Learning to Speak

Roman Catholic

So a Bible Believer Can Speak

About the Errors of Rome

Several Important Lesson

A Baptist Needs In Order to

Discourse with Catholics

And

A Catholic Needs In Order to

Know the Truth About Baptists and Christianity

By Pastor Ed Rice

John Wycliffe (1320-1384) wrote, “The Church is the totality of those who are predestined to blessedness. It includes the Church triumphant in heaven… and the Church militant for men on earth. No one who is eternally lost has part in it. There is one universal Church, and outside of it there is no salvation. Its head is Christ. No pope may say that he is the head, for he can not say that he is elect or even a member of the Church.”

Roman Catholic Voice is Not the Voice of Christianity

In the secular pluralistic society that engulfs us in this 21st century Roman Catholicism is considered the voice and definition of Christianity. That is unfortunate. A Bible believing Christian finds this Roman voice speaking of a mother Church and a Holy Father Pope very foreign to the Bible which brought them their faith. A Protestant believer regularly bumps into a church doctrine which springs from their distant mother in Rome and dashes in the face of direct Bible teachings. A Roman Catholic matures into a thinking rational inquiring mind which knows that the Pope is not really infallible nor Mary divine.

The tentacles of Roman Catholic error are still reaching deep into the lives and the beliefs of Americans. As a Baptist Preacher I regularly find it necessary to address three major tentacles of errors that spring from mother Rome. As a Baptist one can see these tentacles more clearly because Roman Catholicism is not our mother. As a second generation Baptist I know the entanglements of these tentacles that staunchly gripped my Italian mother until she was converted from Catholicism and became a born again Christian, and joined a Baptist Church.

The three most far reaching tentacles that need to be cut off at the root are: 1) The error that salvation of the soul, and eternal life, can somehow be attained by some work or deed which one can accomplish here on earth. The Bible will show in contrast that one can never work or sacrament enough to achieve heaven and eternal life. 2) The error that the Roman Catholic Church is the mother of all faith and is married to the Holy Pope who is an inerrant vicar of Christ. This whole twisted tentacle comes from the first Roman pope with the audacity to call himself the Holy Father, Pope Gregory I in 605 AD And 3) the error that the Roman Catholic church gave us our Bible. It did not, in fact we got an accurate inerrant Bible despite the continual efforts of the Catholic Church (Roman's Catholic and England's Catholic) to burn it.

Roman Catholicism is considered the Christian voice and definition by the secular pluralistic American culture, but not by Bible believing Christians. This treaties addresses three blatant fallacies in this blaring voice and defective definition. The three mark the foundation stones of this false religion. The Bible refutes these three Catholic doctrines with clear doctrine about the Blood, the Body and the Book. The catholic foundation stones must be removed from the sand before a catholic soul can be built on the Rock, Christ Jesus. Jesus rebuking the religious order of his day said “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” It shall take a greater power than this evidence to convert a Catholic loved one, neighbor or friend from Romanist to Christ. It takes God to shake the three stones mentioned above. You need to know what stones should be kicked at but only God can convert a soul. If you are a converted catholic or a curious one, the evidence in this treatise is meant to strengthen your faith to stand on the Bible and debunk the errors of Catholicism which entwined you.

Various Position Papers

Article 1 A Grand Divisor of Truth and False Religions (The Blood)

Article 2 On Biblical Authority (The Book)

On Biblical Authority What the Bible says

Article 3 One Church, But Not Roman (The Body)

Article 4 Origin of Roman Catholic Church

Chronological Tabled List of Heresies

Article 5 Peter not the Rock on which the Church was Built

Article 6 Three Roman Errors Concerning Mariology

The Error in the words of their Catechism

Article 7 The Ancient Witness of Baptist Existence

Appendix 1 The Bible and the Good Friday Error

The Greatest Decision You Could Ever Make

Appendix 2 Help From Dr. Steven A. Hite

Appendix 3 Vatican II Liturgical Press ... concerning indulgences

Appendix 4 The Contrast Between Faith by Grace, and Faith by Works

Article 1 TOC

One Question, a Grand Divisor of Truth and False Religions 10/18/03

In all human studies of theology there is no one greater question than the one I shall address here. In all the divisions of religions, especially "Christian religions," there is not a more clear divisor which separates teachers, denominations, faiths and churches into two distinct piles or groupings of "true religion" and "false religion."

The question was asked of Jesus himself while he walked here on this earth. This question, answered wrongly, has formed many a mother church which gives birth to innumerable daughter churches which are tainted by the falsehood of false teachings on this one question. All of mankind is responsible for asking and pursuing a truthful answer to this one question, and we should let its answer divide Baptists and Catholics into two distinct piles and call one false and one true.

The question: "What shall a man do to attain eternal life?" The question looms before every religion. If the Bible is true, and I devoutly believe that it is, then there is but one right answer to this question. Again, how a teacher, denomination, religion or church answers this one question determines weather they are a true religion or a false religion.

Let me state first how a Baptist categorically, across the board answers this question. Then we shall examine the side stepping answers I have gathered from those taught in the Roman Catholic Papal Doctrine. Whereupon we shall have the tools to decide which religion is the false teacher, Baptist Bible Doctrine, or Catholic Papal Doctrine.

The Baptist believe the clear Bible teaching that there is no works a sinner can do in this life to procure eternal life. It is absolutely a free gift made available to all men through Jesus Christ. Not through his church, not through any good work, not through any physical deed or bead, penance or substance, baptism of infant or baptism of adult, or conformation class. Nothing but faith in Jesus Christ and his promise of GRACE can bring about eternal life to fallen man. And when Jesus Christ gives you this eternal life he does not leave you sitting around wondering if you got it. You are literally born again as he said, born spiritually wherein you are 1) Converted via repentance and faith in Christ, 2) you are Justified before God through Christ, 3) you are Regenerated or Quickened, made alive where once you were dead in trespasses and sin, 4) you are Baptized into the body of Christ, (no water here) and 5) you are Indwelt, permanently, by the Holy Spirit of God. These all happen in an instant and are all permanent and everlasting.

