Roman Worship of Saints, a Remnant of Roman Paganism

The worship of saints is a well-known characteristic of Roman Catholicism. Yeah, they quibble about calling it "worship," but their argument is unconvincing. However, when they say that it is an ancient practice, they are completely correct.

Most Americans are exposed to Roman mythology at some point during our educations. We know about Jupiter and Juno, Neptune, Pluto, etc. What most Americans don't know, however, is that the big-name gods were not the focus of the devotion of the common people. They were reserved for important people, such as emperors and senators. In their homes, Romans worshiped minor deities called Lares. "Lares were the spirits of one's dead ancestors and there was a cupboard in the home which housed their statuettes and from which they worked to make sure the family prospered. Daily prayers and offerings were made to the Lares throughout the year but elaborate rituals were enacted on special days such as a birthday, wedding, anniversary or departure or return from a journey. When a family moved permanently from one house to another, the Lares and the Panes would move with them." These family spirits had the time and devotion to give to each household when the gods were too busy with things like wars and coronations.

Does this sound familiar?

The Church of Rome promotes praying to saints, often in home shrines, not as mediators to God, she says, but as mediators to the Mediator, Jesus Christ. Why not pray directly to Him? *Shrug* Is He too busy? We need to speak to His secretary? Is it really not matter of trust? I feel no need to pray to saints, because I am confident that Jesus is glad to receive my prayers: "This is the confidence that we have toward Him, that if we ask anything according to His will He hears us" (I John 5:14).

But I digress.

My point here is simply this: As much as Rome talks about the Bible in the explanation linked above, the real basis of saint worship is the hold-over of a custom from pagan Rome.

Who Are the Children of God? Satan's Attack on the Plan of Salvation

This issue comes up in discussions with two groups of people: Mormons, who claim that every person is the child of God by creation; and liberals, who hold to a universal salvation, claiming that the fatherhood of God goes with the brotherhood of man. While the two groups are different in many ways, they share this humanistic view of the goodness of man in the eyes of God.

However, Scripture is God-centered, not man-centered, and, therefore, makes determinations on the basis of His perspective, not ours. And what is that perspective?

"It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:8). God, in His word, always makes a distinction among men. We see it first in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." Immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve to sin, God announces His plan for salvation, which shall distinguish between the seed of Eve and the seed of the serpent (see also John 8:44). And what Moses describes in poetic terms, Paul describe prosaically.

The efforts of Mormons and liberals to take down the dividing wall between the godly and the wicked is very popular in today's spiritual environment. However, it is an effort to erase a division which God has determined. That puts their effort in opposition to the salvation plan of God. In essence, they seek to undermine God's plan of salvation, the same purpose as the serpent on Genesis 2.

The Catholic Apologetic for Scripture

While professing to believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, the Church of Rome claims that acceptance of that authority is dependent on the testimony of the Church. That is, her church. They enjoy quoting the words of Augustine: "I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me." Of course, they hide the fact that "catholic" is merely the Greek word for "universal.' It is circular reasoning to equate Augustine's use of the word with the Roman organization.

However, let us consider the logic of Rome's assertions. By doing so, I think we will conclude not only that her assertion is false, but that it is also destructive to real biblical faith.

First, it makes the basis of authority to be an organization, lodged in the hierarchy of Rome. They explicitly state this. They claim that the Bible even teaches this: "The church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15). This is both begging the question, equating "church" in this verse with Rome's organization, and cherry-picking, ignoring another applicable verse: "[The Church is] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). Not only does the Scripture not make the Roman hierarchy the foundation of Scripture, but it, instead, makes the writings of the Apostles (the New Testament) and the prophets (the Old Testament) the foundation of the Church, the twofold witness of Christ, the real head of the Church, exactly the opposite of the claims of Rome.

Second, the implication of Rome's doctrine is that God can preserve the testimony of the church, but not of His own word. What does that say about the power of God? It is also contrary to the explicit statement of Scripture: "You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word" (Psalm 138:2). God prizes His name first, and His word second, over anything else.

And third, we have the testimony of the creation to her Creator: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world" (Psalm 19:1-4). If even nature gives a testimony to God, such that it leaves no man with excuse (Romans 1:18ff), how much more must that be the case in His word!

The Words of Jesus versus Oneness Theology

Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus was the Father before His incarnation. They explicitly deny the preexistence of the Son. However, they hold their doctrine by resolutely shutting their minds to the communications between Jesus and the father.

For example, during the crucifixion, we see these words of Jesus: "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit" (Luke 23:46). Oneness teachers claim that this is the Son (which they define as the flesh nature of Jesus only), addressing the Father, that is, His own deity. They suppose, in other words, that this is the verbalization of the internal conversation between the human and divine natures of Christ.

But is that a logical conclusion from the grammar of the sentence? No, it's not.

First, would a rational person address Himself in the second person, "You," and claim that he is doing something to himself? No, he wouldn't. Second, if a person is speaking to himself, does he speak verbally, with the expectation that others would take note of his internal conversation? Again, no, he wouldn't. Third, would the Evangelist record those words as a conversation, be unaware that it was just Jesus speaking to Himself? Surely not! Yet, Luke records the words in the same way he does any other conversation between two people. Oneness believers assume that they are clever enough to figure out such a fundamental truth, even though Luke gives no hint of it in the text (or anywhere else, or by any other writer).

