Do sacraments save?

[Xeno.of.athens]

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.

What does the person have to do? you ask. The answer is nothing, just nothing at all, except what God wants of him. In the case of Noah, it was "build an ark" which required both faith in God and deeds and obedience. In your case, you tell me. In the case of anyone else, let him or her tell us. For us all there are things we know - because God tells us - that we need to be faithful in, to have fidelity about, for our meaningful commitment to God to be real. One is saved by means of various things from various things. Noah was saved from the flood in the ark by means of building the ark according to the instructions that God gave to Noah. Stop for a moment, and think, what does God call you to? To faith in Jesus Christ, to love one's neighbour, to show mercy as Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-48, to be obedient as Jesus said in John 15. One is saved in a whole of life process, and one may fail in some steps, not make it, not quite manage to be all that one is called to be, but in everything one is still called to be and do the things God calls you to be and do. Always remember God is love, his mercy endures forever.

 

[All Becomes New]

What does the person have to do? you ask. The answer is nothing, just nothing at all, except what God wants of him. In the case of Noah, it was "build an ark" which required both faith in God and deeds and obedience. In your case, you tell me. In the case of anyone else, let him or her tell us. For us all there are things we know - because God tells us - that we need to be faithful in, to have fidelity about, for our meaningful commitment to God to be real. One is saved by means of various things from various things. Noah was saved from the flood in the ark by means of building the ark according to the instructions that God gave to Noah. Stop for a moment, and think, what does God call you to? To faith in Jesus Christ, to love one's neighbour, to show mercy as Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-48, to be obedient as Jesus said in John 15. One is saved in a whole of life process, and one may fail in some steps, not make it, not quite manage to be all that one is called to be, but in everything one is still called to be and do the things God calls you to be and do. Always remember God is love, his mercy endures forever.

Right. It's not up to us except to do the things that God calls us to. You don't see a problem with this? If any of our salvation is dependent on how well we follow what we are supposed to do then we can never have assurance of salvation. That's a problem. If you don't know that you are saved right now because maybe you don't know what God's will for your life is yet, then I guess you are out of luck on being able to say you will be in the NHNE.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Right. It's not up to us except to do the things that God calls us to. You don't see a problem with this? If any of our salvation is dependent on how well we follow what we are supposed to do then we can never have assurance of salvation. That's a problem. If you don't know that you are saved right now because maybe you don't know what God's will for your life is yet, then I guess you are out of luck on being able to say you will be in the NHNE.

I think assurance of salvation is not a problem, some demand it, as if they can thwart God's intentions by making demands but the reality is that our salvation is wholly dependent on the goodness and mercy of God. If you trust God to be good and merciful then you have assurance, if you need a written guarantee, a verse or verses, then you do not trust God and really have no assurance because a verse or verses are worthless if the God who spoke them is not reliable when he makes a promise.

 

[Strong in Him]

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

Because Jesus saves.
A) He does not need any help to save.
B) If you are saying that the sacraments save as well, then you are saying that Jesus DOES need help to save people. And that denies salvation to anyone not able to take the sacraments - someone on their deathbed, maybe, or who may die before they can be baptised. Also, a lot of churches will say that a person cannot receive communion until they have been through classes or a pre confirmation course. There is no guarantee that a person may not die/be killed before they could take such a course.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because Jesus saves.
A) He does not need any help to save.
B) If you are saying that the sacraments save as well, then you are saying that Jesus DOES need help to save people. And that denies salvation to anyone not able to take the sacraments - someone on their deathbed, maybe, or who may die before they can be baptised. Also, a lot of churches will say that a person cannot receive communion until they have been through classes or a pre confirmation course.

The sacraments are not operative apart from Jesus, so you are presenting a false dichotomy.

At my church everyone who wants to be baptized or receive communion is welcome, so that isn't an issue for us. Even small children participate in communion.

There is no guarantee that a person may not die/be killed before they could take such a course.

Yeah, well that was answered a long time ago. It was called the baptism of desire. Sacraments do not limit God's grace, however they are sure and effectual signs of God's grace.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because Jesus saves.
A) He does not need any help to save.

Jesus chooses to use means through which he acts to save; for us faith is one means, actions such as love are another means, Jesus acts through means whenever he pleases. He does not need to perform, directly, every deed he does even if you demand it.

B) If you are saying that the sacraments save as well, then you are saying that Jesus DOES need help to save people.

Jesus saved by means of the sacraments, or not, as he pleases; this is why Jesus is God and we are not. Jesus does not need to follow the RULES we define, Jesus defines them. He is God and he defines whatever rules he likes as he likes when he likes. All we need to know is that he is trustworthy and true. We have faith because we trust him.

And that denies salvation to anyone not able to take the sacraments - someone on their deathbed, maybe, or who may die before they can be baptised.

