Sacramental Worldview

[Timmay]

Is it right to view creation sacramentally? By that I mean, can we view creation as a sign but also understand that God is spiritually present within it, since He upholds all things (Col 1:17)?

Hans Boersma in Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry says:

“The ‘sacramental tapestry’ of the subtitle speaks of a carefully woven unity of nature and the supernatural, according to which created objects are sacraments that participate in the mystery of the heavenly realty of Jesus Christ. [Orthodox theologian Alexander] Schmemann makes the point that everything in the so-called world of nature is meant to lead us back to God. In that sense, created matter is meant to serve eucharistically. By treating the world as a eucharistic offering in Christ, received from God and offered to him, we are drawn into God’s presence” (p. 8). “The entire cosmos is meant to serve as a sacrament: a material gift from God in and through which we enter into the joy of his heavenly presence” (p. 9).

“They [the ressourcement theologians] recognized in the Platonist-Christian synthesis a sacramental ontology that they believed had been lost through the modern separation between nature and the supernatural. As a result, nouvelle théologie set out to reintegrate the two by pointing to the sacramental participation of nature in the heavenly reality of Christ. The ressourcement theologians were convinced that the vision of sacramental participation was the only viable answer to the secularism of the modern age” (p. 16).

In short, can we view creation not as merely symbolic of a creator (Zwinglian) nor transformative into something saving (Roman Catholic) but rather a marrying of the spiritual and physical?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Within the act of creation sacraments may be discerned.

Witsius speaks of the sacraments contained in the Covenant of Works, as in the sacrament of the tree of life signifying the Son of God who is the source of life in all covenants. It was the sign of the covenant promise of eternal life. Or, the sacrament of the tree of knowledge of good and evil signifying the promise of the covenant and the curse of the covenant. It stood as a memorial of our duty towards God. Then there is the creation sacrament of the Sabbath, binding upon all men for all time, on the basis of imitating God.

 

[RamistThomist]

Depends on how you are using the term historically. Confessionally, sacraments' being seen as signs and seals, no, creation isn't a sacrament. But acknowledging that Fathers like Augustine on occasion used language in a broader sense, and given Augustine's distinction between sign and res, creation can be (and is) a sign.

 

[Peairtach]

The creation is a revelation of God, general revelation. It would be confusing from a Reformed point of view to call it sacramental since sacraments in Reformed theology are signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that mark out certain people namely God's people. If we called general revelation/the creation sacramental because it pointed beyond itself to God, we could also call special revelation/the Bible sacramental.

The Sabbath is called a sign in Scripture, but it is not a sign and seal in the above sense and is not therefore a sacrament.

The Tree of Life and, maybe, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were sacramental but they were given as part of the Covenant of Works, which was not built into the creation, but was graciously added by God to resolve the issue of Man's peccability.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was "negatively sacramental" as it wasn't to be partaken of and , in eating it, Man ate death unto himself, had fellowship with the Evil One, and took pleasure in iniquity.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

 

[MW]

There are many exegetical and theological objections to this idea. We can go straight to the problem by noting the nature of a sacrament as a positive institution which sets apart elements from a common to a sacred use to serve as outward signs of inward grace. If creation in itself were sacramental there would be nothing common from which to set apart specific elements. Moreover, if creation were sacramental of other-worldly realities, there would be no substantial reality of the presence of God in this world.

 

[Timmay]

Moreover, if creation were sacramental of other-worldly realities, there would be no substantial reality of the presence of God in this world.

Could you clarify that for me? I don't quite follow that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MW]

Could you clarify that for me? I don't quite follow that.

In traditional language, a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace. A sacrament, then, is the sign of the reality, not the reality itself. If creation were sacramental of the presence of God it would never possess the reality of that presence, but merely the sign of it. In order to enjoy the reality the creation would have to become something other than it is; which as far as the book under review is concerned, is "other-worldly." Holy scripture, however, teaches us to hope for the restitution and regeneration of all things -- the consummation of creation, not the replacement of it with some higher ontological ideal.

 

[ZackF]

Since leaving Catholicism years ago, I've found it grating to hear about sacramental this and sacramental that outside of.... wait for it.....the sacraments. If a Roman Catholic in a coffee shop wanted to add an air of profundity and spirituality to whatever he was talking about he would put the word sacramental in front of it. I know the word "sacrament" is related to the word "mystery." Having said that, if everything in creation is "sacramental" then nothing is.