Frequently Asked Questions:
A: The Roman Catholic Church has held considerable appeal for many in view of its ancient traditions and its historical "legitimacy." Organizationally, it claims to be the heir of the apostolic church, claiming especially to be connected to the apostle Peter, on whom Christ said he would build his church. Many are impressed by its rituals, its teachings, and the moral discipline it imposes.
Our differences with the Roman Catholic Church are not rooted in any personal history or problems with the church--many of us were once Roman Catholic, others were raised in protestant churches and may never have attended a Sunday mass. We have friends and family members who belong to the Catholic church, and we may share many similar concerns with those who are social conservatives within the Church.
Our concerns are with the official teachings of the church. Individual members and congregations may not hold to these things and may sincerely rest in Christ alone for their salvation. Our differences with Catholic teachings should not be considered a judgment on individuals within the church.
At the heart of our concerns is the Catholic Church's position on authority. Protestants believe that the Scriptures alone are the final authority for faith and life, whereas the Catholic Church accepts Scripture and church tradition. Very simplistically, we think this repeats the same mistake the Pharisees made when they put their traditions up with the Word of God (ceremonial hand washings, Sabbath regulations, Corban, various moral and legal requirements, see Matthew 15:1-20). These extra-scriptural traditions began to take the place of the Scriptures themselves, and led many of the Pharisees and the Jews away from faith in Jesus. Later, the apostle Paul would confront the same tendency in the early churches as the "Judaizing Christians" wanted to blend Christian faith with Jewish traditions, particularly requiring circumcision and observance of the law for salvation. This same tendency is evident in the Catholic church (and in many mainline Protestant Churches as well). We welcome church traditions and wish to be taught by them, we study the church fathers and benefit from the testimony of their lives, but we do not put them or their teachings above the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture.
So for example, both Catholics and Protestants believe that "Christ died for our sins," but if that is true for the Catholic, why is there any place for indulgences, purgatory, the merits of the saints, the re-sacrifice of Christ in the mass, or the sufferings of the Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church? If Christ paid for our sins completely, if there is no more sacrifice for sin, if Christ's righteousness is perfect, what more can or need be done? The Bible tells us nothing about indulgences, purgatory, the merits of the saints, etc. These are all traditions that have crept into the church and lead us away from Christ and from his once and final sacrifice for sin.
The role of Mary in the Catholic church's teachings is another good example. The Bible tells us very little about Mary, beyond the account of the virgin birth of Christ and several moments along the way of his ministry. She clearly was a wonderful woman who trusted the Lord and served him. But even Jesus distanced himself from her when he was told that his mother and brothers were waiting for him, and he asked "Who is my mother or my brother?" Pointing to his disciples he said, "Here are my mother and brothers..." Matthew 12:46-50. Jesus put Mary on the same level as the rest of his disciples, those who are saved by grace through faith.
The Roman Church places the Virgin Mary alongside Jesus and pretty much makes her a second Christ, a second Savior. Like Jesus, she has an immaculate conception (no evidence of that in Scripture). Like Jesus, she suffered at the cross for us (granted, she suffered as a mother who watched her son die, but she did not suffer for sin as Jesus did). As Jesus was raised to heaven, Mary has her own Assumption into heaven (again, no evidence for this in Scripture). As Jesus intercedes for the saints before the Father, Mary intercedes for the saints before Jesus, though to do so would require omniscience and other divine attributes. Again, no Scriptural evidence for this. It is as though the Catholic Church in her official teachings has put a shadow religion alongside of what the Scriptures teach, and draws our attention away from Scripture to the shadow religion, the religion of Mary and the saints.
We could go further to discuss differences, but if you just focus on these three things, the final authority of Scripture over tradition, the work of Christ on the cross, and the role of Mary in the life of the church, you find within the Roman Catholic Church a shadow religion (unscriptural Church traditions) that supplants the true gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone. This shadow religion diminishes and subverts the work of Christ on our behalf, limiting the effect of his atonement for sin and his present intercession for sinners, and adds to it the ministry of Mary, the saints, the Church, and our own personal good works or sufferings, without any justification from the Scriptures--or in full view of their direct opposition. This is a dangerous thing to do, as Paul reminds us when he said, "If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed," Galatians 1:10.
To continue within that church is to expose yourself continually to such profoundly false and dangerous beliefs as puts yourself and those you love in great spiritual and eternal danger. We think that whatever friendships, family ties, heritage, or personal attainments one has within that church should not prevent anyone from leaving it, nor do we think it is wise for most laymen to stay within the church in the hope of reforming it. This is not to say that those who stay within the church are not Christians, but that they are currently in a dangerous place and should strongly consider leaving it.
Well, that in brief, is our view on the subject of the Roman Catholic Church. We have similar convictions regarding most mainline Protestant churches as well, and just because one is a Protestant, or even a member of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, that doesn't necessarily mean that one is saved. What counts is a personal faith in Jesus Christ and in him alone. That is where our faith rests, and we trust that your faith is in Christ as well.
A: (Pastor MacLaren): Someone recently asked about my thoughts on infant baptism, and I thought I would share them with everyone else who might be considering the subject:
"Infant baptism does not mean that the child is already a believer, or that baptism saves them. It is a sign applied to our infant children to signify that they are in a "covenant relationship" with the Lord, just as Abraham's children Ishmael and Isaac were in a covenant relationship, even before they came personally to faith (Genesis 17). This covenant relationship was not merely national or racial, but spiritual and eternal. Abraham was a believer like you and I. He trusted in Jesus Christ under the old covenant shadows and types (Genesis 15:6, John 8:56, Romans 4). The one and the same sign given to Abraham to signify this relationship was also given to his infant sons and all the members of his household, irrespective of any personal confessions of faith.
In the new covenant, the covenant sign has changed from circumcision to baptism (Colossians 2:11-12), as there was no further need for the shedding of blood. The old covenant shadows and types were fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so bloody circumcision gives way to water baptism.
The command to apply the sign of the covenant to our infant children continues in effect during the new covenant, as it was never repealed. The new covenant age is an age of expanded blessings over the old covenant. We have the Spirit dwelling within us, the adoption as sons, the fulfillment of the promises, the completion of the canon of Scripture, and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom of God. Is it reasonable to expect that this expansion of blessing would be reversed when it comes to the infants of believing parents? Do the children of old covenant believers have greater benefits than those in the new covenant? The logic of the new covenant is for expanded and intensified blessing, not restricted or diminished blessings (see the book of Hebrews, particularly 8:7-13).
So the covenant sign continues in the new covenant age, with a deepened meaning in view of the fulfillment of the promises in Jesus. That is why Paul could say to a believing parent, your children are "holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14), and why it was the practice of the apostles to baptize believers and their households in the book of Acts.
That, in brief, is why I believe in infant baptism and understand it as a parent's responsibility to apply the sign to their children in obedience to the will of the Lord. When our infant children grow up and personally confess faith in Christ, then they enter into full communion in the life of the church and are qualified to take part in the Lord's Supper. They don't need to be baptized again. If a child grows up and fails to confess faith in Christ, he will eventually be removed from the rolls of the church's membership. Until that time, he has the life and witness of the church to urge him to accept the gospel personally...."