What do you think about the sacraments?

[Philip_B]

I think that there is a bigger picture to the question of sacraments. We understand sacraments to be outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace. Now signs have to point to something (New York 427 Miles --->) or declare Something (Welcome to New York).

Now each of us is called to live our life pointing to the truth of God and declaring something of the grace of God as we have experienced it.

The seven or two or how many you want to talk about, are good, and the show us something of what we should be. I think we should live life sacramentally, we should be the things that these seven or two point us to, and I think that the historical tradition of the Church highlight the few in order that we may be the many sacraments.

 

[Mountainmike]

I believe in all seven of the sacraments
- Baptism
- Eucharist
- Confirmation
- Sacrament of Reconciliation
- Holy Matrimony
- Ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons
- Anointing of the Sick

Good for you! But doesn’t that nominally contravene the Anglican articles?

I think too many arguments come from slightly different definitions, semantics of words , rather than fundamental difference.

Take “ faith” in “faith alone” It has to mean more than intellectual assent because even the devil intellectually asserts that Jesus is Lord!

 

[Dave L]

Not at all; you either don't read my posts (ttps://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-do-you-think-about-the-sacraments.8204895/page-3#post-75882053) or are just here to troll. A vending machine requires payment before dispensing goods. There is not way that we could ever afford the price, only the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient payment for the grace which is bestowed through the Gospel and the sacraments.

BTW, Jesus not only says that they are a memorial, but he also says this "is" my body; this "is" my blood given and shed for the remission of sins. This do as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. This is not only mentioned in the Gospels, but in the the Epistles as well.

Respectfully, if you hold up one part of Scripture that you like and deny the rest you are implying that God is a liar; that Christ is a liar. These are his words, not mine and certainly not yours.

Jesus says your "sacraments" are nothing more than memorials. We add to God's word when we say more than what he says.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

At the risk of sounding like a Pietist, I have come to a realization that the variance between the theological positions of the traditional liturgical-sacramental churches is very slight. All uphold the Nicene Creed, recognize that our Lord is fully human and fully divine without change, separation or confusion, make use of iconography to varying extents, believe in the sacraments as an important part of the economy of salvation, adhere to an amillenial eschatology, and believe in salvation by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

More or less. Justification and the extent that one can cooperate with grace are two of the biggest issues. True ecumanism shows us what we share, but also helps us understand what divides us as well.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Jesus says your "sacraments" are nothing more than memorials. We add to God's word when we say more than what he says.

Seems you have heard that so many times that you actually believe it. Luther and Zwingli debated this very thing. Zwingli's pick and chosing of bits of Scripture and his application of critical reading were his downfall. It is said that Luther wrote the words of our Lord (in Latin since the debate was conducted in Latin) "Hoc est corpus meum" in chalk on the table top. As time and time again Zwingli fieled some theory or thin reading of Scripture, Luther would pull back the table cloth to reveal the Words of our Lord. This translates as "this IS my Body". No matter what you post or how you butcher Scripture, the bottom line is the word "is"; is does not mean is not. Is means IS. Considering the words of admonishment regarding the discerning of the Sacrament and the worthy reception, your position is a very risky one indeed.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Good for you! But doesn’t that nominally contravene the Anglican articles?

I think too many arguments come from slightly different definitions, semantics of words , rather than fundamental difference.

Take “ faith” in “faith alone” It has to mean more than intellectual assent because even the devil intellectually asserts that Jesus is Lord!

My mother was Anglican, her old prayer book dating back to the time of WWII does list the 7 sacraments. I know nothing of that parish she attended, it is no longer there, but I believe they leaned towards Anglo-Catholic in practice.

 

[Dave L]

Seems you have heard that so many times that you actually believe it. Luther and Zwingli debated this very thing. Zwingli's pick and chosing of bits of Scripture and his application of critical reading were his downfall. It is said that Luther wrote the words of our Lord (in Latin since the debate was conducted in Latin) "Hoc est corpus meum" in chalk on the table top. As time and time again Zwingli fieled some theory or thin reading of Scripture, Luther would pull back the table cloth to reveal the Words of our Lord. This translates as "this IS my Body". No matter what you post or how you butcher Scripture, the bottom line is the word "is"; is does not mean is not. Is means IS. Considering the words of admonishment regarding the discerning of the Sacrament and the worthy reception, your position is a very risky one indeed.