Thus Christ did not misspeak when he said in John 3:16 "Has, (present perfect tense) everlasting life." Now when these five events occur simultaneously in ones life, there is little doubt that some thing has happened to the individual and one can tell you when they got saved, when they were born again, who showed them the scriptures and how great it is to be saved and know it. We call that giving a testimony of when God saved you, mine is written on my web page, every member of a Baptist Church has a salvation testimony, they state it before being baptized in believers baptism, and they are baptized by immersion before they can be a member of a Baptist Church.

Now lets look at a few verifying scriptures. Eph 2:8 "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." You may not get a full understanding of what it means to get saved from this sentence but it is a cinch that you won't get there with any works that you do. Notice Rom 11:6 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. Clearly no works at all are in ones salvation experience.

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

These passages are clear about salvation of man's soul being by grace and no work of any sort being involved. It is a free gift, and must be accepted as such as so eloquently described in the whole dissertation of Romans. Further these excerpts are completely in context, so much so that we recommend that the whole book of Ephesians and the whole book of Romans be read to more fully understand the freedom of this gift, and the reality of an event called salvation that includes the five above mentioned simultaneous events. Note especially that it is an event, like a birth is an event. It is not a process that occurs over time but an event that occurs in a moment of time.

Now an argument often brought up to confuse this issue is the statement of James the brother of Jesus who states "James 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ... 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. ... 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Note here that a dictionary easily solves this confusion. Paul’s statemenets are concerning the attaining of “Justification” whereby the justification is the judicial statement of God that my sin’s are forgiven, via Webster’s def #1. James’ statements are concerning the observance of fact or circumstance that ‘justifies’ ones faith, i.e. tests it to see if it is alive or dead, tests it to see if it is real or pretend, and has nothing to do with the attaining of this declaration of justification. Thus James is using Webster’s def #2 in his rebuke to “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” shewing respect of persons concerning the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. The rebuke is justified. The use of these scriptures to pretend that God’s act of justifying for salvation is attained by works is not. Notice the two definitions in use by the two authors of scripture and be careful not to interchange them as Catholic doctrine does:

jus·ti·fi·ca·tion (j¾s”t…-f¹-k³“sh…n) n. 1.a. The act of justifying. b. The condition or fact of being justified. 2. Something, such as a fact or circumstance, that justifies: considered misgovernment to be a justification for revolution. (The American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition @1994)

That is Baptist Doctrine of salvation. It is straight from the Bible and concludes that man can have eternal life, and know that he has it, by being 'born again.' Further the Bible says 1John5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Any religion that would add some work to this free gift is a false religion. And any church that would offer eternal life up for sale to highest bidders is especially vile. So now I'll bid you do your homework, and tell me what does the Roman Papal Doctrine say concerning eternal life? I have asked Catholic priests what one must do to know for certain that you have eternal life and recorded their answers. What is the Roman church teaching this week that one must do to attain eternal life, it changes periodically. I know what they taught in the past 1600 years, since they started baptizing infants and broke off from the Independent, Autonomous, Bible Believing, Believer Baptizing, Churches and joined hands with the government of Rome. Clearly they have been a false church, a false religion on this regard of salvation by grace. They teach salvation by works. They call themselves the mother of all faith, but their faith is not Bible Faith. They claim they wrote the Bible, that they are the sole protectors of the Bible and that they are the sole interpreters of the Bible. In the pages which follow we will expose all three of these lies of Catholicism. Faith is not of works, but of grace. Catholicism is not the mother of faith, but the antithesis of it. Catholics did not write, preserve or accurately interpret the Bible, instead they burned them and the English translators who printed them.

What have we then learned in answer to this questions “What must I do to be saved?”

Salvation is thus obtained by listening to the Scriptures, not by listening to the Roman Catechism:

Perseverance in faith

Catechism Pt 1, Sect 1, Chap 3, #162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow, and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith, it must be "working through charity," abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.

Understand from the precedeing Scriptures that ones salvation is not secured nor maintained by begging the Lord to increase our faith nor by works of any sort. Catechism #162 misrepresentes the new birth and salvation of a soul which is attained by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 10:13) not by working through the sacramental system of any Church.

What Must I Do To Be Saved – The Catholic's Wrong Answer

We have shown in a previous article that one question that can act as
a grand divisor of truth and false teachings is the question asked of
Jesus on several occasions: “What shall a man do to attain eternal
life?” The Catholic answer to that question will involve two major
contentions, first that their baptism is what washes away sin. We have
called that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. And secondly that
one must work out ones salvation with fear and trembling and then maybe, if
they do enough penance and work, they might make it to heaven, it is their hope. In this article we shall use a systematic presentation of Bible truths to refute their
doctrine of baptismal regeneration five fold. For every verse they attempt
to twist into their doctrine I will use five Bible truths which refute
their doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. I shall use the most common Bible arguments I have heard from staunch catholics that are defenders of this doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Largely they will use the words of the early church fathers to develop this error in their teachings because they hold their teachings above the clear teaching of the scriptures. A catholic will find it difficult to concede that most of their unbiblical doctrines have been propagated through such a line fathers for 1500 years. Here we shall begin at the beginning, as Baptists do, using the Holy Scriptures alone to refute fivefold this misleading doctrine.

There is no Baptismal Regeneration in John 3!
First they attempt to read baptismal regeneration into John 3:5 “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” But the whole contrast that Jesus is laying out here is between a physical birth, here on earth, and a spiritual birth, a birth from above. So a first refuting is in the context of the very
argument. They take the whole discussion out of context in order to
leverage in their teaching about water baptism. I once argued to a
Catholic antagonist that there is more natural birthing amniotic fluid
in verse 5 than there was catholic holy water. San Diego Bishop Robert
Brom soon published an article saying Baptists “attempt to explain away
this verse (John 3:5) saying the water is amniotic fluid.” He calls such
a discourse absurd. So would I. What I actually said is that the water
in verse 5 would sooner be amniotic fluid than Catholic holy water. And
I still contend so. I know of no Baptist who has argued what the Bishop
contends but I could easier defend such an interpretation than to fit
baptismal water into John 3:5, such is not even the subject matter!
Look at the previous verse. Nicodemus was not in need of clarification about baptism but about the kingdom of God, (the spiritual) being different from the physical world
(the water). In verse 4 Nicodemus asks “How can a man be born when he
is old? Can he enter the second time into his mothers womb, and be born?”
Verse 5 contains Jesus' answer to that question contrasting the physical with the spiritual and has nothing whatsoever to do with catholic baptism. Verse 6 further separates the contrasting natural births and spiritual births, thereby separating the water (baptism?)
from the spiritual even more. Even differentiating so much as to make the water (baptism?) refer to the fleshly, completely separate from the spiritual birth.
A second refuting of the catholic misrepresentation of John 3:5 is Jesus' second clarifying illustration using the wind. Verse 8 says “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.”

