Sacraments?

What is the restoration movements understanding of sacraments?

We take communion every Sunday - what else did you have in mind?

__________________
Luke 24:46-47 "He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations ..."

What is the RM view of Sacraments?
Is it a means of Grace?

Well, that's an involved question, because most churches in the RM would deny having sacraments at all- it sounds too "traditional."

But, semantics aside, communion and baptism are the two biggies. They are looked on similarly to sacraments, but without being called as such.

In fact, if you asked most, unless they came from a Catholic, Anglican, etc background, would look at you funny and not know what you meant.

I have heard communion refered to as a sacrament before but I do not know the actual definition of sacrament.

What is it?

__________________
Luke 24:46-47 "He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations ..."

God's relationship with us is always marked with an outward, ordinary sign such as a rainbow, circumcision, mana bread, etc... that are part of an inner grace or promise.

Jesus is the sacrament of all sacraments.

He is an "ordinary" man in that He is fully human and we can understand him in that way - looks like a man, talks like a man, eats, sleeps, feels pain, has emotions, etc...

But, to say He is man, is completely missing the point. He is also God. All the other signs are promises form God to us, where as Christ is THE promise AND God himself, hence the Sacrament of Sacraments.

Most denominations would say that Christ instituted at least 2 sacraments as memorials of our redemption, Baptism and Lord’s Super.

Baptism is an ordinary sign, and physically does very little, if any cleansing. Its inner sign is debated amongst denominations. Some would say it is simple an ordinary event. Others would say that it is not even something we do, but something God does to us. Early Christians understood the Lord’s Super not as symbolic, but as the real Flesh and Blood of Christ. This was difficult for many followers to believe, and lead to charges of cannibalism. This is seen in John 6:43 - 64. Justin Martyr discusses this extensively in his writings from 150 AD, and further, Roman court records show charges of cannibalism.

I grew up in a RM church and since have attended many other denominations. I found it odd that a lot of other denominations did not take communion every Sunday and others did not practice baptism by immersion. I always thought of the term "saved" as being baptized by immersion. I didn't know there was any other way to be "saved" or "baptized".

Obviously, I have since been educated, but you'll find a lot of RM churches where the members don't realize these things.

__________________
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved - Romans 10:13

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not parish, but have everlasting life - John 3:16


I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me - John 14:6

The RS has two sacraments. Communion and baptism. They are administered by any baptised male, (who is in essence a priest, all Christians being priests as per Peter's epistle).
The Lord's supper is not believed to be the actual blood and body of Christ, but they do see it as bringing about unity of the faithful. Many within the RS may not understand this for it is not traditionally taught as such, but their practice implies it. It is one of the essentials of worship, along with prayer and praise ( praise/honor embodied in both prayer and singing). Some would say that preaching/ teaching is also an essential but in circumstances necessitating expediency, this is often the first to be ommited. The Lord's supper is never omitted.

The view of baptism is very orthodox though anabaptist in practice. It is viewed as so essential that some believe the thief on the cross must have received John's baptism for Christ to declare that he would end up in paradise. It is practiced as a remmision from sin, a death and resurection of the new man, and the way in which the Holy Spirit is received. Faith is a requirement along with confession of Christ, so infants and young children are not canidates. They are viewed as not accountable for their sins. It must be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and is always done by immersion (1 plunge only). After an individuals baptism it is often customary for the new Christian to immediatly partake of the Lord's supper.

Most within the RS would not refer to them as sacraments.

The view of baptism is very orthodox though anabaptist in practice. It is viewed as so essential that some believe the thief on the cross must have received John's baptism for Christ to declare that he would end up in paradise.





Theophorus: I have been a member of the church of Christ for a long time and I have NEVER heard or read of any member to have said that the thief on the cross must have been baptized by John before Christ to have told him he'd be in Paradise with Him that day.

Also, our view on baptism is not just 'orthodox' it is the New Testament's view.

Our baptismal practice is not Anabaptist, it is how it was practiced in the 1st century according to the New Testament.

__________________
"No one ever turns against logic, until logic turns against them"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hello stinker,

I was CoC for twenty years before I converted. Like I said, "some" say that was the case with the thief on the cross. I know of at least three preachers that hold that view and hence, many in their congregations do also. Nevertheless, the CoC does place a great deal of importance on baptism, and rightly so. My use of the word "orthodox" was not in the sense that those views are specific to the Eastern Orthodox church, but in general; as a view that was once accepted by all Christians everywhere, (except, of course, their belief in not baptising infants).

The CoC are in a unique position on their views of baptism and salvation. They are not calvinists, and they do believe in the "traditional" role (also the role that is pointed out in scripture) that baptism plays in salvation. In that regard, they find themselves at odds on at leats the baptism issue (not to mention predestination/calvinism and the once saved always saved crowd, plus sometines even the "faith only" groups, and the premilenialists ) with most if not all protestants (or as they would refer to them, denominations).
Even the baptists, who to my understanding see a person's salvation apart from baptism. So in that sense you are right and I stand corrected. I made the anabaptist remark only in the context that they do not baptize infants or children.
Btw, even though in appearances and organization the CoC looks and feels like a reformation style denomination, or anabaptist/baptist tradition; the CoC has more in common theologically, with Catholics, Orthodox (especailly so, since they believe in immersion as the only valid form of baptism) and possibly conservative Anglicans. The CoC is the closest thing to "solo scriptura" in exsistence imho.

In Christ's love,
Vincent