On the other hand, if we read Luke as natural language, written by a rational person about another rational person, and intended for an audience of rational persons, the grammar of the sentence points naturally to one person's speaking to a second, distinct person. That is, taking the text as natural language, rather than as a mysterious code for an exalted audience (a thoroughly-Gnostic concept), we can never come to the conclusion that Oneness teachers do. That can only indicate that their interpretation has a source other than the text.

Total Depravity: The Hostility of Men to the Gifts of God

"Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
- Romans 8:5-8

Paul says something that seems very clear to me: "You were dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). Theologically, we refer to that as spiritual death. Since the fall of Adam, every man, woman, and child (except Jesus) has entered physical life with a dead spirit. And just as a corpse cannot bring itself back to life, neither can the dead spirit. It is only the Holy Spirit that can bring new spiritual life (John 3:6, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

However, even among professing Christians, this biblical teaching is very unpopular. There remains a part of our spirit that wants to take credit for our salvation. Therefore, while professing Paul's words here, most Christians otherwise teach that men aren't dead in sin, but merely sick. And, just as a physically-sick man can treat himself for his disease, they believe that the spiritually-sick man can cooperate with God in his own salvation.

However, as Paul says in the Romans passage quoted above, unbelievers don't feebly strive for salvation. Rather, it is their natural spiritual condition to hate God, reject His authority, and to turn away from any concept of salvation. Men aren't naturally able to be saved; they are, instead, naturally inclined to remain dead in sin!

Christian Truth: What No Man Can Imagine Must Not Be from Men

It is natural for human beings to seek the approval of others, even if it means patting ourselves on our own backs. Except for the rare neurotic, we accentuate our goodness. And to say that we have none would be an insult.

Yet, that is exactly what the Scriptures say: "None is righteous, no, not one... All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Romans 3:10, 12). Even Jesus Himself left no wiggle room: "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18).

What greater contrast can there be between how we humans think of ourselves and the portrayal that is given in Scripture! And that contrast is my point.

Every other religion, including secular humanism and unbiblical distortions of Christianity, maintain that man is basically good, and can achieve his own spiritual welfare by his own efforts.

Only biblical Christianity stands on this contrary view of the universal wickedness of all men.

What does that tell us?

My point is primarily for the atheist, who demands proof of the divine origin of biblical Christianity. If the Bible teaches that which is universally rejected by the natural assumptions of men, does that not prove that it could not have been created by men? I think that conclusion is unavoidable. It must come from a person, not an impersonal source outside humanity. And it must come from a source with universal knowledge of humanity.

Such a source can only be the God of the Bible. He is the God who made us, so He knows what we are meant to be, and from what status we have fallen short. But He is also the God who intervened in the human world, becoming a man Himself, to live with all of the suffering and frailty of human life. Then He suffered and died to purchase His people from the consequences of the sin that we brought on ourselves.

Christianity begins with a creation that may be conceived by the non-Christian. But it alone assigns consequences from that creation that the human mind universally rejects. Therefore, it cannot come from the human mind. Therefore, it is irrational for any human mind to reject it.

"Who is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before Me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen" (Isaiah 44:7).

God and the Child in the Womb

Among professing Christians, there are people who give a pass to abortion because they have accepted that preborn babies aren't people, whether because they are "potential" individuals or for other reasons.

Let me first ask those people this rhetorical question: If, as Christians, you claim to receive the Bible as your guide in life, where in the Bible do you find any such concept? However, I won't leave the argument at merely the lack of biblical support. Rather, I suggest that Scripture allows no such detestable doctrine.

Consider two people in the Scriptures, one in the Old Testament, the other in the New.

In the Old Testament, we have an account of Isaac, the son of Abraham. He plays a major role, because he is the son of promise, through whom the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant would continue in the world. I assume that no Christian would be ignorant of that story. However, does every Christian believe that Isaac was more than potential before he was born? In fact, God placed great value on him before he was born, promising His blessings on Isaac before he was born: "Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him" (Genesis 17:19; compare Jeremiah 1:5). God knows this preborn child by name, and makes promises regarding him. Can anyone say that God treats him merely as a potential person? What, then, would have happened to God's covenantal purpose if, as in modern America, Isaac had been aborted? Would God have said, "Oh, sorry, Abraham. It was just a thought"?

In the New Testament, we have another preborn child, John the Baptist. John is unique in that he is the only human in all of Scripture who is described as regenerate in the womb: "He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15). If God tells us that He already had a saving relationship with this child in the womb, a mere fetus, how can any professed Christian say that the child was only a potential human being?

The problem here isn't merely a love of death, which one expects from unbelievers. We have professed believers who have adopted a doctrine of unbelief and claimed it as justification for their belief. Those two things are inconsistent: "To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isaiah 8:20). God's judgment is that the follower of an unbelieving worldview is an unbeliever, no matter what title that person may claim.