Remember that Jesus is addressing what a religious man must do to inherit eternal life. In this dissertation he is completely separating the spiritual birth from the physical, and in
this illustration of its invisible effects there is absolutely no baptism because that would be physical and visible. There is no holy water here and another level of separation between the natural and spiritual. Now look at the third illustration found in verse 14.

Of all the water filled Old Testament illustrations Jesus could have used, he used
he used a dry one. No baptismal regeneration is found in John 3. He used one that seeded the Evangelical Christian song “Look and Live, My Brother Live” because that is all that was required for the people in Numbers chapter 21 to obtain salvation, and that is all that is required for New Testament Christianity. There is no scriptural basis
for a song “Be Baptized and Live” none for “Be Sprinkled and Live”, none for “Get Some Holy Water and Live” ... no Jesus' illustrations on obtaining eternal life never contain baptismal water. If baptismal water were necessary for salvation Jesus' communication here represents gross negligence on his part, to clarify their essential baptismal water to Nicodemus here in John 3.
Thirdly, Jesus actually clarifies clearly that water baptism is not part of his explanation. In verse 15 and again in verse 16 it says 'Look and Live”... “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” If water baptism were necessary, Jesus, here, would be deliberately misleading Nicodemus. And if water baptism were just the
entry gate that starts your forgiveness whereby you might, in time, after much works obtain eternal life, then the present-perfect possessive tense of ”have eternal life” is a gross verbal error in our Bible or a misleading communication from Jesus himself. Baptists hold emphatically that the Bible is verbally inspired, inerrant and infallible.. Holding that this sentence of Jesus is worded in the right present perfect tense possessive 'have' and that Jesus was not leading St. Nick into any error (the Scriptures are inerrant), and thirdly, that this promise concerning eternal life can never fail (the Scriptures are infallible.) This is made even more pungent when you examine his next sentence for any presence of holy water. John 3:16 known, loved, and memorized by Baptists around the world says “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.“

A forth refuting of the Catholic misrepresentation of John 3:5 is this Chapter's dealing with the “question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.” If baptismal water could wash away a single sin or do any purifying at all these 9 sentences from the apostle John must capture such a possibility. Catholic Bishop Brom¹ may quote Justin Martyr (151 A.D.) and Irenaeus (190 AD), Cyprian the biship of Carthage (252 AD) or St. Augustine (408 AD) but converning baptismal he cannot quote the Apostle John or the Lord Jesus Christ in this very passage dealing with forgiveness of sin, eternal life and purifying water. Why not? The purifying by water, so prominently emphasized by the Jews could, if true, be tied to salvation in this clarification but it is instead divorced from the availability of salvation. Salvation available solely by faith, solely by belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. It says in John 3:30 that “He (the Lord Jesus Christ) must increase, and I (the baptizer with water) must decrease. If there is no baptismal regeneration itemized in these verses of John chapter 3, where the questions about John the baptizer and about purifying water are dealt with directly, then expect none in the rest of the Bible. They may be rampant in St. Augustine's doctrine, but none will be found in the Holy Scriptures.

In the fifth of the five-fold refuting of this catholic error I need to simply quote John's closing sentence to the chapter on being 'born again' or 'born from above.' With the danger of being over repetative notice that there is no water, no baptism, and no physical connections or words to be found in the closing sentence. Notice too, the present perfect tense of the possession and the clarity of its presentation. The Apostles John's words in John 3:36 clarify the issue: “ He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.“

There is absolutely no baptismal regeneration found in John chapter 3.

There is no Baptismal Regeneration in Acts 2

A second scripture the catholics continually use to prop up a bad doctrine of baptismal regeneration, wherein baptism gives one forgiveness of sin, is Acts 2:38. Here Peter is preaching to those who crucified the Christ and says to them in his closing message: “37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and Brethern what shall be do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to tour children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, 40 and with manyu other words did he testify and exhort, saying Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Now if 38 stood alone in explaining how one attains salvation I would not slight the catholics for putting all their emphasis on baptism for regeneration (although even there infant baptism is not a feasible doctrine) But the Bible contains many other words of exhortation on the salvation of the soul of man. Words that clarify and prioritize the two ingredients of verse 38, “repent and be baptized.” So the first of the fivefold refutings of this out of context application is the understanding of what the verse actually contains.

Acts 2:38 is the close to Peter's message to the very Jews that cried “crucify him” fifty days earlier. His preaching to this crowd was for them to first repent, then be baptized. Baptists hold that the former is the means of salvation repentence of sin with faith in Christ is called conversion in the Bible and Jesus said “except ye be converted ... ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” The Catholics, with Jeromes 385 AD Latin Vulgate Bible have mistranslated the word 'to repent' into 'do penance.' Their doctrine puts all its emphasis on the baptism and completely eliminates repentance. It substitutes instead their doctrine of penance, which is by definition “the suffering, labor or pain to which a person voluntarily subjects himself, or which is imposed on him by authority as a punishment for his faults, such as fastings, flagullations, wearing of chains etc. (Penance is one of the seven sacraments of the Romish Church)” (The American Heritage Dictionary 3^rd Edition)

Again, let me reiterate that 'penance' is found nowhere in the Scriptures, only by mistranslation in the Catholic's Latin Vulgate of 385 AD. It is nowhere found in the Greek New Testament, nor in the teachings of Christ. It is a Catholic addition to the faith propagated by Jerome's mistranslation of the Greek word repent 52 times out of it's 58 uses. Thus 'penance' joins a list of words added to their doctrine and disseminated by Jerome's faulty translation from the Greek whereby they devised 'penance' (Latin mistranslation) instead of 'repentance' (Greek Bible Word), 'sacrament' (Latin mistranslation) instead of 'mysteries' (Greek Bible Word), 'New Testament priests' (Latin mistranslation) instead of 'presbyters' (Greek Bible Word).

