# Sacraments and Ordinances



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

In another forum someone asked about eating the flesh of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Here is my take on that:

It's a symbol. It signifies an inward reality and is done in rememberance of Christ.

In the gospel of John Christ called himself a vine, a door, and bread. The language is symbolic. He also spoke of regeneration as being born again. He clearly said to take that supper in rememberance of him. He did not tell anyone that that supper was a sacrament that imparted grace, nor did he ever tell anyone anything was a sacrament. The word sacrament isn't even in the bible. 

All ideas other than the biblical teaching that the ordinance is symbolic is superstition and evidence of an incomplete reformation of the Church that is still in process. 

I reject sacramentology. I think it doesn't fit well with the bible especially the doctrine of sola fide. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 14, 2010)

There are some pretty bold statements in here, David; I might recommend tempering some of them.

It seems there may be a bit confusion going on here: calling something a sacrament does not mean that we claim they work ex opere operato; so to say that you reject "sacramentology" because it does not stand with sola fide is not entirely cohesive. The Reformed do not think the sacraments have any efficacy *except through faith.* I would recommend reading our confessions on this point. To say that the sacraments do not stand with sola fide is akin to saying that the Word or scriptures also are not a means of grace: for the Reformed, we often refer to the sacraments as "the visible Word of God."

As for the word sacrament not being in the Bible, well...you might want to rethink this argument.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> There are some pretty bold statements in here, David; I might recommend tempering some of them.
> 
> It seems there may be a bit confusion going on here: calling something a sacrament does not mean that we claim they work ex opere operato; so to say that you reject "sacramentology" because it does not stand with sola fide is not entirely cohesive. The Reformed do not think the sacraments have any efficacy *except through faith.* I would recommend reading our confessions on this point. To say that the sacraments do not stand with sola fide is akin to saying that the Word or scriptures also are not a means of grace: for the Reformed, we often refer to the sacraments as "the visible Word of God."
> 
> As for the word sacrament not being in the Bible, well...you might want to rethink this argument.


 
It's not in the bible.

I see nothing in the bible that indicates that the Lord's Supper and Baptism do anything. From a clear reading they are symbolic. If we are saved by grace through faith how can we get any more saved from a sacrament?


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 14, 2010)

David, no one in the Reformed community has asserted that anyone gets "any more saved" by a sacrament than by faith. We are saved by faith alone; that faith is ministered to us in the Word and Sacraments.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 14, 2010)

Dave,

The word Trinity is not in the Bible. A thing can be sacred and separated as a means of grace to strengthen faith and build up the body of Christ. Dave, you are declining in understanding in my opinion.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> David, no one in the Reformed community has asserted that anyone gets "any more saved" by a sacrament than by faith. We are saved by faith alone; that faith is ministered to us in the Word and Sacraments.


 
I see the ordinances as a means of worship that God commanded us to do. However, I believe that we grow spiritually by prayer and the reading or hearing of the word. These ordinances are wonderful ways to present our worship to God but I think that it isn't correct to claim they are any more than that.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 14, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > There are some pretty bold statements in here, David; I might recommend tempering some of them.
> ...


 
You don't get "more saved" from a sacrament, any more than you get "more saved" when God gives you more grace. Rather, it's part of the process of growth--becoming more conformed to the image of Christ. When God gives us grace, it's to help us in that growth. It's not a matter of becoming "more saved", but "more sanctified".


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Dave,
> 
> The word Trinity is not in the Bible.


 
The teaching clearly is. Sacramentology isn't.

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------




Skyler said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Prufrock said:
> ...


 
I hear it defined as "being given more grace" but what does that mean exactley. We partake in the Lord's Supper to remember him. That is wonderful and worshipful, but how does that offer us any more grace than any otehr corporate worship service?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 14, 2010)

How are you defining grace Dave? This might be where you are missing the boat.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> How are you defining grace Dave? This might be where you are missing the boat.


 
Grace = Unmerited favor.

We are saved by the unmerited favor of God through the means of our faith in his Son...etc.

A Sacrament is something that conveys Divine grace upon the individual who participates in it. I don't believe that way. I think that these ordinances are for us to offer worship to God at his command, not for him to give us anything through them. I see them as symbols (very good ones).