Argue with Jesus, He said it.
“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:25 (KJV 1900)

 

[HatGuy]

Argue with Jesus, He said it.
“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:25 (KJV 1900)

Hi Dave, I don't think any sacramentalists deny the remembrance aspect. It's just that more is going on.

For example, 1 Cor 10:16, Paul says this (ESV):
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

The Greek word koinōnia there indicates a sharing together of the blood of Christ and certainly indicates a participation, a partnership with the Lord's blood - the imagery sounds very much like Romans 6 where baptism links us spiritually into the death and resurrection of our Lord.

1 Cor 11:23-26 seems to indicate both the 'remembrance' and the sacramental aspect:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

The "is" seems to be important and reiterated.

Sacramentalism does not always equal transubstantiation. Luther, for example, argued against transubstantiation and Calvin did too. Both of these key reformers affirmed Real Presence and a sacramental aspect. Pretty much most denominations seem to accept some sort of idea of Real Presence, except Zwinglian offshoots (which seem to be the baptists and subsequently the vast majority of today's evangelicals and even the charismatics).

The reality is there are some difficult scriptures (John 6 among them) that seem to indicate that the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine is certainly a memorial to our Lord, but also in some way connect us spiritually to Him and therefore are important components of our ongoing sanctification.

 

[Dave L]

Hi Dave, I don't think any sacramentalists deny the remembrance aspect. It's just that more is going on.

For example, 1 Cor 10:16, Paul says this (ESV):
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

The Greek word koinōnia there indicates a sharing together of the blood of Christ and certainly indicates a participation, a partnership with the Lord's blood - the imagery sounds very much like Romans 6 where baptism links us spiritually into the death and resurrection of our Lord.

1 Cor 11:23-26 seems to indicate both the 'remembrance' and the sacramental aspect:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

The "is" seems to be important and reiterated.

Sacramentalism does not always equal transubstantiation. Luther, for example, argued against transubstantiation and Calvin did too. Pretty much most denominations seem to accept some sort of idea of Real Presence, except Zwinglian offshoots (which seem to be the baptists and subsequently the vast majority of today's evangelicals and even the charismatics).

The reality is there are some difficult scriptures (John 6 among them) that seem to indicate that the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine is certainly a memorial to our Lord, but also in some way connect us spiritually to Him and therefore are important components of our ongoing sanctification.

The New Covenant? Yes. And a memorial? Yes. Connected spiritually? Yes, Paul says if you are not it can kill you.

 

[HatGuy]

The New Covenant? Yes. And a memorial? Yes. Connected spiritually? Yes, Paul says if you are not it can kill you.

Well, yes, then you are getting closer to a sacramental view.

 

[Dave L]

Well, yes, then you are getting closer to a sacramental view.

But......... only saved people with a pure heart can safely observe the practice according to Paul. Many die and are sick if they treat it as a means of salvation.

 

[Albion]

Argue with Jesus, He said it.
“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:25 (KJV 1900)

All sorts of behaviors can involve a memorialization, but it's wrong to claim that they are ONLY remembrances. The verse here doesn't say that the sacrament is nothing but a remembrance, yet that's of course how it is always presented by people who think the observance is symbolic and only symbolic.

 

[Mountainmike]

Argue with Jesus, He said it.
“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:25 (KJV 1900)

Indeed argue with Jesus. If John 6 is indeed the eucharist, then you must take it to have everlasting life and unless you do "you have no life in you". That is more than a memorial.

He used the word "gnaw" as of meat, not consume (as might be the word) .
That is was part of what outraged those at Capernaum. They left and he did not call them back. He said it "is my body" not represents my body or just commemorates his sacrifice.

Argue with John: it is clear in "ignatius to smyrneans" exactly what John taught his disciples. That the eucharist was valid only if presided by a bishop in succession, that it is indeed the real body and blood. John clearly knew what is gospel meant! Justin Martyr says "the flesh".

Go to the fathers that chose the new testament. Anasthasius says "before the blessing is just bread. After the blessing is the body of our Lord"

And to profane it is a sacrilege. Paul says some are sick , have died because of taking it unworthily.

It cannot just be a memorial. To believe so is to contradict all in the first millenium after Christ. And most after the reformation too! Why would Jesus let his message be compromised when he promises that "the gospel will be preached to the end of time" (not with a 1000 year gap!)

 

[Dave L]

Indeed argue with Jesus. If John 6 is indeed the eucharist, then you must take it to have everlasting life and unless you do "you have no life in you". That is more than a memorial.

