# Sacramental Union and Sacramental Language



## Afterthought (Jun 13, 2011)

Hi. I've recently started understanding the implications of the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. It sounds like a great idea, and it really does explain a lot of previously confusing portions of Scripture. I have two questions though.

1) While the idea does explain a lot of Scripture, how can we prove sacramental union from Scripture? I can see a part of the proof comes from Genesis 17, where circumcision is called the covenant. However, what if I was arguing with a Lutheran or Romanist, someone who was convinced that words concerning the sacraments should be taken literally; how could I prove from Scripture that Jesus, Paul, and others were using sacramental language?

For protestants, it is easier to prove because we are already inclined to take such language non-literally. Thus, it is initially enough for us to simply have a way to interpret such language. But for someone who is convinced the other way, or for we who should prove everything from Scripture, it does not seem to be enough that a theory, unless derived from Scripture, simply explains the facts well; instead, it should be proved that those who we say are using sacramental language are using it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) At any rate, proving that they are using sacramental language would be most helpful if arguing with someone who confuses the sign with the thing signified.


2) Do you have any recommended websites/old threads/something online that explains sacramental union from the bible and/or its implications? I have read Ligon Duncan's article on Genesis 17, and I think I have read all the old threads on this forum concerning the issue, but I would like to learn more to test my understanding of sacramental union and sacramental language, to make sure that I actually understand it and could argue for it.

Thanks for any help/recommendations!


Edit: I'm thinking I should have posted this in the "Confession of Faith" forum, but I can't figure out how to delete the thread and repost it there. I need to get better at finding which forum to post in lol.


----------



## Philip (Jun 13, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> However, what if I was arguing with a Lutheran or Romanist, someone who was convinced that words concerning the sacraments should be taken literally; how could I prove from Scripture that Jesus, Paul, and others were using sacramental language?



Do what Calvin did: appeal to Christology. The Body of Christ is ascended and in heaven and is only present in the sacrament in a spiritual sense by the power of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 14, 2011)

The fact that not everyone who was e.g. circumcised was also circumcised in heart proves that the correspondence between the sacrament and the grace signified isn't 
automatic even although there is sometimes a union between speaking about the sacrament and the grace signified.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 15, 2011)

Thanks! I suppose once we proved that the language was figurative, we would just say, "See? If we say they were using sacramental language then all the problems go away!" ? Any other comments from anyone?


----------



## dudley (Jun 16, 2011)

You ask...However, what if I was arguing with a Lutheran or Romanist, someone who was convinced that words concerning the sacraments should be taken literally; how could I prove from Scripture that Jesus, Paul, and others were using sacramental language?

I am an ex Roman catholic and now a Presbyterian. I had this paper by Michael Patton in my computer from the time I was beginning to question the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation , that the bread becomes Christ actual body and the wine his actual blood. That it just appears still as bread and wine after the catholic priest consecrates it. I renounced that teaching a few years ago….While study and exploring Protestantism …it was about the time I was exploring the Methodists who invited me to the Lords Table and said we believe this is memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary and not a sacrifice again ...from about that point on my beliefs in the Lords Supper became Protestant and I no longer believed in the catholic teaching…shortly later I started exploring the Reformed churches and I was given this paper in a Westminster class one night…I then started going to and participating on line the reclaiming the mind ministries…and continued the Westminster class. I also started attending services in different Presbyterian churches. I would say that is when I experienced a true protestant conversion and was born again as a Christian.

I do think the following article and positions excellent I proving the catholic teaching a fallacy…I hope you like the article and would love your opinion after you read it..

Why I Don’t Buy the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6 in Defense of Transubstantiation

Hebrews 7:27 (KJV) 
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 

Matthew 15:9 (KJV) 
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 

One of the key differences between Protestants and Catholics through the years is the view of the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist. Catholics, along with the Orthodox Church, have traditionally believed that the Eucharist represents the centerpiece of our worship to God. Catholics call the celebration of the Eucharist “Mass.” They believe that when properly administered, the bread and the wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ. This is called “transubstantiation” because the “substance” of the elements “transform” into Christ’s body and blood. Most Protestants rejected this view of the Eucharist opting for either a memorial view or a spiritual view of the Lord’s supper (Lutherans believe in a somewhat mediating position called “consubstantiation”).