This is not so. Those who cannot partake can be deemed, by God, to have partaken because of their desire to do so. God is, after all, an absolute monarch, he needs no permission from a parliament of gabbling human beings.

Also, a lot of churches will say that a person cannot receive communion until they have been through classes or a pre confirmation course. There is no guarantee that a person may not die/be killed before they could take such a course.

But do we need a guarantee when we trust God to be just and true to his promises and when such persons desire to do what God called them to do? Is faith so worthless that without a written guarantee the faithful cannot trust God to be honest?

 

[All Becomes New]

I think assurance of salvation is not a problem, some demand it, as if they can thwart God's intentions by making demands but the reality is that our salvation is wholly dependent on the goodness and mercy of God. If you trust God to be good and merciful then you have assurance, if you need a written guarantee, a verse or verses, then you do not trust God and really have no assurance because a verse or verses are worthless if the God who spoke them is not reliable when he makes a promise.

Strange. I would think a verse should be all that is necessary for matters of faith. Seems the Catholic faith has complicated things to the point that personal experience is placed above scripture.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Strange. I would think a verse should be all that is necessary for matters of faith. Seems the Catholic faith has complicated things to the point that personal experience is placed above scripture.

It is not human experience that makes God true; he is TRUTH as he himself says in the scriptures. Catholics do not seek a verse or verses as the source of their assurance that God is true and will act faithfully with regard to all that he has promised to do. This reliance on the goodness and truth of God does not complicate matters, rather it simplifies everything by making everything dependent upon God and making every thought of humanity captive to the truth in Jesus Christ. Catholics know God will save because he says so, we do not demand a charter to guarantee that God will act mercifully towards us. Assurance comes from God, assurance cannot come from human endeavours to cobble together verses to prove that they are saved. Catholics do not place any human being's experience above the holy scriptures but Catholics do say that God is above all and that the holy scriptures have credibility because they are inspired by God; God is above the scriptures and not the other way around.

 

[All Becomes New]

It is not human experience that makes God true; he is TRUTH as he himself says in the scriptures. Catholics do not seek a verse or verses as the source of their assurance that God is true and will act faithfully with regard to all that he has promised to do. This reliance on the goodness and truth of God does not complicate matters, rather it simplifies everything by making everything dependent upon God and making every thought of humanity captive to the truth in Jesus Christ. Catholics know God will save because he says so, we do not demand a charter to guarantee that God will act mercifully towards us. Assurance comes from God, assurance cannot come from human endeavours to cobble together verses to prove that they are saved. Catholics do not place any human being's experience above the holy scriptures but Catholics do say that God is above all and that the holy scriptures have credibility because they are inspired by God; God is above the scriptures and not the other way around.

The problem is that your tradition detracts from God's Word. This is because you place the authority of your tradition on par with the Word of God. The problem is that your tradition contradicts scripture. That is why the Reformation had to happen. I don't believe a perfect church exists on the earth today. Every church is fallible. The failure to see the problems in your church shows that you are deceiving yourself and the truth is not in you (1 John 1:8).

“Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The problem is that your tradition detracts from God's Word.

It looks as though the problem is that your posts say things that are not accurate.

This is because you place the authority of your tradition on par with the Word of God.

The authority is always God's and never man's. Sacred Tradition is what God said by the earthly words and voice of our Lord, Jesus Christ, to his apostles - messengers - whom he sent into all the world to bear witness to him. The written gospels and the letters of the apostles came from this source yet do not exhaust it. As saint John wrote, Jesus also accomplished many other signs in the sight of his disciples. These have not been written in this book. But these things have been written, so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that, in believing, you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31)

The problem is that your tradition contradicts scripture.

You must prove this claim; simply proclaiming it is not proof.

That is why the Reformation had to happen. I don't believe a perfect church exists on the earth today. Every church is fallible. The failure to see the problems in your church shows that you are deceiving yourself and the truth is not in you (1 John 1:8).

The Protestant revolt happened for many reasons but the one you give is not one of them. It was the politics of the times, religious ferment arising from all sorts of economic and philosophical sources, money, wars for power, lies, as well as truths that caused people to follow men like Martin Luther. The Protestant revolt was a movement of men following other men, it was not a calling from God.

“Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24)

 

[All Becomes New]

You must prove this claim; simply proclaiming it is not proof.

Icon veneration and the assumption of Mary. In the former, the church made a U-turn and in the latter, there are no sources that it happened until the 5th century (unless you want to count Gnostic sources, which if that's what you want to use you have other issues).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Icon veneration and the assumption of Mary. In the former, the church made a U-turn and in the latter, there are no sources that it happened until the 5th century (unless you want to count Gnostic sources, which if that's what you want to use you have other issues).