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 14, 2010)

David, do you believe we grow in grace when we pray? What about when we hear the word read and preached?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 14, 2010)

Let me have you look at something concerning grace Dave....



> I believe most of modern day Christendom has a deficient understanding of Grace based upon some some old definitions and scripture. If we had a better understanding of God's grace no one could conclude anything to be cheap concerning it. The cost of imparting it was paid by Christ.
> 
> In Titus *Grace teaches us*.
> (Tit 2:11-12) For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
> ...



I believe that the Lords Supper does influence the heart by God's Spirit. I believe it does restrain from sin and call us to examine our hearts in light of the work of Christ. That is an influencing grace. Grace is much more than unmerited favor if you look at it biblically.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

austinww said:


> David, do you believe we grow in grace when we pray? What about when we hear the word read and preached?


 
I believe it is the unmerited favor of God that has put us in the situation and that we are sanctified by a process of cooperating with the work of the Holy Spirit throughout our justified lives. Prayer and the word are the principle ways God helps a Christian grow.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 14, 2010)

Than what about when the Apostle Peter says that "Baptism Saves". I mean I don't believe that Baptism actually saves but that this verse implys that something very important is going to the elect in Baptism. Also when the Apostile Paul says that to eat or drink unworthily at the Lord's Supper is to violate the body and blood of our Lord, again this implys that something is going on for the elect in the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 14, 2010)

Views on the Lord's Supper (in particular) were debated and discussed during and after the Reformation -- all contrasted to Rome's view. There are distinctions bewteen the the views of Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli and Calvin -- a fruitful study.

Zwingli viewed the ordinances as strictly symbolic and memorial in nature -- which seems like your view. This is the predominant view among Baptists and today's evangelicalism. However, from what I understand, Calvin, the Confessions, and the Reformed tradition see the ordinances as more than mere symbols, i.e. in some way, real instruments of grace through faith.

 Someone correct me if I'm off-base in my understanding.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 14, 2010)

David,

I was under the impression that both Presbyterians AND confessional LBCF Baptists saw the Lord's Supper and Communion in a more "sacramental" way than the average independent Baptist. Why are you running from the idea? Wouldn't a more "sacramental" approach to the Table be one of the differentiating marks of those on the Puritan Board as opposed to other Baptists?


----------



## raekwon (Apr 14, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Grace = Unmerited favor.
> 
> We are saved by the unmerited favor of God through the means of our faith in his Son...etc.
> 
> *A Sacrament is something that conveys Divine grace upon the individual who participates in it.* I don't believe that way. I think that these ordinances are for us to offer worship to God at his command, not for him to give us anything through them. I see them as symbols (very good ones).


 
That's not quite the reformed protestant understanding of the Sacraments. Yes, they are means of grace, but the thing itself does not convey that grace. The Holy Spirit conveys grace _through_ the Sacraments in the same way that He conveys grace _through_ the written and preached Word of God -- the reading or hearing of the Word in and of itself does nothing. The Spirit must act upon the reader/hearer of the Word, and in that same way, the Spirit must act upon the recipient of the Sacrament.

Please keep in mind that "grace" (as Martin alludes to above) is spoken of in Scripture in many more senses than only saving/justifying grace.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe that the Lords Supper does influence the heart by God's Spirit. I believe it does restrain from sin and call us to examine our hearts in light of the work of Christ. That is an influencing grace. Grace is much more than unmerited favor if you look at it biblically.


 
I don't see how. It is a nice ritual to think about him, but honestly I feel closer to him when I read the actual scripture about him.


----------



## yoyoceramic (Apr 14, 2010)

> A Sacrament is something that conveys Divine grace upon the individual who participates in it.



That's according to the Catholic Church. I think you are rejecting Romanist Sacerdotalism and swinging to the other side of the spectrum which would be more of a Zwinglian Memorialism. The reformed view is that in every sacrament, there exists a spiritual relation between the sign and the thing signified.

WCF 27 Art III

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Why are you running from the idea?


 
I don't see it in the bible. It is too Roman Catholic. John Macarthur says they are symbolic. He is a 5th generation pastor and has had quite a fruitful ministry that has been blessed by God. Also, he has been right about soteriology, and baptism, in my view so far, so I find it amazing that I agree with him here as well.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 14, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you running from the idea?
> ...