Why is this important? Because historic Protestantism has often charged the Catholic church with idolatry, believing that they have turned God into an idol of bread and wine, worshipping the elements without, indeed, contrary to, a scriptural basis. Catholics, on the other hand (and this is important), have elevated the celebration of the Mass and the belief in Transubstantiation to an essential of Christianity. In other words, according to Catholic dogma, if you do not celebrate the Mass as they believe it to be understood, you are in great danger of the fires of Hell, since missing Mass without a valid excuse is a mortal sin.

With the recent rise of modern Catholic apologetics, Catholic lay people are being trained to answer some of the more difficult objections to their faith that Protestants bring forward. The two primary areas that Catholic apologetics is centering on are issues with the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. We are focusing on Transubstantiation here. Not only this, but I want to focus on one particular argument that is being put forth more and more in defense of Transubstantiation that comes form John 6.

Here is the passage:

Here is the passage:
John 6:48 “I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”
The Basic argument is this: If Christ was not speaking literally when He said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” why did they respond by saying: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” If Christ was only speaking symbolically about feeding on His flesh and drinking His blood (as most Protestants believe), then it is not really a “hard saying,” just a misunderstood saying. According to the Catholic apologist, if Christ was speaking symbolically, Christ could have—indeed would have—corrected them and said, “This is not really hard. You must understand I am only speaking symbolically of eating my flesh and drinking my blood.” But He did not. He let them walk away. The Catholic apologist will often emphasis this fact and declare it to be incontestable evidence that Christ was speaking literally about eating and drinking His flesh and blood. Thus, this becomes a primary defense of transubstantiation and the necessity of partaking in Mass for eternal life.
Karl Keating, a popular Catholic Apologist and President of Catholic Answers, says:
“There was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct misunderstanding, for there were none. His listeners understood him quite well. No one any longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, why no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was confusion, Christ explained what he meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, he repeated what he said” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 233-234).
While I respect and appreciate the attempts of some very fine Catholic apologists to defend difficult positions and believe this to be a good argument on the surface, I believe it is seriously flawed. I believe that it is taken out of the context of the entire book of John and bears a burden that it cannot sustain on exegetical and theological grounds.
Why? For two primary reasons:
1. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.
The people in John 6 were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in His talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements. It is true, Christ did not correct them. But this is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. As Peter demonstrates, it is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life (John 6:68). Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10). The rest He let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.
John presents this side of Jesus more than any other of the Gospels when he says: John 2:24-25 “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” He did not entrust himself to his listeners. Why? I suppose some wanted a king who would provide literal food for them like Moses did in the wilderness and they left when it became clear that He was not going to do the same. Some thought that He was speaking about actually eating his flesh and blood, I violation of the Mosaic Law, and they left. But why didn’t He simply correct their misunderstanding in this case? For the same reason He does not throughout the book of John. He often says things that are open to misinterpretation and then leaves His listeners in their confusion. Notice these examples
a. John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
Notice, Christ was not being literal here yet He did not correct the misunderstanding. This misunderstanding eventually leads to His conviction and death.
b. John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).
c. The disciples want Jesus to eat: “Rabbi, eat” (John 4:31). Jesus answers: “I have food to eat that you do not know about” (4:32). “So the disciples were saying to one another, ‘No one brought him anything to eat, did he?’” (John 4:33).
This time Jesus does correct his disciples, but in frustration because they cannot see the symbolism behind it. In other words, they should know enough by now to interpret His words symbolically since this is the way He always spoke.
Now we come to John 6. John’s readers should know by now that Christ speaks symbolically in such statements as these. We should understand by now that Christ is always being misunderstood by “outsiders.” They also know that sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not. Therefore, it would be irresponsible for the reader to take Christ literally in John 6.
Would Christ have corrected the misunderstanding of unbelievers whose heart he already knew?
“For judgment I came into the world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).
“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them’” (John 12:40).
It does not seem so. This was not His modus operandi.
2. Another important factor that Keating and other Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all. Obviously if we took the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and believed John included this passage to communicate that believers must eat the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, you would expect John to have recorded the events that it foreshadows. You would expect John to have a historical record of the Last Supper, the inaugurating meal of the Eucharist. But John does not. What an oversight by John! In fact, John is the only Gospel writer that did not record the Last Supper. Therefore, it is very unlikely that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation. Remember John wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s Supper.
John 20:30-31 “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Why did they walk away? Because, like all other unbelievers, they expected something of Jesus that He did not come to provide and they misunderstood His teachings and intentions. A very common theme in John and a very common mistake today.
In short, before you start paddling across the Tiber, set an anchor and think seriously about the exegetical and theological viability of the Catholic interpretation of John 6.