Neither of these claims is true. Veneration of images was the norm in early churches, and Blessed Mary's dormition/assumption is a very ancient belief arising from thinking about what Jesus said regarding his mother. Even the Jewish temple had images in it; images of seraphim on the curtains, angels on the mercy seat, and an image of a snake on a pole was the agency though which God healed Israelites who were bitten by the serpents when Israel was in the wilderness. Besides the scriptures speak of an image of Christ portrayed to the Galatian Christians openly - Galatians 3:1. And the Lord is himself called the icon of God. So, the scriptures do in fact mention in a positive setting the presence of icons and their use by God's people.

But what are we to think of Protestantism and its doctrines that are directly contradicted by holy scripture - see James 2:24, and see John 6:53. How is one to reconcile doctrines that say the opposite of what is said in scripture?

 

[All Becomes New]

Neither of these claims is true. Veneration of images was the norm in early churches, and Blessed Mary's dormition/assumption is a very ancient belief arising from thinking about what Jesus said regarding his mother. Even the Jewish temple had images in it; images of seraphim on the curtains, angels on the mercy seat, and an image of a snake on a pole was the agency though which God healed Israelites who were bitten by the serpents when Israel was in the wilderness. Besides the scriptures speak of an image of Christ portrayed to the Galatian Christians openly - Galatians 3:1. And the Lord is himself called the icon of God. So, the scriptures do in fact mention in a positive setting the presence of icons and their use by God's people.

But what are we to think of Protestantism and its doctrines that are directly contradicted by holy scripture - see James 2:24, and see John 6:53. How is one to reconcile doctrines that say the opposite of what is said in scripture?

Praying through an image or figurine is what pagans did and ALL the ECF condemned such practices.

You can think and think and think about things but that does not mean it is good because you have thought about it enough to justify it. There is no passage of scripture that says Mary was assumed into heaven.

Are James and Paul in conflict? Paul says we are saved by faith alone and James says we are saved by our faith and our works. So what gives? James is speaking about a horizontal idea and how you appear as the salt and light to the world. Paul is talking about our justification before God which is vertical.

I agree that the bread and wine gives life. I disagree that it is needed (necessary) for eternal life.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Praying through an image or figurine is what pagans did

This is just tiresome polemics.

 

[All Becomes New]

This is just tiresome polemics.

Nope. That is literally what the pagans did and the ECF condemned it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Nope. That is literally what the pagans did and the ECF condemned it.

Nope, it is unhelpful avoidance. These posts are not responding to issues raised, they are merely rehearsing polemic claims from past centuries. It wastes everybody's time.

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus chooses to use means through which he acts to save;

No, he has saved through the cross.
Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29. The spotless Lamb chosen from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20, the Way to the Father, John 14:6 and the only name through which we can be saved, Acts 4:12. He is the 2nd Adam, Romans 5:12-19.
His death to reconcile mankind and God was prophesied in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:15 and through the OT prophets, e.g. Isaiah 53.

for us faith is one means, actions such as love are another means,

Jesus has many ways of bringing us to hear the Gospel message, yes - preaching, Gospel services, Christian books, radio programmes etc etc. Those things do not save, Jesus does. Only by accepting that he died for our sins are we saved, Romans 6:23.

He does not need to perform, directly, every deed he does even if you demand it.

Where did I say that I demand things from Jesus?

Jesus saved by means of the sacraments, or not, as he pleases;

Jesus gives eternal life to all who come to, and trust in, him, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:40, 1 John 5:12.
A person can trust in Jesus, receive him, be filled with his Spirit, and then die before they can receive any sacraments. They still have eternal life and are saved.

this is why Jesus is God and we are not. Jesus does not need to follow the RULES we define,

I haven't defined any rules.

This is not so. Those who cannot partake can be deemed, by God, to have partaken because of their desire to do so.

If you say so.
They were saved and received eternal life the moment they trusted in Jesus, however. Or don't you sing the hymn, "and every offender who truly believes, that moment, from Jesus, a pardon receives"?

God is, after all, an absolute monarch, he needs no permission from a parliament of gabbling human beings.

I never said he did.

But do we need a guarantee when we trust God to be just and true to his promises

The Spirit is a deposit, guaranteeing our inheritance, 2 Corinthians 1:22.
All God's promises are 'yes' in Christ, 2 Corinthians 1:20.
GOD is our guarantee; we can trust him.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Well I would answer this thread with a resounding “YES”, as would Martin Luther.

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem is that your tradition detracts from God's Word. This is because you place the authority of your tradition on par with the Word of God.

Both of those statements are completely false.

 

[Strong in Him]

The sacraments are not operative apart from Jesus, so you are presenting a false dichotomy.

No, I am saying that someone can trust in, and receive, Jesus, die before receiving any sacraments and they are still saved.
They may not be baptised, they may not have been able to "do this in memory of me". Trusting that Jesus died for our sins, that he died to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45 and that his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, Matthew 26:28, is enough.