Many evangelicals believe that Catholics either out-and-out embrace a salvation by works system, or at least get dangerously close to such a system. One major reason is that Catholics (and Orthodox) speak of grace being given through the sacraments. So Catholics will speak of God’s free grace and grace being given through the sacraments in the same sentence, confusing many evangelicals who think the two are mutually exclusive. How can free grace be given through anything and yet still remain free? How can Christ’s sacrifice, in which he paid for our sins once and for all at one time, be applied in the future through any physical act without detracting from the free sacrifice?
First, I think all Christians are sacramental without knowing it. Unless God magically implants metaphysical knowledge into your head, there has to be some physical mediation involved in salvation. For instance, mentally accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is a physical act (since the working of the brain is physical), as is walking to the prayer rail and praying with a pastor. So is hearing a sermon spoken by a physical mouth with your physical ears and being stirred to accept Jesus using your physical brain. So if mentally assenting and vocally accepting Jesus are not counted as works, then I don’t see how baptism and communion must necessarily be works.
Second, the evidence for sacraments being the vehicles of salvation is well-attested, if not universally attested, in early Christian literature. I have yet to find one Church Father who understands the new birth as being anything other than baptism. I have not read every single Church Father, but I have read a great number of them, so I could be proven wrong I guess. In the early days, it was actually the Gnostics and Docetists who saw salvation as occurring outside the physical sacraments. Is it any wonder that these sects denied the reality of the Incarnation, from which the reality of sacramentality flows? This is not to say that the early Church did not believe that God could save outside of the sacraments, but they believed that he established the sacraments as the normative means of receiving salvation.
Third, not all Protestants view sacraments as works. Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some degree Methodists and Presbyterians, think and act sacramentally. Now I have to preface what I am about to say with this caveat: I am no Luther scholar, but I have read some of his works. However, it seems that Martin Luther, the first Protestant reformer, had no issue with the idea of grace being given through the sacraments, since he obviously believed in justification by faith alone, but also believed in baptismal regeneration. From Luther’s Small Catechism we read:
What does Baptism give or profit?
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Luther goes on to say that the water does such great things because the Word of God renders ordinary water baptismal water. Here we see a sacramental outlook in action. God’s Word makes simple water holy water. The water doesn’t detract from God’s Word, but acts as a physical vehicle for God’s grace and promises.
Now, referring to Communion Luther writes:
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and
salvation.
So we continue to see that for Luther, forgiveness of sins and salvation are provided through the sacraments. Luther does not account these sacraments as mere physical things but sacraments that God makes holy on account of his Word. Thus, not all Protestants see sacraments and free grace as opposed to one another. This could be because many early reformers lived before the rational Enlightenment time period. Enlightenment principles have fostered within the modern mind a divide between symbol and reality, thus creating a (false) dichotomy between sacrament and reality, a dichotomy not seen in the early Church.
To end on, I think a real life example may be in order. It is not perfect, but it does show why we don’t see sacraments as adding to or detracting from grace. Here goes: A father volunteers to pay for all of his daughter’s college education and college expenses, no questions asked. He tells his daughter, “it is all paid for; you don’t owe a thing.” Now, if the father gives his daughter cash on a regular basis to pay for these expenses, does the physical cash take away from his original promise? Does the physical use of cash (or checks/direct deposits) somehow negate the grace (free gift) the father has given his daughter? No. In fact, the father’s original promise makes little sense unless it can be somehow applied physically, since we live in a physical world.
This post shows one issue where I think sacramentality divides us, but the sacramental divide goes beyond issues of grace and salvation. I hope to discuss more reasons why sacramentality is the biggest reason (or darn near the biggest) Catholics and evangelicals often often have trouble understanding each other. I invite other contributors to join me in exploring this idea.
[I think I should define what I mean by "sacramentality." I mean that God uses the physical, created world for his purposes. This, of course, includes the sacraments, but also touches on the visible Church, relics, sacramentals, the saints, and all sorts of doctrines and practices. These other points are what I want to touch on in the future. As some commenters have mentioned, sacramentality is really an incarnational issue, since the redemption of the created order for God's purposes comes directly from the Incarnation. However, evangelicals believe in the incarnation, but often fail to understand its application and consequences in the way Catholics, Orthodox, and the early Church have understood them. This is why I decided to discuss "sacramentality" as a major dividing point as opposed to the incarnation, although it all goes back to that.]
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
May 3, 2006 at 8:40 pm
First, I think all Christians are sacramental without knowing it.
I think you’re on to something here. I look forward to seeing more.
May 3, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I also agree that you’re on to something. Thanks for pointing out the Luther stuff as well. I think that this was well put:
“Enlightenment principles have fostered within the modern mind a divide between symbol and reality, thus creating a (false) dichotomy between sacrament and reality, a dichotomy not seen in the early Church.”
May 4, 2006 at 11:50 am
Being sacramental follows from being incarnational, and thinking about what incarnational means.
May 4, 2006 at 1:10 pm
*gives Thomas a cigar…or an appropriate, non-carcinogenic equivalent.*
May 4, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Ack, sorry, accidentally hit “enter” before I was ready.
First, I think all Christians are sacramental without knowing it.