Baptists make every effort to systematically capture every thing the Bible says in this doctrine about how to attain eteranl life while Catholics have allowed tradition and errant Church Fathers to dictate their doctrine. Now that the Bible is out of their monestaries and available to the common man (i.e. After 1611) they must force and leverage the Bible to match their misguided doctrine of baptism, penance, sacraments and priests, and they try to get all the leverage they can out of Acts 2:8. But in Acts 2:8 Peter is giving the generalities of what one must do to be saved. The specifics that emphasize repentance over baptism are described in much more detail elsewhere. So this first refuting of their use of this verse is that the Catholics try to force fit this verse into their traditionally developed doctrine of baptismal regeneration by rejecting and mistranslating its real emphasis on repentance.

A second refuting is found again in Jesus' teaching about salvation. In John 6:26 the people seeking Jesus asked “What shall we do, that we might work the words of God?” This simple and blunt question was in response to Jesus' profound statement “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which enfureth unto everalsting life, which the son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” In answer to this question, if baptismal regeneration were true Jesus would need to mention purifying water, or the work of baptism, or sacrament of penance or such, but he mentions only that they 'believe' (as he consistently said in John 3 which we just examined.) Verse 29 here says “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” Clearly this explanation of salvation by garce (a free gift without works) and is at odds with the Catholic doctrine of the sacramental works of penance and the sacramental works of baptismal regeneration.

A third refuting can be found in the book of Romans where the apostle Paul is developing a systematic presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. An excellent rule for understanding the Bible is “The Bible is the best interpretor of the Bible.” To implement this rule one must consider the teaching of all Scriptures as they bear upon any one doctrine. Here, upon the doctrine of how one obtains eternal life, a paramount principle doctrine of the faith, we must consider Romans 10:9-10. Paul has corrected the error that the law might provide righteousness (even as we here are correcting the error that water baptism might provide righteousness.) Thus Paul states “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Again notice the emphasis in on what one belives not on one being baptized. Paul then explains this dependence on belief thus “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” The process of receiving eternal life is here described in the simplest most concise manner anywhere in the N.T. and it follows the Baptist's systematic method of faith alone with no water baptism included. Although Catholics have gone through a great effort to develop their errant doctrine of baptismal regeneration it cannot be supported systematically with the Bible.

A forth refuting of their use of Acts 2:38 to try and support water derived righteousness can be found in the order of events when one gets saved. Always, in the Bible, conversion, i.e. repentance from sin and faith in Christ, precedes the water baptism by immersion, so much so that the baptism is but a public display of ones conversion and not the causative agent for regeneration. Acts 2:38 and 41 already indicate that order of savign faith followed by water baptism. Lets look at 3 more of the several of examples. In Acts 8 there are two. In verse 13 a man called Simon, who previously used sorcery (verse 9) “believed also and was baptized.” Notice the order, he first believed and then he was baptized. (This follows the order of Baptist's “believer baptism, and confounds the Roman infant baptismal regeneration) Baptists differentiate here contending that his faith and trust in Christ is what would give him eternal life by imparting to him the righteousness of Christ. His baptism washed away no sins, if sins were to be forgiven it must be by the blood of Christ not by the baptismal water. For without the sheding of blood there is no remission of sins.(Heb 9:22) Simon was baptized because he made a profession of believing in Christ. But in verse 2 Peter says to Simon “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.” Perer here discerned that Simon may have confessed with his mouth, the Lord Jesus but he did not believe in his heart. Peter emphasizes the need of repentance which was lacking in Simon. The order in again emphasized here that repentance and faith in Christ, which make up conversion, must occur before baptism. Baptism, here, had not part in the conversion or regeneration. Baptism is to follow conversion as a command of Christ and a public testimony of ones conversion to Christ but with no baptismal regeneration. In Simon's case there was no regeneration at all because of Simon's unbelief, there is never regeneration because of water baptism.

The same chapter, Acts 8, and verse 37 and 38 we see the testimony of an Ethiopian eunuch concerning his baptism and again baptism was only to follow an authentic conversion testimony. Eternal life is conveyed in the repentance and faith in Christ as Jesus taught in John 3:15-18 and as Paul so robustly preached it in Romans 10:9-10 and 13. Here Philip affirms it for the eunuch. “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized) And (the eunuch) answered and said I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

(Now verse 37 is not in the modernist ecumenical bibles. To find it in English you need to use the King James Bible, and to find it in the original Greek you must use the Byzantine manuscripts because the Alexandrian copies from Eqypt, used for all modernist bibles, and the Western Empire copies used by the Romans with their Latin Vulgate translation, leave off this whole verse. The Egyptian copies came from Alexandria where tainted by the false teachings Tertullian(145-220 AD) passed on to Cyprian and to St Augustine(AD 354-430) Here are some lines from Tertullian himself on this fallacy of holy water washing away sin:

HAPPY Is our sacrament Of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! ...Mindful of this declaration as of a conclusive prescript, we nevertheless proceed to treat the question, "How foolish and impossible it is to be formed anew by water. In what respect, pray, has this material substance merited an office of so high dignity?" The authority, I suppose, of the liquid element has to be examined. This however, is found in abundance, and that from the very beginning. For water is one of those things which, before all the furnishing of the world, were quiescent with God in a yet unshapen state. ... Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life ...I fear I may seem to have collected rather the praises of water than the reasons of baptism; although I should thereby teach all the more fully, that it is not to be doubted that God has made the material substance which He has disposed throughout all His products and works, obey Him also in His own peculiar sacraments; that the material substance which governs terrestrial life acts as agent likewise in the celestial. ...

