Do sacraments save?

[Xeno.of.athens]

A lot of evangelicals would answer the thread topic with a resounding "NO". But why?

Is it because they are completely committed to the idea that one is saved by faith alone and not by works? Some say that participating in a sacrament is a "work" and they reason from that claim to the conclusion that sacraments - being works - cannot save.

Yet the scriptures tell us this: now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism 1 Peter 3:21 and Jesus tells us "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you." John 6:53

The first passage says that baptism saves us, the second says that eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood is necessary to have life.

 

[FireDragon76]

I wouldn't say sacrament save us, but sacraments are a means by which we receive the benefits of salvation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wouldn't say sacrament save us, but sacraments are a means by which we receive the benefits of salvation.

The idea in the OP is to let people ruminate on what the scripture says. Is scripture declaring "the sacraments do not save"? If not, perhaps it is an error to claim that the sacraments cannot save.

 

[FireDragon76]

The idea in the OP is to let people ruminate on what the scripture says. Is scripture declaring "the sacraments do not save"? If not, perhaps it is an error to claim that the sacraments cannot save.

I think the American Evangelical paradigm of salvation, of an individual "getting saved" is an historical peculiarity largely unique to American, and to a lesser extent, British religion. Now unfortunately being exported to the rest of the world.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think the American Evangelical paradigm of salvation, of an individual "getting saved" is an historical peculiarity largely unique to American, and to a lesser extent, British religion. Now unfortunately being exported to the rest of the world.

Agreed, it is an error that is spreading. So, let's work to restrict the spread. Call people to think about what scripture says rather than what they heard from someone who dislikes sacraments.

 

[FireDragon76]

Agreed, it is an error that is spreading. So, let's work to restrict the spread. Call people to think about what scripture says rather than what they heard from someone who dislikes sacraments.

If you know anything about Jonathan Edwards, he began this peculiar American attitude towards religion. Previous Puritans had the traditional Reformed notion that salvation was part of being a covenant community, not the result of an individual's decision to believe. Consequently, alot of clergy disagreed with Edwards approach of revivalism. But it spread because he was a dramatic preacher that used alot of lurid detail in his preaching. Over time, revivalism itself became a kind of "super-creed" to define who was, and wasn't, a "real Christian".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If you know anything about Jonathan Edwards, he began this peculiar American attitude towards religion. Previous Puritans had the traditional Reformed notion that salvation was part of being a covenant community, not the result of an individual's decision to believe. Consequently, alot of clergy disagreed with Edwards approach of revivalism. But it spread because he was a dramatic preacher that used alot of lurid detail in his preaching. Over time, revivalism itself became a kind of "super-creed" to define who was, and wasn't, a "real Christian".

Christians should not let bad theology dictate their attitude to the sacraments regardless of the illustrious names attached to the bad theology. Jonathan Edwards is a shining light among Calvinist evangelicals, some may wince a little at sermons like Sinners in the hands of an Angry God but many evangelicals would delight in a book like Edwards book on The Religious Affections. A man can make mistakes, Mr Edwards was a man, maybe his views on individualism were mistaken, right? And if the current fascination with ferreting out who is a "real Christians" arises from some of Mr Edwards' written views, which would be a great pity, then let us seek to correct the error rather than allow the anti-sacramentalism we see in some circles go unchallenged.

 

[FireDragon76]

Christians should not let bad theology dictate their attitude to the sacraments regardless of the illustrious names attached to the bad theology. Jonathan Edwards is a shining light among Calvinist evangelicals, some may wince a little at sermons like Sinners in the hands of an Angry God but many evangelicals would delight in a book like Edwards book on The Religious Affections. A man can make mistakes, Mr Edwards was a man, maybe his views on individualism were mistaken, right? And if the current fascination with ferreting out who is a "real Christians" arises from some of Mr Edwards' written views, which would be a great pity, then let us seek to correct the error rather than allow the anti-sacramentalism we see in some circles go unchallenged.

I don't think he was motivated by individualism, more like a reaction to religious doubt or perhaps just due to simply not having a religious experience to testify to, responding in an immoderate manner. The individualism came later, gradually, after the revolution. Edwards himself believed it was improper to admit people to church membership who couldn't testify to a dramatic conversion, so I guess it became necessary to try to prompt one, in his mind.

Old Lights that rejected Edwards preaching style had developed a theology some time before him that baptism and the Lord's Supper could be "converting ordinances", so didn't believe in restricting the sacraments to those who could testify to a dramatic conversion experience. This was the dominant sacramental theology at the time among Congregationalists, that Baptism and the Lord's Supper were a means of grace. Many of the Old Lights went on to become what today we think of as religious liberals, whether Unitarian or Congregationalist, and eventually many of the New Lights left and became Baptists.

 

[HTacianas]

A lot of evangelicals would answer the thread topic with a resounding "NO". But why?

Is it because they are completely committed to the idea that one is saved by faith alone and not by works? Some say that participating in a sacrament is a "work" and they reason from that claim to the conclusion that sacraments - being works - cannot save.

Yet the scriptures tell us this: now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism 1 Peter 3:21 and Jesus tells us "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you." John 6:53

The first passage says that baptism saves us, the second says that eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood is necessary to have life.

I would go with what the bible says.

 

[BobRyan]

A lot of evangelicals would answer the thread topic with a resounding "NO". But why?

