing the young man loved his wealth) and told him to sell his possessions, give to the poor, and then come follow him, the Bible says this made the rich young ruler sad and he went away grieved. It is, or can be, very hard to make God number one in our life. Money had become an idol for this young man and in the end he loved it more than Christ, even more than acquiring eternal life.

We do people a disfavor when we say or imply that repentance is easy and that it is easy to resist temptation and sin. If it was easy to resist temptation and sin, we could live sinless lives once we acquired the proper knowledge, and yet we all do things on occasion that trouble us, for we know we were in the wrong and did that which was not right in God's eyes. Neither Jamie nor anyone else is ever going to live sinlessly no matter how dedicated they may be to living a holy and godly life. We all sin (1 John 1:8) and chances are when we do, most of the time it will be in the realm where we are weakest and most prone to sin. Those sins that don't ever tempt us, say murder, for example, are not the kind of sins we are going to commit.

Jamie says "without the power of repentence you can't simply repent." I am not sure what is meant by the power of repentance but suspect what is meant is the will to repent. There is no magical power of repentance given to anyone by God. He gives motives for repentance, encouragement for repentance, and blessings for repentance, but does not give one person the power to repent that is not available to all persons.

The power of repentance lies in the will of man. Repentance is a personal choice; it is an individual decision. As I have already said, it can be a real battle to repent but it is not impossible for any of us. It is a choice. And it is God's will for Jamie and for all, for God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) If you are a part of the "any" of this verse, God wants you.

We must all forget our past. It doesn't matter what a no-account you may have been. It doesn't matter how sinful your life has been. It doesn't matter what the world may think of you. None of that matters. God made each of us in his own image and wants us all to be saved (see 2 Peter 3:9). He wants us all to come to repentance. He "desires all men to be saved." (1 Tim. 2:4 NKJV)

Even Christians must continually be repenting of sin. David Lipscomb once said he doubted that any man ever lived a single day without sin. Without trying to make myself a judge of men, I suspect he came very close to the truth in that statement. In fact, the better Bible student you are, the more knowledge you have, the more you realize how short you come in being what God wants you to be, and the easier it is to see the sin you do have and must overcome.

I also want to rid Jamie of any idea that if you truly repented of a sin, that once you did so you would never ever again commit that same sin. It doesn't work that way even though that is the ideal. The difference between the person who has repented and the one who has not is that the one who has repented fights the temptation and resists committing the sin. He or she is not always successful in doing so but they fight the fight. The one who has not repented does not battle temptation at all but readily gives in and engages in the sin.

God does give the Christian help. "No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it." (1 Cor. 10:13 NKJV) Most translations use the term "endure it" rather than "bear it" at the end of the verse. I like that better for not only is it true to the Greek (both terms are) but it also tells it like we experience it. Temptation to sin is something we endure, not something we like or enjoy, for we know when we are tempted it is no fun. Our spirit is telling us to resist while our flesh is telling us to go ahead and do the sin. However, the main point of the verse is that there is a way of escape, of getting away if we will take it, so it becomes a matter of our own will. We can escape if we are willing. We can win the battle of temptation.

Finally, what does one do if he fails and gives into temptation? He gets up, dusts himself off so to speak, and says, I will not give up but try again to live faithfully. Of course, he must seek God's forgiveness for the sin he has committed by true repentance and complying with God's other demands for forgiveness, which varies for the Christian versus one who needs to obey the gospel. The Christian repents, confesses his/her sin to God, and prays to God to forgive. If the sin was against a person, then one seeks their forgiveness also and makes whatever amends that can possibly be made.

Well, what if after doing that he/she commits the same sin again? The answer is he does the same thing again as he did the first time in seeking forgiveness. One only obeys the gospel once but one seeks through repentance and confession of sin God's forgiveness many times throughout one's life. The one thing you never do is give up. Never ever give up. Once you give up you are done and lost.

In closing I would say to Jamie and all who may feel like he or she does that God is saying to him/her what he says to all:

"For He says: 'In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you.' Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2 NKJV)

Jamie, now is the day of salvation for you, now while you have life and breath.

[To download this article and/or print it out click here.]