All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying. Albeit the similitude may be admitted to be suitable to the simple act; that, since we are defiled by sins, as it were by dirt, we should be washed from those stains in waters. But as sins do not 'show themselves in our flesh (inasmuch as no one carries on his skin the spot of idolatry, or fornication, or fraud), so persons of that kind are foul in the spirit, which is the author of the sin; for the spirit is lord, the flesh servant. Yet they each mutually share the guilt: the spirit, on the ground of command; the flesh, of subservience. Therefore, after the waters have been in a manner endued with medicinal virtue through the intervention of the angel, the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed. TERTULLIAN,ON BAPTISM. [TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL.]

Tertullian is not much quoted by Catholics because in his later years he departed from this error and held more closely to the Scriptures as ascribed by the Montanists, but he was a founder of this error on the spiritual power of Catholic holy water, and this error was propagated by his disciples from Africa right into Roman Catholicism. Note the explanation of Roberts-Donaldson's Introduction on Tertullian:

It seems to be the fashion to treat of Tertullian as a Montanist, and only incidentally to celebrate his services to the Catholic Orthodoxy of Western Christendom. Were I his biographer I should reverse this course, as a mere act of justice, to say nothing of gratitude to a man of splendid intellect, to whom the filial spirit of Cyprian accorded the loving tribute of a disciple, and whose genius stamped itself upon the very words of Latin theology, and prepared the language for the labours of a Jerome. In creating the Vulgate, and so lifting the Western Churches into a position of intellectual equality with the East, the latter as well as St. Augustine himself were debtors to Tertullian in a degree not to be estimated by any other than the Providential Mind that inspired his brilliant career as a Christian.

Thus the Alexandrian error is present in all the Western Theology and in all the modernist ecumenical bibles which rely predominately on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, manuscripts from Alexandria which omit Acts 8:37 altogether. H.G. Wells writes about the 'scholars of Alexandria: “Wisdom passed away from Alexandria ... For the use of books was substituted the worship of books. Very speedily the learned became a specialized ... class with unpleasant characteristics of it's own... a new type of human being; shy, eccentric, unpractical, incapable of essentials, strangely fierce upon trivialities of literary detail, as bitterly jealous of colleague within as the unlearned without – The Scholarly Man -- he was sort of by-product of the intellectual process of mankind.” From H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, p. 305, quoted in Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible, by David W. Daniels So what kind of Doctrine would we expect to come out of Alexandria Egypt? The roots for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration are as poison as the bibles that these humanistic scholars produced. )

But, I digress. Thirdly, lets look at the command of Christ whereby he told us to baptize. It is found most clearly in Matt 28:19 “Go ye therefore, (because all power is given unto Christ in heaven and in earth from verse 18) and teach all nations” Herein the disciples were to teach people to believe in Christ, to “see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart and be converted, and (Jesus) should heal them” Matt(13:15, notice “be converted” not “be baptized”) In the comission of Christ here, teaching them to believe in Christ precedes baptism, again conversion precedes baptism. The commission continues, “baptizing them in them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ...” This does not secure righteousness, this doen not produce the regeneration, this does not produce the quickening, that is only produced in conversion. The commission continues “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” ... Here, believers are trained in the faith, taught the commands of Christ, not to attain eternal life, but because they have eternal life, eternal life they gained by conversion to Christ, with repentance to sin and faith (trust, belief) in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a consistent systematic Biblical accounting for how one receives eternal life, how one is born again, how one is saved. There is no dependence on baptism for this conversion.

A fifth and final refuting for the catholic attempt to read baptismal regeneration into Acts 2:38 can be found in Acts 16:31.

There is no baptismal regeneration in 1 Pet 3:20-21 nor in Col 2:11-13 TOC

Catholic Forgiveness of our Mortal Sin

Catechism Article 4 The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (1422-1484) called the Sacrament of conversion, Penance, confession, forgiveness, Reconciliation, is the Catholic means of alleviating a mortal sin and it includes broadly 3 items Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction.(1480 Like all the sacraments, Penance is a liturgical action. The elements of the celebration are ordinarily these: a greeting and blessing from the priest, reading the word of God to illuminate the conscience and elicit contrition, and an exhortation to repentance; the confession, which acknowledges sins and makes them known to the priest; the imposition and acceptance of a penance; the priest's absolution; a prayer of thanksgiving and praise and dismissal with the blessing of the priest.)

1486 The forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism is conferred by a particular sacrament called the sacrament of conversion, confession, penance, or reconciliation.

The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God's mercy.

1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest's absolution. The penitent's acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.

1492 Repentance (also called contrition) must be inspired by motives that arise from faith. If repentance arises from love of charity for God, it is called "perfect" contrition; if it is founded on other motives, it is called "imperfect."

1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of "satisfaction" or "penance" to be performed by the penitent in order to repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ.

1495 Only priests who have received the faculty of absolving from the authority of the Church can forgive sins in the name of Christ.

1496 The spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance are:

• reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace;
• reconciliation with the Church;
• remission of the eternal punishment incurred by mortal sins;
• remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin;
• peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation;
• an increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle.

1497 Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church.

1498 Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory.

These more specifically involve Interior Penance, (1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).) Reconciliation with the Church (1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance.), Penance (1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him.) Indulgences, (1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance. What is an indulgence? "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints." "An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead 1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity)

Article 2 TOC

On Biblical Authority

Baptist Doctrine and Roman Catholic Doctrine spring from two very diverse authorities. A Baptist's sole authority is the holy inspired word or God. It's availability, and it's verbal accuracy are of vital importance to Baptists. The Roman Imperial Church errantly asserts that it constructed, authored, and preserved our Holy Bible and gave birth to the completed canonized script in 397 AD. They errantly assert that the Bible did not even exist prior to 397 AD. It is then errantly presumed that early church fathers wrote, not that the apostles wrote, that 3rd century theologians wrote, and not that God wrote. Thus modernist scholars contend that it is an error riddled Bible and that it is O.K. for them take their pen knife and snip out any portion that they are displeased with. This error of origin must be dealt with. God wrote the Bible. They are God's words which ”holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you” (Pet 1:21-2:1) Baptists conclude that every word of every one of the 66 books is verbally inspired and penned by holy men of God. The 27 books of the new testament are inspired, penned and 1st copied only by the apostles and eyewitnesses. In the case of Mark and Dr. Luke, God's agents under direct supervision of these apostles and eyewitnesses. Apostles were not theologians with an agenda to communicate, they were eyewitnesses with the Truth to communicate. Only the eyewitnesses ordained and authorized by God are inspired to pen the truths communicated by God, and every word they wrote, whether noun or pronoun, verb or adverb; every word they wrote, whether letter or dissertation, gospel or exhortation; every word was a word of God's choosing and communication. Such is called the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture.