Is it because they are completely committed to the idea that one is saved by faith alone and not by works? Some say that participating in a sacrament is a "work" and they reason from that claim to the conclusion that sacraments - being works - cannot save.

Yet the scriptures tell us this: now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism 1 Peter 3:21 and Jesus tells us "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you." John 6:53

The first passage says that baptism saves us, the second says that eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood is necessary to have life.

In John 6 you have faithful disciples like the 12 and you have faithless ones such as those who left Christ after He used that form of symbolism for bread and blood , and teaching.

No matter how you view it ALL agree to a few basics.
1. In John 6 Jesus does not say "someday in the future I WILL be bread" but "I already AM the bread that came down out of heaven"
2. No one in John 6 sees bread coming down out of heaven or sees Jesus as actually being literal bread.
3. In John 6 not one person bites Christ. Not even the faithFUL disciples.
4. In John 6 they are not having a communion service nor are they celebrating the Passover.
5. Jesus explains his meaning John 6 saying that eating literal flesh and blood is worthless - but rather it is his WORD that has Spirit and Life.

1 Peter 3 (which is also relating to your other thread ) is a good one for the title of this thread. But even that scripture says that it is not the touching of sacramental waters to flesh that saves but rather "the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" that is made by the one being baptized.

Having said that - I strongly affirm the Communion service and baptism just as also the NT writers do.

 

[AlexB23]

I wouldn't say sacrament save us, but sacraments are a means by which we receive the benefits of salvation.

Agreed sir. Yes, and I am Catholic myself and agree with all of them except for getting married, as not all people choose to be in a relationship. What if you want to remain on your own? Could marriage be symbolic, as in forming a tight bond with the Church itself or Jesus?

 

[Fervent]

What, do you mean like the rituals are something like magic and being dunked or sprinkled with water with some special words and drinking bread and wine give life? Then no.

If, on the other hand, you mean that the significance of the sacraments is salvific, then sure.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Agreed sir. Yes, and I am Catholic myself and agree with all of them except for getting married, as not all people choose to be in a relationship. What if you want to remain on your own? Could marriage be symbolic, as in forming a tight bond with the Church itself or Jesus?

Not everyone takes Holy Orders either but it is nevertheless a sacrament.

 

[AlexB23]

Not everyone takes Holy Orders either but it is nevertheless a sacrament.

So, God is most definitely understanding of how some folks are unable to (not everyone is capable of being a priest or has the time to), or can't take a certain sacrament, if that is what I am understanding?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So, God is most definitely understanding of how some folks are unable to (not everyone is capable of being a priest or has the time to), or can't take a certain sacrament, if that is what I am understanding?

Not everyone is called either to Matrimony or Orders, so, God is not only understanding of that, but he also intends it to be so. As the scripture says, [God] granted that some would be Apostles, and some Prophets, yet truly others evangelists, and others pastors and teachers.

 

[AlexB23]

Not everyone is called either to Matrimony or Orders, so, God is not only understanding of that, but he also intends it to be so. As the scripture says, [God] granted that some would be Apostles, and some Prophets, yet truly others evangelists, and others pastors and teachers.

Amen, Mr. Xeno of Athens. Hopefully other Catholics understand that not all of us were intended to be married or become prophets or priests.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

A lot of evangelicals would answer the thread topic with a resounding "NO". But why?

Is it because they are completely committed to the idea that one is saved by faith alone and not by works? Some say that participating in a sacrament is a "work" and they reason from that claim to the conclusion that sacraments - being works - cannot save.

Yet the scriptures tell us this: now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism 1 Peter 3:21 and Jesus tells us "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you." John 6:53

The first passage says that baptism saves us, the second says that eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood is necessary to have life.

Regarding 1 Peter 3:21 are you aware of what Clement of Rome says about Noah? He says they were saved by repentance.
"Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved."
"Noah, being found faithful, preached regeneration to the world through his ministry; and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark."
No mention of water, but of repentance and regeneration.

And I would agree that the bread and wine do indeed bring life in us. I am not of the persuasion that it is merely symbolic. But neither do I believe it is necessary to take the bread and wine to be saved. I would have the same position on baptism. Baptism certainly is something spiritual as is the bread and wine, but that does not mean they produce regeneration.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

are you aware of what Clement of Rome says about Noah?

Better still I am aware of what the Holy Spirit says in the scriptures about Noah. Of course Noah was saved by God, ultimately, and by numerous means proximately, he was saved by/in the ark, he was saved by faith in God, he was saved by his obedience; one is usually saved by numerous means and always ultimately by God. To be saved by baptism is not exclusive of being saved by faith, deeds, and numerous other things but always ultimately by God and especially God in Christ.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Better still I am aware of what the Holy Spirit says in the scriptures about Noah. Of course Noah was saved by God, ultimately, and by numerous means proximately, he was saved by/in the ark, he was saved by faith in God, he was saved by his obedience; one is usually saved by numerous means and always ultimately by God. To be saved by baptism is not exclusive of being saved by faith, deeds, and numerous other things but always ultimately by God and especially God in Christ.

The question is what you boil down salvation to. Yes, by the grace of God alone. I think we all agree with that. But what does the person have to do? I think regardless of how you cut it up, repentance is the most fundamental aspect of saving faith because it 100% reflects something about the heart of the person.

 

[Ceallaigh]

In my opinion the two just simply go hand-in-hand. I'm sure virtually all us who are disciples of Christ have been baptized and taken communion etc.