RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Berkouwer, G. C. The Sacraments. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.
As in all of G.C. Berkouwer’s works, we are met with clarity and precision. Some difficulties do arrive concerning the arcane nature of 20th Century Dutch theological controversies. Berkouwer champions the Reformed insistence on sacrament as sign, seal, and promise.
Are Sacraments Objective or Subjective?
It is important to remember that God himself gives the meaning to the sign. You see this a lot in resistance to the Lord’s Supper. It is objected “But it just won’t be special no more” if we have it often. That’s absurd. It’s “special” because God himself said so.
Berkouwer wisely points out that if “everything is a sacrament,” then we necessarily introduce vagueness into the sacraments, which then lose their character of divine promise (Berkouwer 25). If “mystery” is to retain its NT context of “that which is revealed,” then we can’t have the proliferation of sacraments without losing this “mystery.”
Because of its insistence on an infusion of supernatural grace in order to forgive post-baptismal sins, Rome has to have a sacrament like penance (32). This is the difference between Rome and the Reformation is the difference between grace as a substance and the divine promise.
Word and Sacrament
Sacraments always point to something other than themselves (44). If sacraments refer back to God’s speaking, then sacraments have an oath-like character--but it is God’s oath.
The Efficacy of the Sacraments
If we say that the sacraments “strengthen faith,” we must not understand this in a vague subjective way. The sacraments and faith are always to Christ.
Berkouwer then goes into an extended analysis of how Rome can claim the sacraments are objective while having to deal with the disposition of the recipient (68-71). We believe the sacraments are objective but not because of an infusion of supernatural grace. The relation of faith and sacrament rests on the relation between Word and Sacrament (74). Our understanding of the sacrament stands with God’s promise.
The Sacraments as Signs and Seals
The sign must always be connected with the sealing of God’s promises (136). The “sign” and “seal” do not exist of themselves. The idea of sealing always points to God’s trustworthiness. Rome, however, turns the sealing, which we see as the downpayment of the Spirit, into an indelible “stamp” on the soul. Again, it comes back to Rome’s view of grace as a quasi-substance.
This leads to a very bizarre conclusion. For Rome, salvation can be lost. Yet, this “stamp” of the seal is a habit which never goes away (143). Therefore, the Holy Spirit dwells within but provides no guarantee.
Faith does not make the promise concrete, nor does it create the reality; rather, it acknowledges what “comes to us in the divine promise….it rests in the promise, and the sealing is connected” (147).
The book ends with various discussions concerning the Lord’s Supper.
As in all of G.C. Berkouwer’s works, we are met with clarity and precision. Some difficulties do arrive concerning the arcane nature of 20th Century Dutch theological controversies. Berkouwer champions the Reformed insistence on sacrament as sign, seal, and promise.
Are Sacraments Objective or Subjective?
It is important to remember that God himself gives the meaning to the sign. You see this a lot in resistance to the Lord’s Supper. It is objected “But it just won’t be special no more” if we have it often. That’s absurd. It’s “special” because God himself said so.
Berkouwer wisely points out that if “everything is a sacrament,” then we necessarily introduce vagueness into the sacraments, which then lose their character of divine promise (Berkouwer 25). If “mystery” is to retain its NT context of “that which is revealed,” then we can’t have the proliferation of sacraments without losing this “mystery.”
Because of its insistence on an infusion of supernatural grace in order to forgive post-baptismal sins, Rome has to have a sacrament like penance (32). This is the difference between Rome and the Reformation is the difference between grace as a substance and the divine promise.
Word and Sacrament
Sacraments always point to something other than themselves (44). If sacraments refer back to God’s speaking, then sacraments have an oath-like character--but it is God’s oath.
The Efficacy of the Sacraments
If we say that the sacraments “strengthen faith,” we must not understand this in a vague subjective way. The sacraments and faith are always to Christ.
Berkouwer then goes into an extended analysis of how Rome can claim the sacraments are objective while having to deal with the disposition of the recipient (68-71). We believe the sacraments are objective but not because of an infusion of supernatural grace. The relation of faith and sacrament rests on the relation between Word and Sacrament (74). Our understanding of the sacrament stands with God’s promise.
The Sacraments as Signs and Seals
The sign must always be connected with the sealing of God’s promises (136). The “sign” and “seal” do not exist of themselves. The idea of sealing always points to God’s trustworthiness. Rome, however, turns the sealing, which we see as the downpayment of the Spirit, into an indelible “stamp” on the soul. Again, it comes back to Rome’s view of grace as a quasi-substance.
This leads to a very bizarre conclusion. For Rome, salvation can be lost. Yet, this “stamp” of the seal is a habit which never goes away (143). Therefore, the Holy Spirit dwells within but provides no guarantee.
Faith does not make the promise concrete, nor does it create the reality; rather, it acknowledges what “comes to us in the divine promise….it rests in the promise, and the sealing is connected” (147).
The book ends with various discussions concerning the Lord’s Supper.