A well versed Roman Catholic recently wrote to me saying: "You know and I know that the Bible didn't exist until 397 AD, when the canon was complete! Constantine died in 337, 60 years earlier. How could there ever have existed a Church "by open Bible and by open conscience" before the Bible even was finished! And even after 397, there could only exist as many Bibles as there were monks who would hand copy them, since there was no printing press. Good grief. The man made "doctrine" of "Bible alone" is so riddled with error! The Bible didn't plop down from the sky. The Catholic Church picked which Scriptures belonged in the Bible. And if the Catholic Church could error on infant Baptism, communion, et al, then why do you accept your Bible!? The Bible indeed is the written Word of God. But this fact isn't because the Bible says it, it is because the Catholic Church said it in 397 AD, when she finalized the canon."

It should be pointed out that Catholics and too often Protestants, error by referring to the Churches in the singular as if there is but one and Romanism is 'It'. The Bible continually instructs “For ye brethren, became followers of the Churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.” The continual reference to “The Church” in the abstract is nowhere practiced by the apostles and is thus an unbiblical practice. Nowhere does the Bible call Mary the Mother of God. Nowhere does the Bible lend credence or authority to a singular Church.

Catholics rest on papal authority. We Baptists on Biblical authority. They try an end run around our authority by saying the Bible did not exist prior to their papal authority. They say, consequently that no church could have ever existed basing all its faith and practice on what the Bible said. Their doctrine insists that they are the One Church and the Mother of all faith. This is not a new argument for Catholics, they have repeatedly tried to contain and control all written word, and thus contain and control all Christendom. Catholicism errantly holds popular opinion that at one time they were the one and only Church in existence. Baptists know this is not true. Baptist also know that the Roman Imperial Church did not construct, author nor preserve our Bible. The facts tell us, in actuality, that Roman Catholicism was a leading hindrance to the distribution of God's word and the doctrine of verbal preservation.

Let's examine these facts from three different aspects. First, what does the Bible say about its formation, distribution and preservation and authority. Second, what does history tell us about the availability of scripture before 397 AD. And lastly, what does the Roman Catholic Church itself say about those churches which were using scriptures as authority outside of its Roman purview

On Biblical Authority What the Bible says TOC

An excellent rule for understanding the Bible is that "The Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible." To implement this rule one must consider the teaching of all scriptures as they bear upon any one doctrine. What then does scripture say about its New Testament authors? Were they actually apostles, i.e. Eyewitnesses of the Christ, his life, death, burial and resurrection?

The Apostle John sure claims that rite:

I John 1: 1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

5 ¶ This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Clearly this was penned by the Apostle John, the wording exactly reflects his manner in his Gospel (Note particularly John 1:1-28² the exceptional prologue of the Gospel he wrote with the same authority.) The same holds true for the Revelation of Jesus Christ, signed by the Apostle John's own hand, written copied and then distributed to the 7 Churches of Asia Minor. To say that John did less than this is to say that the Apostle John was disobedient to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus commanded John to write these things in a book. Jesus commanded John to get the letters to the 7 Churches. It is embarrassingly clear that all this was done in the apostles life time. It is embarrassingly clear that it was 300 years before the Counsel at Hippo (393AD) and Carthage (397AD). To say that the Bible did not exist prior to these counsels of the apostate Catholic Church is to be embarrassingly ignorant of the Bible itself. Yet the Roman Catholics must insist that Papal Doctrine carries more authority than Bible Doctrine. To do less would erode their authority to establish such ludicrous doctrines as baptismal regeneration, priests magically turning wafers into God's flesh, confessionals; deification of Mary, celibacy of nuns and priests, or praying to dead saints. Notice how their authority must precede Bible authority, their papal infallibility, must precede Bible infallibility.

My antagonistic Catholic writes:

Where did the Baptist's get the Bible from, in order to have a "Bible Doctrine". I pose to you that before "Bible Doctrine" even existed there needed to be Papal Doctrine, otherwise Scripture might not have been infallibly picked for the Bible. In any case. Catholic's "Papal Doctrine" should coincide with "Bible Doctrine", as it was "Papal Doctrine" which defined the Bible.

Again notice Catholic insistence that papal authority is infallible, and that they alone could define the Bible. Notice again their necessity to have papal authority override even the authority of the apostles. Lets look for a moment at the gospel of Luke, especially it's marvelous introduction.

Luke1:1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

In each of the writings of the apostles we find tremendous authority to establish and contend for the doctrines of the faith. Although not one of the 12, Luke was a co-minister of the Gospel with the 12 Apostles, and wrote with the authority of an apostle as they indeed authorized his written works. Luke wrote his gospel and the history of the early Church recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Here Luke wrote with authority to establish and confirm doctrine, with no help from catholic papal authority. Biblical authority and Biblical Doctrine did indeed precede any Roman Catholic or Catholic Papal authority. By the apostles own dictates, any departures from or additions to their doctrines is to be rejected ³. Papal Authority is replete with departures from and additions to Bible Doctrine. And trying to contend that papal authority carries the same weight as Apostolic authority and Inspired Scripture's Authority is a cardinal error which will not be swallowed by a Bible Believing Baptist. What Bibles were around before 397 AD? The ones that the Apostles wrote, copied and distributed. Did the Church at Corinth have a copy of Paul's letters? Did the independent, local, autonomous, apostle believing, believer baptizing Church at Philipi have a copy of Paul's writings prior to the Counsel at Hippo (393AD) and Carthage (397AD)? Obviously Yes.

The Churches had the scriptures from the apostles long before the Roman Catholics figured out what was what in 397 and well before the once thought infallible, Roman Pope Innocent I confirmed the existence of a Bible in 405 A.D. Innocent I was one of the last guys to figure out what a Holy Bible is and now they teach he was the first. Go figure.