Doesn't mean it's not there.



> It is too Roman Catholic.



Is not.



> John Macarthur says they are symbolic.



So?



> He is a 5th generation pastor and has had quite a fruitful ministry that has been blessed by God.


 
So?

Okay, I'm a jerk. ;-) In all seriousness, though -- your reaction seems to be against Roman Catholic sacerdotalism and not reformed sacramentology. Two completely different animals.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 14, 2010)

I think it can be helpful to ask for scriptural arguments that the sacraments (or ordinances) are more than mere symbols. However, this is a Reformed board. MacArthur is not Reformed and the his Zwinglian view of the sacraments is not Reformed. So we should be careful not to denigrate or subvert the Reformed understanding in our discussions.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

raekwon said:


> In all seriousness, though -- your reaction seems to be against Roman Catholic sacerdotalism and not reformed sacramentology. Two completely different animals.


 
Maybe. I really don't like the word sacrament. It stinks of Rome.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------




Jimmy the Greek said:


> I think it can be helpful to ask for scriptural arguments that the sacraments (or ordinances) are more than mere symbols. However, this is a Reformed board. MacArthur is not Reformed and the his Zwinglian view of the sacraments is not Reformed. So we should be careful not to denigrate or subvert the Reformed understanding in our discussions.


 
Ok. Thanks.


Why isn't Zwingli reformed? He was a reformer?


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 14, 2010)

David, I would caution you against speaking dismissively of the sacraments (e.,g., "It is a nice ritual to think about him, but honestly I feel closer to him when I read the actual scripture about him."). Consider the words of Baptist Sam Waldron.



> Many modern Baptists have so reacted against Roman Catholic sacramentalism that they emphasize that baptism is a sign for the world and the church, but little emphasis is placed on its meaning for the one baptized. This is not in accord with the Scripture’s teaching. While baptism does not save, it does formalize salvation in a covenantal ceremony or transaction between God and the party baptized. It is the body of which faith is the soul. We dare not adopt, therefore, the idea that it is unimportant.— A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Sam Waldron



With respect to the 1689 LBCF itself, consider 30.1:



> 1 The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his Churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, *their spiritual nourishment*, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.— 1689 with Parallel Confessions



I do not think that you can square the 1689 with your words: "It's a nice ritual to think about him."

One of the hallmarks of Reformed teaching and confessional Baptist approaches is a commitment to the ministry of "Word and Sacrament."

John MacArthur is a wonderful pastor and a stalwart defender of 5pt Calvinism. He would not, however, be able to accept the confessional limits of the PB.


----------



## thegospel (Apr 14, 2010)

Those that partake of the Lord's supper who are...

*LBCF*
"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

*WCF*
"VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

There does not seem to be much difference between the Baptist confession and Westminister. Would agree with LBCF on this issue, that in a spiritual sense we receive blessing/grace from partaking of the Lord's Supper? 

What would be the point of taking the Supper or being baptized then if there was not blessing and refreshment by the grace of God? Do we do it just to obey the command? or is the memorial service/Lord's supper for Christ's benefit or ours?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 14, 2010)

David asked about Zwingli, a Reformer, being "Reformed."

Luther and Melancthon were Reformers too. As I see it, the Reformed tradition is found primarily in the WCF which may not agree with any individual Reformer on all fronts.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 14, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that the Lords Supper does influence the heart by God's Spirit. I believe it does restrain from sin and call us to examine our hearts in light of the work of Christ. That is an influencing grace. Grace is much more than unmerited favor if you look at it biblically.
> ...



It is entirely inappropriate, though, to pit good things that God has given to nourish us against each other as if they were in contradiction. Are you wiser than Christ? He thought the Lord's Supper was valuable enough in the believer's sanctification that he commanded it. Next you will want to pit reading the Bible against the value of prayer. Do be careful with that sort of logic.



DD2009 said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you running from the idea?
> ...



So does somebody here need to provide you an example of a 5th generation Calvinistic Baptist pastor who disagrees with John MacArthur on this point, or will it suffice for you simply to acknowledge that this is an invalid argument regardless? John MacArthur also teaches that the early church used wine of negligible alcoholic content in the Lord's Supper, in clear contradiction to 1 Cor. 11; thus, he is not a good authority when it comes to the Lord's Supper. Let's not even get started on his dispensationalism.

