# Ordained men and the giving of sacraments



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 28, 2010)

> ....in cases of necessity anyone can baptize and give absolution. This would be impossible if we were not all priests.



The above is from Luther's _To the Christian Nobility_

In the Reformed world only ordained men can give the sacraments. Here Luther states that anyone can give the sacraments.

Would you help me see why the Divines disagreed with Luther?


----------



## JML (Dec 28, 2010)

This previous thread might help.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/who-can-administer-sacraments-27627/


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 28, 2010)

Thank you for the link. I was thinking more along the lines of historical information. Is there any writings out there from the Reformers refuting Luther's view?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 29, 2010)

This view and practice (though Luther is a very strong proponent of a high view of the ministry) is a consequence of the little-bit "extra" that the Lutherans accord to baptism and a means of grace. I'd call it a vestige of Rome.

Luther affirms that it is NOT necessary for a child to be baptized to go to heaven. But, of course its "better" for all concerned if the child (or anyone in absolute necessity) is baptized. Because, of the blessings which Lutherans affirm are particularly tied to the rite. In other words, baptism is of great importance to the Lutheran, where assurance is at stake. Tell a poor dying man he has got his baptism, and he dies in peace (presumably). Baptize a dying infant, and there is *no question* in Lutheran theology, but that child is in heaven. The necessary things are the Word of Institution (of first importance, and in some sense uniquely important); and then the sacrament of water.

Absent the baptism itself, Luther says the subject (or parent) should believe the Word of promise anyway, intent-to-baptize being of more value than inability to attain the rite. But, of course, you might be left, unfortunately, with lingering doubts, but banish such thoughts as best you can.


The Reformed take a different view, because of the different strength we understand baptism to have, and the use of faith in regard to sacramental efficacy (the Lutherans believe baptism _creates_, quite literally, the faith that is necessary). In the Lutheran sacramental view, those who are not elect actually DO participate in the *substance* of the sacrament. The baptized really do have all their sin forgiven (but, then of course they must also affirm that folks can lose their salvation). The wicked actually participate in the body and blood of Christ in the Supper _the same way as do those who's sins are actually pardoned_.

This is a big difference, of course, between us. For them, it is a real _desecration_ which the true body and blood undergo, when the unrepentant abuse the Supper. While, for us, no reprobate ever has any participation in the SUBSTANCE of the holy things with which he meddles. His meddling will damn him further than ever, but his sins are never forgiven in baptism (who never believed in it), and he cannot actually desecrate the true body and blood of our Lord (though he may certainly despise the same, and scandalize the meaning of the sacrament).

You might read Calvin on the Supper, as he disputes with the Lutheran Heshusius (sp?). See his _Tracts and Treatises_ (sorry, can't tell you which volume). Wm. Cunningham's _Historical Theology_ also treats of the theological differences between Lutheran and Reformed views.


I suppose I can add further: that the reason we think it right _only_ that minister's administer baptism and the Lord's Supper--beside the need to put to naught all magical views of sacramental efficacy--is that in bringing baptism to those who need it, who should have it, we bring THE CHURCH to those people. For them to not yet be baptized, means that they need the church to come into being around them, around the believers.

No, not that they need the church in the world, in order to get to heaven. That's not it. But, to have the church in the world is better--far, far better--than to be lone ranger Christians. The presence of DISCIPLINE (in the form of the sacraments) is a sign that the blessings of the Government of Christ has come to believers.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 29, 2010)

Thank you big time.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 29, 2010)

Does anyone have a link to the tract? I just read an article for school next week that mentioned that Calvin agreed with Lutheran that unordained men can give the sacraments. When I read the Institutes on the other hand, I see where Calvin states that the two jobs of a pastor are the preaching of the Word and administering the sacraments. 

If I can go in to class with proof that the author was mistaken, it would really be great.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 30, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Does anyone have a link to the tract?



Boliver, I believe this is it here.

You might also find this helpful.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 31, 2010)

> Now since this charge is expressly given to the apostles along with the preaching of the word, it follows that none can lawfully administer baptism but those who are also the ministers of doctrine. When private persons, and even women, are permitted to baptize, nothing can be more at variance with the ordinance of Christ, nor is it any thing else than a mere profanation.



Calvin on the Great Commission

Just posting this here. Thought some might appreciate it.


----------