The Catholics persist in this type of rhetoric because they have intermingled papal authority with apostolic authority. Their Roman contention is that the Apostles had nothing over what their father pope has thus their thinking that the Bible was authored, constructed and preserved by this papal authority, and not by apostolic authority. The roots of this papal authority will be explored in another chapter. Notice here that it is very different from apostolic authority. An apostle must be an eyewitness and ordained by Jesus Christ himself..

Baptists hold to Biblical authority of Scriptures. The apostles alone were the eyewitnesses which passed on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They did not pass on any of this authority, they passed on the truth. They wrote all that God wanted written , and what God wanted written was copied, passed on and preserved by God's almighty hand, not man's futile hand

Examine some more scriptures. Paul states in the closing of his letter to the Colossians: “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it. The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.“

Notice in this context that Paul did not expect his letter to be read once then laid aside. His expectation was that it be copied and distributed to other churches where it was to be read in their assemblies. It was. Notice his reference to a letter of his, to be received and then read in this assembly, from the Church of the Laodiceans. Payl wrote no letter addressed to the Laodiceans/ Notice from the table which shows the approximate times and settings of each of Paul's writings that letters of Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon were written and distributed in this same year.

The letter that was coming from Laodicea to be read at Colosse was most likely the letter to the Ephesians, Phileman being a more private letter that gained circulation later on. Some who hold little regard for verbal plenary inspiration of Scriptures contend that individual Churches took pen in hand and changed the addressee in Paul's letters, thus they errantly say the letter we have as Ephesians was first labeled Laodicea. Such unsupported conjecture is balderdash. Paul clearly wrote to the church he addresses and provides enough specific information about them and to them that such conjecture is blasphemes to the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration of Paul's writings.

However it is plain that Paul did intend that his letter to Ephesus, although specifically addressing his concerns for the new believers at Ephesus, be read in other Churches( I could say here “all Churches.”)

If we have the time line of Paul's writings accurate the epistle to be received from Laodicea may have been his tremendous dissertation on “the righteousness of God providing salvation by faith” Which he called the epistle to the Romans. It would have been written two years earlier than this letter to Colosse. It may have been one of the earlier letters written to Corinth or Thesolonica or to the Churches of Galatia, but there was a letter of Paul's present at Laodocia. Paul has no letter addressed specifically to them. They were copying and distributing it to Colosee and Pal wanted his letter to Colosse copied and sent to the Church of the Laodoceans. There it was to be read in their assemblies. Clearly and irrevocably the Scriptures (Paul's letters were Scriptures, to be read in Churches as were the OT Scriptures. Were being copied and distributed amongst Churches in 61 AD, under the watchful eyes of the apostle himself, the eyewitness of the resurrected Christ.

We have mentioned several times in this treaties that apostolic authority included a requirement of being eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. Since there never was a pope with this required trait we should see what the scripture itself says of this requirement for authority. Begin such examination with the replacement for Judas made by the eleven apostles in Acts chapter 1.

Peters justification for choosing a replacement witness for “Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus” is recorded in Acts 1:21-22. “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” They then choose by lots Matthias “to take part of the ministry and apostleship.” The stern requirement understood for an apostle of the truth was that they be an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus' resurrection. No pope has been such. Baptist authority for truth remains solely affixed to these apostles. There is no continuing appointment or ordination for the office of apostles. There is no passing of the torch of their authority. Christ gave “ And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” This giving of apostles stops at 12 each. The requirements for an apostle, that they be eyewitness of the resurrected Christ, is such that this is not a perpetual office in the Churches.

Revelation 21:14 says “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” There are but 12 here. We will know which 12 when we get to heaven, but it is certain now that Joseph Smith is not one, nor is Pope John. In Revelation 2 Jesus commends the Church at Ephesus because “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:” We should do the same. Any institution which ordains apostles is deviant from Scriptures. When the Roman Catholic Church claims 273 popes holding apostolic authority they are apostate, not apostolic. Catholicism is not a part of the foundation nor authority of a Bible believing Christian. We are not built on the Roman Catholic foundation but by the witness of god's Word. We are built on the foundation of the 12 apostles alone.

When we get to heaven and check the names on the foundation I expect we will find there the Apostle Paul's name on one. Myself, I don't expect to see Mattheas' name there. There will only be 12 names and I believe Mattheas was mans ordained replacement while the Apostle Paul was God's ordained replacement. Whatever names are written on these foundation there are but 12 of them and they are called foundation stones on purpose. Paul speaks of these apostle named foundation and says to the saints at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus (we Baptist are here included) “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” There may be 273 popes who pretended to be vicars of Christ, but there are only 12 apostles which form the foundation of what true Christians believe.

We conclude here that the Scriptures were written copied and distributed to the Churches by apostolic authority. This authority to discern and record the true doctrine of Jesus Christ was not passed on to another. The foundation stones are found in these 12 apostles not in traditions passed on with private interpretation.

“It shall greatly help ye to understand Scripture,

If thou mark, Not only what is spoken or written,

But of whom, And to whom,

With what words, At what time

Where, To what intent,

With what circumstances,

Considering what goeth before And what followeth.”

John Wycliffe

Article 3 TOC

One Church, But Not Roman

The Roman Catholic Church contends that it is the sole mother of all faith in Christ. This contention that there must be only one Church of Christ, and the Romans are it, is pitted in their twisted interpretation of Matthew 16.

Nowhere in the NT scriptures is there an implication that one Church is to lord over another with any ecclesiastical control. Each Church was to be independent, and each Church is to be autonomous. Understand the meaning of autonomous here as Catholics often make it synonymous with anarchy. Autonomous here means a Church body is not under human control but under the control of Jesus Christ. A local Church has a human pastor (shepherd, more particularly an under shepherd) in the office of bishop (overseer) who is an ordained elder (presbyter.) This ordination (or choosing) is by God, . but bear this point carefully in mind. When Jesus Christ said “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall prevail against it.” There are some things that the Roman Catholic Church read entirely wrong. First, they think that the rock was referring to Peter rather than the truth that Peter had just uttered, secondly they teach and consider that the church here is some singular, only one can be right, and we are “IT” kind of monstrosity that excommunicates and burns heretics. Clearly, the church referred to here is the abstract institution not the singular held to by mislead Roman Catholics and carried over by confused Protestants. Dr. Carroll, provides the best illustration of this abstract language with example:

An English statesman, referring to the right of each individual citizen to be tried by his peers, should say: ‘ On this rock England will build her jury, and all the power of tyranny shall not prevail against her.’ He uses the term jury in an abstract sense, i.e., in the sense of an institution. But when this institution finds concrete expression or becomes operative, it is always a particular jury of twelve men and never an aggregation of all juries into one big jury.” Bravo Dr. Carol.