I think you need to take the time to study the concept more before you throw out sweeping generalizations, especially when you have been told by Baptists on this board that your view is not theirs, and abuses the word "grace."


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

thegospel said:


> There does not seem to be much difference between the Baptist confession and Westminister. Would agree with LBCF on this issue, that in a spiritual sense we receive blessing/grace from partaking of the Lord's Supper?



I don't see where they got that idea in scripture. I'll have to study it some more. I looked at teh references given but none say that.



> What would be the point of taking the Supper or being baptized then if there was not blessing and refreshment by the grace of God? Do we do it just to obey the command? or is the memorial service/Lord's supper for Christ's benefit or ours?


 
1 Corinthians 11:26 KJV
[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 14, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Fickle


 
Welcome to the Puritan Board! ;-)


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2010)

raekwon said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Fickle
> ...


 
I'm not being fickle. I'm just trying to follow the bible.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 14, 2010)

I was just messing w/ Josh, David. I appreciate what you're asking here.


----------



## thegospel (Apr 14, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> thegospel said:
> 
> 
> > There does not seem to be much difference between the Baptist confession and Westminister. Would agree with LBCF on this issue, that in a spiritual sense we receive blessing/grace from partaking of the Lord's Supper?
> ...



I understand that we are proclaim/shew the Lord's death untill he comes. However, who are we proclaiming it to? We take it corporately as a reminder and refreshment to our souls. We come humbled that our savior would die for us, but we also come rejoicing that he has saved us through his death. Are we not to find this time refreshing and receive grace from our God through Jesus Christ? God's grace transforms us, and refreshes us! If we are not affected by the grace of God revealed to us in the ordinances/sacraments, something is wrong.


----------



## Herald (Apr 14, 2010)

*Moderator note: This thread is being temporarily closed. We are not censoring discussion. As soon as a specific situation is settled we will re-open the thread.*


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 14, 2010)

David, let's do some major clarifications here:

1.) Yes, the word "sacramentum" is not in scripture -- prima facie, this is accounted for simply by the fact that it is a Latin word, not Greek or Hebrew (though the word is, indeed, used in Latin translations of the scripture, though perhaps not in the sense that you might imagine). Its original meaning was a military term, involving an oath taken by soldiers at their initiation; over time, the word took upon a religious use, referring to the mysteries and hidden doctrines within a religion (thus the term is used in Latin translations to represent the Greek "mystery"). In modern ecclesiastical usage, the "sacraments" are referred to as sacraments because they (somewhat hiddenly) hold forth the mysteries of the Christian religion. The terms does not refer to a superstition wherein actual power is attributed to physical things.

2.) As I said above, and many others have confirmed for you: the Reformed simply do not teach that the sacraments somehow "impart grace" on their own -- such is not even in keeping with a Protestant understanding of what grace is; and you yourself have referred to grace above as "unmerited favor." The sacraments are one of the means whereby we receive Christ. We receive Christ in the Word -- not by the bare hearing of the Word, as though it magically works something in those who hear it. Rather, we hear the Word preached, and the Holy Spirit works with this Word, and it is "mixed with faith in [us] who hear it," and so is profitable. Thereby we can refer to the Word as a "means of grace." This is how we talk about the sacraments: they are a sign and seal of the covenant. This does not mean that "because we partake of these things, God will on this account give us more grace." Rather, in these "visible words of God," the 'mysteries' of Christ are set before us, as in his Word, and those who are his perceive him in them by faith. Note that Rom. 4:11 refers to circumcision as both a "sign" and a "seal" to Abraham of the righteousness which he had by faith. This is what we plead for. Circumcision, and the other sacraments, are not just something that "we do for God to worship him;" yes, they are a part of our public worship: but they are so as signs and seals for us from God.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 15, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > David, no one in the Reformed community has asserted that anyone gets "any more saved" by a sacrament than by faith. We are saved by faith alone; that faith is ministered to us in the Word and Sacraments.
> ...


 
Then you need to disavow the confession you claim to uphold (or the one you previously claimed to uphold) because both the LBCF and the WCF clearly state that the sacraments are "more than that", or, at least, affirm that you won't be making posts that advocate for your contra-confessional position.


----------