Summary : If as Christians we accept that Christ died a substitutionary death on the cross for our sin, why do it all over again? If we accept the symbolism of the cross in faith. In the same way, taking John 6 literally would in essence mean we would be crucifying Christ all over again, something scripture warns us not to do.

In taking communion, we are simply symbolically remembering Christ’s life and death and resurrection in faith as well, and honoring Him the way He asked.







Afterthought said:


> Hi. I've recently started understanding the implications of the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. It sounds like a great idea, and it really does explain a lot of previously confusing portions of Scripture. I have two questions though.
> 
> 1) While the idea does explain a lot of Scripture, how can we prove sacramental union from Scripture? I can see a part of the proof comes from Genesis 17, where circumcision is called the covenant. However, what if I was arguing with a Lutheran or Romanist, someone who was convinced that words concerning the sacraments should be taken literally; how could I prove from Scripture that Jesus, Paul, and others were using sacramental language?
> 
> ...




---------- Post added at 04:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> > However, what if I was arguing with a Lutheran or Romanist, someone who was convinced that words concerning the sacraments should be taken literally; how could I prove from Scripture that Jesus, Paul, and others were using sacramental language?
> ...



I agree Philip.The high water point of Calvin’s mystical turn is in his theology of the “Eucharistic Ascent”. Rather than dragging Christ down to earth under the form of corruptible elements, Calvin argues that believers must be “raised up” to heaven in order to feed upon him there. In the 1539 edition of the Institutes, he argues,
But if we are lifted up to heaven with our eyes and minds to seek Christ there in the glory of his Kingdom, so under the symbol of bread we shall be fed by his body, [and] under the symbol of wine we shall separately drink his blood to enjoy him at last in his wholeness. For though he has taken his flesh away from us, and in the body has ascended into heaven, yet he sits at the right hand of the Father 


Calvin takes a similar tack when offering critique of the Roman Catholic practice of adoring the consecrated host. The Lutheran view of consubstantiation in my mind is as much an abomination of the sacrament as the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation. Far from being a sanctioned practice to facilitate Eucharistic contemplation, Calvin says this practice is an idol which evokes a vain imagination: “For what is idolatry if not this: to worship the gifts in place of the Giver himself? In this there is a double transgression: for both the honor taken from God has been transferred to the creature, and he himself is also dishonored in the defilement and profanation of his gift, when the holy Sacrament is made a hateful idol”

I do renounce the practice now an I also see the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation not only perverting the Lords Supper, it denies Chalcedon and the dual nature of Christ both human and divine. It also leads to many gross superstitions. 

The mass which I once appreciated and even loved I now see a s man mad e form of worship which unfortunately denies the central message of the Gospel which is Christ made the perfect sacrifice and that alone was the sacrifice to redeem all who place their faith in him alone. I no longer miss the mass and the rituals. Truth is I have come to appreciate the Lords Supper as a Presbyterian even more than when I was a Roman catholic.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 16, 2011)

> In taking communion, we are simply symbolically remembering Christ’s life and death and resurrection in faith as well, and honoring Him the way He asked.



So are you agreeing or disagreeing with Calvin? This quote seems to disagree, but following paragraphs seem to agree. 

I am just trying to understand what you were saying. 

Thanks


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 16, 2011)

Raymond, I'm not sure you would find this principle laid out in Scripture explicitly. It would, I think, fall under the category of good and necessary consequence. After all, in speaking of sacramental union, the Confession of Faith's proof texts only give us examples of sacramental language (Genesis 17:10, Matthew 26:27, and Titus 3:5). They don't give us texts where the principle is laid out, only where it is applied. So here's the logic: 

1. The sacraments as signs and seals do not convey what they sign and seal. This is crystal clear from Romans 4:11, where both terms ("sign" and "seal") are used to describe something which Abraham _already had_ (and this assumes, by the way, that the OT sacraments are the same in substance as the NT sacraments, which is a point that must be argued, admittedly, but which is unnecessary here). 

2. Nevertheless, there are passages that seem to ascribe to the sign and seal the efficacy of what they sign and seal (Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21). 

3. These two ideas must be reconciled, unless one wishes to posit that God is a liar and speaks out of both sides of His mouth, which is inadmissible. 