Please see, that the Roman Catholic Church misrepresents the scripture on this point and contends that the Roman Catholic Imperial Church is the aggregation of all churches into one big jury. Not true, thus, to a Bible believer, the Roman Catholic Imperial Church is anything but a “pillar and ground of truth” It is a web of self serving deception and deceit. But it does have a very long history of very effective half truth deceptions. As you read through the following answers to Max’s list of unanswerable questions, keep in mind that this web of deceit is sometimes subtle, but clearly comes from the father of deceivers, and not from the Word of God.

Article 4 TOC

Origin of Roman Catholic Church

I'll contend that your misjudgment that Roman Catholicism was around before Independent, Autonomous, Bible Believing, Believer Immersing Churches came about when you errantly believed that the Bible did not exist prior to the fifth century. That myth is a stronghold of Roman Catholicism. The Bible existed and was copiously copied from the day the apostles penned and distributed each book/letter. Until you get this truth framed in your head you will continue to follow the deceptive Roman Catholic line of reasoning.

The Roman Catholic Church is the result of gradual perversion and corruption and "lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them. (Prov 5:6)" From the days of Constantine, when soldiers without regeneration were baptized into the church by the thousands, and compromise was made with paganism, conditions waxed worse and worse, finally bringing about a state that made the Catholic Church possible. The actual establishment of the Roman Papacy was accomplished by Gregory the Great in the year A.D. 590. (This according to Dr. S.E. Tull "Demoniationalism Put to the Test") Dr. Tull corroborates his statement by the following quotation from Ridpath (Vol. 4 P. 41):

"This epoch in history should not be passed over without reference to the rapid growth of the papal church, in the close of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh. Most of all by Gregory the Great; whose pontificate extended from 590 to 604, was the supremacy of the apostolic See attested and maintained. Under the triple title of Bishop of Rome, Prelate of Italy, and Apostle of the West, he gradually by gentle insinuations or bold assertions as best suited the circumstances, elevated the Episcopacy of Rome into a genuine papacy of the church. He succeeded in bringing the Arians of Italy and Spain into the Catholic fold, and thus secured the solidarity of the Western Ecclesia."

Thus the development of any absolute Roman papacy, the corruption of the word catholic, and the complete abandoning of the Word of God (the Bible, the writings of the Apostles that were copied the day they were penned) as the absolute authority had its crescendo under Gregory in 590-604 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church did not originate in a day or year, but gradually subverted the apostles' teaching, and in centuries inaugurated full-grown popery. There is not a trace of a pope or Universal Father in the first three centuries of the Christian era.

We thus trace Independent, Autonomous, Bible Believing, Believer Immersing Churches all the way back to the Apostles who wrote the scriptures. Don't get hung up on the history of John Smyth here, nor on the name Baptist. These IABBBI Churches were called Baptists, Baptizers, Ana-Baptists Montanists, Donatists, Paulicians, Waldenses, etc. Since the American, Regular and Southern Baptist have compromised with the modernists we call the little remnant that remains true to His Word, Independent, Fundamental, KJV Baptists. Names will change. The fact that a Baptist holds to the Holy Scriptures as its sole source of all faith and practice won't change. It has not changed for 1970 years now, ever sense the apostle Peter (who didn't found any papacy or any Roman Church despite what fallible Pope Gregory I said) preached at pentecost.

Article 5 TOC

Peter was not the Rock on which the Church was Built

The contention between Rome and Baptist has always been centered on authority. Rome claims papal authority handed down through Peter to itself. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, they contend, is the only true and singular Church. Baptists claim Biblical authority accepting all faith and practice from only the eyewitness authors of scripture and denying all apostolic session. Thus a true Church (a called out body of believers) with doctrinal purity and Biblical organization could spring up from any group of regenerated believers who band together and grasp only a Bible, the word, and a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, the WORD. Their battle cry “Christ built His Church upon Peter, He did not build ‘churches’ upon Christ.” Our battle cry, “Christ built and is still building local, autonomous, independent, Bible believing, believer Baptizing Churches, who will not pledge allegiance to Rome.” There have always been such Churches in existence. Rome denies it but Baptists follow the trail of blood all the way back to the 1st called out body of believers, the 1st ecclesia, the 1st Church of Jesus Christ. They, the Roman imperial monarchical church, claim history to be on their side. We, in the independent Bible believing, believer baptizing churches currently called Baptists, claim truth to be on ours.

Let’s examine the scriptures carefully on this point. Matthew 16:18 particularly.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Roman interpretation of this scripture is that Jesus would build his Church upon Peter. Baptist rendering follows the text more carefully to understand the contrast between “Petros”, a proper noun of masculine gender, and “this rock”, a demonstrative pronoun of feminine gender. The truth (a feminine noun) that Peter stated is clearly the rock (petra, a feminine noun) which Christ would build upon. In Greek the pronoun must always agree in gender with it’s object. “This”, the demonstrative pronoun used here, could have been in the masculine and with some obscure use could have been used to point to Peter, i.e. This(m) Petros(m), will be the rock(m) to build my ecclesia(f). But that would not be the words of Christ. His words reflect a contrast between the name Petros (m) and the truth(f) that he stated. This truth(f) which Christ labeled this(f) rock (petra)(f) was what he would build his Church upon. Christ’s Church is built upon the truth of who he is, as in Baptist Doctrine. It is not built on a human or upon a succession of humans, as in Roman Catholic Doctrine.

The keys of the kingdom of heaven are also misrepresented in Roman Catholic thinking. They clearly represent the gospel of Jesus Christ, more decisively the preaching of that