What are sacraments? Are there any relevance for today's Christians?

C Mc

Have you heard of this? What is a clear definition and how did they come about? How many are there? Is one's salvation attached to them? Upon a deeper look, are sacraments Protestant and/or Catholic? CM

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:
Have you heard of this? What is a clear definition and how did they come about? How many are there? Is one's salvation attached to them? Upon a deeper look, are sacraments Protestant and/or Catholic? CM

SACRAMENTS Ritual actions undertaken by the Christian Church that are understood as visible signs of invisible divine grace.

Overview
Christians throughout history have generally accepted Augustine of Hippo’s definition of a sacrament as “the visible form of invisible grace” (Augustine, “On the Catechism of the Uninstructed,” 26.50). However, different Christian churches and traditions vary in their understanding of how the visible sign relates to the divine grace. There are two general understandings:

1. The sign bestows or contains the grace.
2. The sign depicts, represents, or symbolizes the grace.

Schlesinger, E. R. (2016). Sacraments. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

I think this is the best overview of the sacraments. But I believe the most popular view is (1), that the sacrament applies grace. Not only among Catholics and Lutherans, but even Billy Graham preached a type of sacramentalism in his crusades. The sacrament of "accepting Jesus". Or "decisional regeneration".

In this sense, the act conveys regeneration to the heart just as the Catholics and Lutherans, and Oneness Pentecostals teach that baptism conveys regeneration to the heart.

But the reality exists in (2) above. The sign depicts, represents, or symbolizes the grace. That is, we accept Christ because we are already born again, necessary to recognize him for who he is. And we receive baptism because we already believe enough to embrace it.

GaoLu

. And we receive baptism because we already believe enough to embrace it.

Wow, that sounds like prevenient grace. So you have a little Arminian blood, do you?

Dave_L

@GaoLu said:

. And we receive baptism because we already believe enough to embrace it.

Wow, that sounds like prevenient grace. So you have a little Arminian blood, do you?

Thanks for your thoughts. The way I understand it is that born again people experience the reality of Christ in their hearts as they hear about him. (If not born again, they think it all foolishness and walk away). But the born again become conscious of their sin and begin seeking repentance. So "going forward" and "accepting Jesus" or praying the "sinner's prayer" follows believing. And believing follows the new birth. Jesus says whosoever believes will be saved. So all of these endeavours, including Baptism happen after a person is saved. But they are misled into thinking these works saved them.

But since born again believers then receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, many identify this very noticable change in their lives as the result of making a commitment to Christ. And they confuse it with the new birth. Only by a careful examination of the scriptures can we understand what happened to us in our salvation experience.

GaoLu

I see. Thanks.

C Mc

This subject is important for Bible believers' understanding and practices in living for Jesus. I have compiled points of historical and biblical truth as the "Day of Christ" approaches:

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper had primarily symbolic significance (Rom. 6:3–5; Col. 2:12; 1 Cor. 11:24; John 6:53–56).

• Baptism was seen as a public declaration of one’s new birth and allegiance, and an individual was also incorporated into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).
• Participating in the Lord’s Supper symbolized one’s commitment to Christ. This communal meal was celebrated:
• -- in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
• -- as well as for the enrichment of one’s relationship with Him.

Apart from the issue of “worthiness” (1 Cor. 11:27), we find no instruction as to who could participate.

During the post-apostolic era (second to fourth century A.D.), these ordinances, now called sacraments, came to be seen as a “means of grace”; that is, when a sacrament was received, God’s grace was supernaturally infused into the believer’s soul. For this to happen, however, one had to have been baptized into the church. Baptism, the gateway into the church, imprinted human souls with an indelible mark or seal (called Dominicus character) that separated those who were baptized from the rest of humanity for the rest of their lives. It must be noted that by the third or fourth century A.D. the belief that baptism should be offered to infants had developed. This raised the need for another rite, known as confirmation, which confirmed the child’s wish to become a full-fledged member of the Catholic Church when he or she reached the age of accountability.