I just stumbled across this blog from a link at Pontifications, and thought this was interesting, because it’s something I’ve been thinking about lately.
Having grown up in an Evangelical, Southern Baptist church, and given my limited understanding of sacrimentalism, I think you’re right on target regarding all Christians being sacrimental. In my church, the most common “form” of “getting saved” is to say the “Sinner’s Prayer.” It is taught that, by saying this prayer “sincerely, with all your heart,” one gains forgivness of their sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc. This certainly sounds sacrimental to me: God’s grace being mediated through the act of praying.
May 5, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Very interesting post, David. I think I’ll provide a response to it on my blog, since I certainly believe its a worthy claim.
May 6, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Most excellent post indeed! I had a conversation about this just the other day with another friend of mine who is becomming Catholic. We realized that a huge part of our conversion was taking the claims of the incarnation seriously. For me, this thought process came about during Advent when I was trying to figure out how many self-proclaimed Iconoclasts would put up nativity scenes and give their children picture Bibles.
I figured out that it does not make much sense to be against icons or sacraments because Jesus became the ultimate icon in the incarnation and the gospel story is completely physical. Abstracting grace apart from the sacraments smells a bit Gnostic!
May 9, 2006 at 3:13 am
I’m a Reformed Presbyterian and I take no issue with anything you said. I think you underestimate the sacramentality of *some* of Protestants. The most vocal anti-sacramental Protestants are offshoots from the Radical Reformation.
May 11, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Anonymous,
Thanks for you comments but I’m curious as to whether you read the whole post carefully, as David specifically excepted certain protestants such as yourself from his critique:
Thus, not all Protestants see sacraments and free grace as opposed to one another.
June 28, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Faith through the Grace of God. Add anything, and it is no longer Grace. Grace is a free gift. You don’t have to be Baptized, walk an isle, etc . . . Add ANYTHING, it then negates Grace. It then becomes, Grace plus the Law or Grace plus being Baptized. Grace plus works.
Grace, Grace, Grace, period.
God did it all through Grace, get the BIG picture? When Jesus, in Matthew 16:16-17 said, “16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Peter didn’t do anything, Jesus said, His Father which is in heaven reveals this to Peter and to all those of the Elect who has been called by the Grace of God speak with one voice and say, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
God chose certain people as the Elect before he created the Foundations of the Earth. He called them by name, which without being called, they would never come to that realization on their own.
Jesus said, John 15:16 “16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”
Jesus as God the Son knows His sheep. He calls them by name. We did not chose Him, He chose us. We were the Elect, chosen by God, called by God, and then when we accept this calling by Faith — the Fath that God has given us, then we are saved through faith and not by works.
Romans 9:31-33
31 But Israel (YOU CAN ADD HERE ANYONE AND EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY, CHANGE But Israel to be but ROMAN CATHOLICS today), which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
When Peter, who had answered Jesus Christ rightly by calling Him the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Jesus had told him that God the Father had revealed that to Peter. Let’s not make too much of this, Peter. He answered what God had revealed.
Peter also answered while NOT being led by God the Father, and rebuked Jesus right after Jesus had told Peter that He would build His Church . .. (Not Peter’s church, but His (Jesus Christ’s Church) on the great confession that Peter had just made. Peter’s Great Conession was that He, Jesus, was the Christ the Son of the living God. Peter then, turned right around in his worldly ways, while NOT being led by God the Father, and rebukes God the Son Himself. God the Son, Jesus the Christ of the Living God, tells Peter, Matthew 16:21-26
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
When Peter spoke of his own will, Satan could use Peter. When Peter spoke by God the Father’s will, God could use Peter. Peter was the unofficial leader of the Apostles. He, and the other Apostles, had the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter alone doesn’t hold them. They are not his, nor is it his Church. The Church is Jesus Christ’s. Peter NEVER claimed any special authority. Peter did NOT lead the Assembly when the Disciples met:
See The ACTS of the Apostles Chapter 15. Peter argues one point, and Paul and Barnabas testify. However, the one that decides the fate of the argument is James the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ. James the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve apostles, sometimes called the brother of the Lord (more than likely a cousin, for the Jews called all close male relatives brother); for the other James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, was dead, being killed by Herod, Acts 12:2 but this was the brother of John (Jude), and the same that wrote the Epistle that bears his name: whether he, James, was now Bishop or Pastor of the Church at Jerusalem, is not certain, but he headed the council for this meeting.
Peter didn’t hold special authority, nor was he given special authority outside the other Apostles. Jesus said, ” . . . thou art Peter [petros with a small p(etros) -- literally, 'a little rock'], and upon this rock [Petra with a large P(etra)] I will build my church.” Jesus uses two Greek words for rock. One, a small stone or peeble, another a large foundation stone, Petra. Jesus does not promise to build HIS CHURCH upon Peter, but upon Himself, as Peter tell us in (1 Peter 2:4-9).
Peter was not given the keys to Christ’s Church, but of the kingdom of heaven in the sense of Matthew 13, i.e.: the sphere of Christian profession. Peter claimed no more than being an Apostle, 1 Peter 1:1, other than being an Elder of the Church as the other Apostles, 1 Peter 5:1.