He used the word "gnaw" as of meat, not consume (as might be the word) .
That is was part of what outraged those at Capernaum. They left and he did not call them back. He said it "is my body" not represents my body or just commemorates his sacrifice.

Argue with John: it is clear in "ignatius to smyrneans" exactly what John taught his disciples. That the eucharist was valid only if presided by a bishop in succession, that it is indeed the real body and blood. John clearly knew what is gospel meant! Justin Martyr says "the flesh".

Go to the fathers that chose the new testament. Anasthasius says "before the blessing is just bread. After the blessing is the body of our Lord"

And to profane it is a sacrilege. Paul says some are sick , have died because of taking it unworthily.

It cannot just be a memorial. To believe so is to contradict all in the first millenium after Christ. And most after the reformation too! Why would Jesus let his message be compromised when he promises that "the gospel will be preached to the end of time" (not with a 1000 year gap!)

Jesus said it is a memorial. None of what you say has scripture support.

 

[Dave L]

All sorts of behaviors can involve a memorialization, but it's wrong to claim that they are ONLY remembrances. The verse here doesn't say that the sacrament is nothing but a remembrance, yet that's of course how it is always presented by people who think the observance is symbolic and only symbolic.

You have no scripture to support your ideas.

 

[Mountainmike]

Jesus said it is a memorial. None of what you say has scripture support.

John 6 is scripture. John wrote it knew what it means. Jesus used the word meaning "Gnaw". He said "Gnaw my body."

The faith was handed down by "word of mouth and letter". Ignatius to Smyrneans tells you what was passed down.

You cannot cherry pick one verse: you must read scripture holistically

Also accept that Jesus gave the power to give definitive judgement on scripture "bind and loose" to the church which is why scripture says the "church is the foundation of truth" (it does not say scripture!). That is the physical church "the household of God" The church has spoken. The eucharist is the real body!

The faith was passed by tradition (word of mouth and letter) Scripture was written/ chosen only later because it was consistent with tradition;the faith handed down. That is why some books were not selected and those that were selected. The church at Rome rejected the first canons eg Marcions!

Does it not worry you that none of the early fathers agree with you? Or anyone in the church till the reformation, and only a small proportion since? Thats a bold position to be!!

 

[Dave L]

But here is the problem.

I see in scripture where our Lord gives power to his church and apostolic succesors to give definitive judgement on doctrine "the power to bind and loose" which is why the church is the "foundation of truth".

I see what the church and all early church fathers say the eucharist is! I see what the words say, and also that what the first christians says it means "real flesh" is consistent with what it says. Indeed - you cannot profane a symbol or a memorial. So a pure memorial would not result in "some are sick, some have died"


( the next part isnt personal , but I fail to see which group you belong)

Im struggling to see where it says "dave L" knows better.
The church will go off the rails for 2000 years till he comes along......

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18 (KJV 1900)
Is for ALL believers too.

 

[Albion]

But here is the problem.

I see in scripture where our Lord gives power to his church and apostolic succesors to give definitive judgement on doctrine....

Where in scripture does the Lord give power to the process we call 'Apostolic Succession?'

The bottom line here is that "church" is correct, but the meaning -- according to Scripture -- is of the whole body of believers, not of a particular institutional organization.

 

[Mountainmike]

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18 (KJV 1900)
Is for ALL believers too.

Not if you look at who he said it to.
The apostles jointly and Peter alone.

Which of course brings in the question of tradition and authority.
We see in the NT that Jesus accepts the authority of "Moses Chair". But theres the problem. The reference to moses chair handed to joshua, judges etc, is in the "mishnah" which is tradition committed to paper. Paul tells us to hold true to the faith handed down "tradition we told youby word of mouth and letter". And that tradition is visible in ignatius to the smyrneans as a eucharist of the real flesh.

 

[Mountainmike]

Where in scripture does the Lord give power to the process we call 'Apostolic Succession?'

The bottom line here is that "church" is correct, but the meaning -- according to Scripture -- is of the whole body of believers, not of a particular institutional organization.

We see the appointing of successors first in the replacement of Judas by the choice of existing apostles

We see the defence of the role and succession in all the first post apostolic fathers like ignatius, and also such as iraneus. He also defends tradition. The faith handed down, and the primacy of Rome.

All this before there was a new testament!
Tradition, inevitably came first.
Indeed scripture is tradition committed to paper sometimes decades after the event. The mishnah was old testament oral tradition committed to paper.