4. The only way in human history by which 1 and 2 have ever been shown to be compatible is by this concept of sacramental union. It is a species of metonymy, by which one thing is meant by saying something else. It is a sacramental metonymy. 

5. Additional points that are helpful here: both sacraments can be understood in two ways. The more common understanding of the sacraments is simply the sign by itself. When people say "I was baptized," for instance, what they mean is that they have received the sign. And unless we go Roman Catholic, we all know that the sign does not convey the thing signified. However, the terms "baptism" and "The Lord's Supper" can also be used in a much broader sense to include the sign, the thing signified, and the sacramental union between the two. So, for instance, WLC 163 says that there are two parts to a sacrament: the outer sign, _and the inward grace_. Then WCF 27.2 tells us that the sacramental union is part of the sacrament. We must be very cautious here: the WLC says that salvation, which is the thing signified, _is part of the sacrament_, considered in this broader sense. However, it is NOT the sign which brings about the thing signified. Rather, the efficacy of baptism lies in the sacramental union. The sacramental union is Spirit-given faith. When the Spirit gives faith to a person who has been baptized, then the sacrament is complete in that person. We are not used to talking about the sacraments this way, because our default definition of baptism is the rite all by itself. But when we consider the sacraments in this broader sense, then we can see that the sacraments are as broad as salvation itself, as long as we understand the qualifications that must always be placed on this doctrine (that the sign does not convey the thing signified, and that the efficacy of the sacrament lies in the Spirit-given faith, which is the sacramental union). It is, of course, possible to have the thing signified without having the sign. Abraham himself is an excellent example of this. He had the righteousness of Christ imputed to him 19 years at least before he had the sign of that righteousness, circumcision (again, see Romans 4:11). So salvation is quite possible apart from the sign of baptism. The rite of baptism as a sign and seal (understood now in its narrow definition apart from the thing signified) functions as a confirmation, either pre-faith or post-faith, of salvation.


----------



## discipulo (Jun 16, 2011)

Thank you Rev Keister, that was quite a very clear explanation, particularly point 5. I still have to start reading it, only got it a week ago, but without hesitation I dare to suggest the reading of 
J V Fesko, Baptism, Water & Spirit, it is supposed to be an excellent work on the sacrament of Baptism.

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism (Hardcover) Fesko, J. V. 9781601781017


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 16, 2011)

dudley said:


> I do think the following article and positions excellent I proving the catholic teaching a fallacy…I hope you like the article and would love your opinion after you read it..


I think it's quite good. One other thing that could have been mentioned, I think, was that Christ did correct their misunderstanding to some extent I think ("It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."), but I'm guessing that if Lutherans don't buy that line of reasoning and that if someone has been taught trans/con-substantiation all one's life, it may be best to simply do what that article did: show their interpretation and presuppositions don't arrive at a necessary conclusion. So yeah, I thought it was quite good and made some great points I hadn't thought of before in connection with the passage. Thanks for posting it!

Edit: I'm also not sure whether there is a one-to-one correspondence between the Lord's Supper and John 6, but someone can always correct me!

Edit2: Calvin on this place: "_And I will raise him up at the last day._ It ought to be observed, that Christ so frequently connects the resurrection with eternal life, because our salvation will be hidden till that day. No man, therefore, can perceive what Christ bestows on us, unless, rising above the world, he places before his eyes the last resurrection From these words, it plainly appears that the whole of this passage is improperly explained, as applied to the Lord’s Supper. For if it were true that all who present themselves at the holy table of the Lord are made partakers of his flesh and blood, all will, in like manner, obtain life; but we know that there are many who partake of it to their condemnation. And indeed it would have been foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord’s Supper, before he had instituted it.

It is certain, then, that he now speaks of the perpetual and ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only. And yet, at the same time, I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon. This is also the reason why the Evangelist John makes no mention of the Lord’s Supper; and therefore Augustine follows the natural order, when, in explaining this chapter, he does not touch on the Lord’s Supper till he comes to the conclusion; and then he shows that this mystery is symbolically represented, whenever the Churches celebrate the Lord’s Supper, in some places daily, and in other places only on the Lord’s day." 



greenbagins said:


> So here's the logic:


Thanks a bunch! That was very, very helpful in showing how to establish the case for/in understanding sacramental union/language.



discipulo said:


> J V Fesko, Baptism, Water & Spirit, it is supposed to be an excellent work on the sacrament of Baptism.


 I'll have to add it to my list of "books to buy when someday I have money"


----------