This seal, validated during the sacrament of confirmation, enabled believers to benefit from the sacrament of the Eucharist, i.e., to receive God’s grace through partaking of the emblems.-- This doctrine later became known as ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., mere participation in the sacrament would result in the benefit of grace; although the receptive spiritual disposition was considered helpful.

Additionally, the fourth century saw the introduction of the belief that, following the words of consecration, the bread and the wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ.-- This change was later designated as transubstantiation.

Thus, the elements were worthy of veneration, that is, a form of worship. In this way, the sacrifice of Christ was reenacted on behalf of believers each time they participated in the Eucharist, regardless of their spiritual disposition. The benefits of the sacrifice, however, were not transferred to them if their souls were not especially enabled through baptism.

In this way, a causal relationship between baptism and the Lord’s Supper was established. Thus, according to Roman Catholic (and later Orthodox) teaching, baptism qualifies a person to take part in the Eucharist. Unless these sacraments are administered in the prescribed order, the fullness of salvation is not available.

Some even view preaching as a sacrament.
1. P. T. Forsythe characterized preaching as "the sacrament which gives value to all other sacraments."--Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, p. 4.
2. Karl Barth described preaching and sacrament as "two aspects of the same thing."--The Preaching of the Gospel, p. 26.
3. Domenico Grasso, a Catholic spokesman, declares: "Preaching as a vehicle of faith and grace has thus a certain sacramentality. In it, under the visible sign of the human word, a supersensible reality is present and acts just as in the sacrament."--Preaching God's Message, p. 251.
4. Ronald Sleeth, of Perkins Seminary, says: "The sermon itself should be regarded as a sacramental act."--Preaching the Word, p. 25.
5. And Jean Jacques von Allmen, of the University of Neuchatel, says: "And it is by sacramental ways of thinking about homiletics, by a sort of extension of Christology, that we shall be able to rediscover both the joy of preaching and the right of setting about it."--Preaching and Congregation, p. 15.

Sadly to say, to equate or relate preaching to the sacraments tends to reduce the importance of the written Word as the subject matter of preaching. This theology tends to shift the center of preaching from a historical revelation to an existential experience.

"..Sermons are not sacraments but messages drawn from God's Word. Preaching is not an "event" but an unfolding of truths already revealed..." From Roddy, We Prepare and Preach, p. 179.

The Protestant Reformers refuted the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacraments on several grounds:

1. They insisted on the primacy of the Word of God and, most significantly, argued that faith, and not the sacraments, was the means of God’s grace.
2. The sacraments now represented God’s promises and were a sign of Christ’s presence.
3. Participation was viewed primarily as a sign of grace already given rather than being the “means of grace” per se.
4. The Reformers considered the sacraments to be no more beneficial to the believer than other forms of proclamation, such as a sermon or personal witness.

The sequence of the sacraments and especially the causal relationship between baptism and the Lord’s Supper, so crucial to Catholicism, was no longer an issue. It may be conjectured, however, that the Reformers did not depart significantly from Catholic tradition on this point. With the exception of the radical branch of the Reformation, the Reformers continued the Catholic tradition of infant baptism; thus, it was natural that baptism preceded the Lord’s Supper.

Truth found truth shared. Truth shared truth believed. Truth believed truth obeyed. CM

SOURCES:

-- Catechism of the Catholic Church. Libreria Editrice Vaticana (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994), 2.1.1274; 2.2.1128.

• -- Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in Luther Works, 56 vols., ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1959), 66–7.
• -- Jaroslav Pelikan, A History of the Development of Doctrine: Reformation of Church and Dogma (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 177, 187–92, 317–9.
• -- Cf. Martin Luther, Small Catechism (Adelaide: United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia, 1941), 13.

Dave_L

Thanks for the article. I think when Rome got its tentacles into a person, it was nearly impossible to break free. And the Reformed didn't quite make it. They in fact are a "Reformed" version of the same antichrist they condemned in most of their creeds.

But if you approach them as an outsider looking in, there's a lot of truth to be mined. When they make the preaching of the word, and the sacraments the "means" of grace, they practice the same salvation by works they condemn out of the other side of their mouth.