Biblical Support for Sacraments being a vehicle of grace

[ColorMomma]

I believe this may be what you are looking for. https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sacraments_in_scripture.htm

I tell my students that the Sacraments do give grace by helping bind us to God. They are there at pivotal life moments (and available daily), to keep us connected to God. They are woven into the fabric of our lives, from birth to death. Prayer and Scripture do this too, but the Sacraments are powerful vehicles of grace. Jesus gave us the Eucharist so that we might not be just connected to him, but actually be united with Him. We are not adrift in the world. My personal way of seeing the Sacraments are as tethers to God. Just as I feel an invisible tether to my family members, so the Sacraments connect me to Jesus, Himself.

 

[susanlo]

I don’t know of examples about stomping on a piece of paper, but I do think that many would think that stomping on a national flag made of cloth would be very disrespectful to the country which the flag represents. There are complex procedures on how to properly care for and fly the flags which are national symbols.

Did you read the letter from Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans? He isn’t talking about real presence/transubstantiation. He is talking about a Gnostic heresy called Docetism which taught that when Christ was on Earth He did not have a body of flesh and blood, but was a phantom-like figure. They taught that Christ did not really suffer and die on the cross, and therefore these heretics refused to participate in any sort of Eucharist. It was not whether they believed the elements of the Eucharist changed, were symbols, etc., but whether there was a reason to celebrate the Eucharist at all.

 

[susanlo]

We have no evidence that the Real Presence was ever even questioned in the first 400 years of the Church.

What is your definition of “Real Presence?” There were definitely many different understandings regarding the significance of the bread and wine in the first few hundred years.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know of examples about stomping on a piece of paper, but I do think that many would think that stomping on a national flag made of cloth would be very disrespectful to the country which the flag represents. There are complex procedures on how to properly care for and fly the flags which are national symbols.

Indeed! If people are this way over a flag, how much more with the actual Body and Blood?

If a person stomps on a flag, the country to which it belongs will likely perceive it as an insult. Or when people burn effigies of politicians. But, although this is insulting, it is not as if they can actually burn that person, because he is not really present.

Yes, the context of Ignatius letter is Gnostic heresy, and his defense for this is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[tgGodsway]

Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life in you

Yes… but his words were all spiritual robed in a metaphor. In that same context He also said, “The Spirit is the one who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE SPIRIT and are life.” Not literal and physical was his point.

 

[Edward_H]

Read all of St John’s Gospel’s Chapter 6.

Some of his followers fell away because of the language…Jesus used the word chew/gnaw. You don’t fall away in the face of mere flowery metaphor!

And the early Church father’s comments on what the first Christians did…and how they viewed the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist speaks far more loudly than the weasel language of the 21st century…mere metaphor.

 

[exnihilo]

What are the Biblical passages that support that we actually receive grace from the Sacraments? In other words, if I were to be really snarky and say “Prove it from the Scriptures” how would you?

Q. What is a Sacrament?

A. A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.

Q: What is sacramental grace?

A: Sacramental grace is a special help which God gives, to attain the end for which He instituted each Sacrament.

Given that my favorite proof is from Numbers 21:

8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous[d] serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.

The reason this is my favorite is it unequivocally shows God works through matter. God sets up for us men things we can do which give us grace. This refutes all the Protestant objections to the efficaciousness of physical acts. If God is commanding that men look upon a bronze serpent to be healed then how can someone object and say the waters of baptism can’t cleanse or the reception of Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity can’t be a means of grace?

 

[JonNC]

Yes… but his words were all spiritual robed in a metaphor. In that same context He also said, “The Spirit is the one who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE SPIRIT and are life.” Not literal and physical was his point.

This is the mistake I believe Catholics make by going 1st to John 6 to defend the real presence. John 6 sounds figurative on its own
The doctrine of the real presence has to first be grounded at the Last Supper. There, and in Paul’s reiteration of it, we find the literal text and meaning , “this is my body”. Is means is.
Then one can see Christ’s true meaning in John 6.

 

[De_Maria]

Edward_H:

Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life in you

Yes… but his words were all spiritual robed in a metaphor. In that same context He also said, “The Spirit is the one who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE SPIRIT and are life.” Not literal and physical was his point.

Actually, that is not what He meant.

In another verse, Scripture says, “the spirit is truth”. (1 John 5:6)

Thus He is saying, the words that I have spoken to you are TRUTH and they are life.

But, let’s get into this a bit deeper.

We’re discussing the verse below. Does He say “the flesh profits nothing” or “my flesh profits nothing”?

And, is that significant?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[dann]

Yes this belief will go on for ever.
No it won’t
Yes it will

 

[Wannano]

tgGodsway:

Yes… but his words were all spiritual robed in a metaphor. In that same context He also said, “The Spirit is the one who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE SPIRIT and are life.” Not literal and physical was his point.

This is the mistake I believe Catholics make by going 1st to John 6 to defend the real presence. John 6 sounds figurative on its own
The doctrine of the real presence has to first be grounded at the Last Supper. There, and in Paul’s reiteration of it, we find the literal text and meaning , “this is my body”. Is means is.
Then one can see Christ’s true meaning in John 6.

Jon, I am interested in how you feel about the idea presented by the Historian on the other thread where he suggests that Communion was practiced by the first Christians as a communal meal which would back up Paul’s rebuke about misusing it by eating and drinking to excess. Interesting to me too is that Catholics hold to the Last Supper as being the first Mass while the Historian indicates it took years for the Mass to develop. Any insight into those thoughts?

 

[James817]

There were Masses in the early days of the Church, just not as we know it today.

 

[tgGodsway]

Notice that the authority in that statement, is you.

We believe that Jesus Christ gave the Church authority to teach all that He commanded.

No… Ianman87 is right. Even before water baptism, we become “new creatures” 2 Cor. 5:17.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Notice that the authority in that statement, is you.

We believe that Jesus Christ gave the Church authority to teach all that He commanded.

No… Ianman87 is right. Even before water baptism, we become “new creatures” 2 Cor. 5:17.

That’s not what Scripture says:

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

It is only after we are baptized that we are born again to walk in the newness of life.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The washing of regeneration is Baptism.

 

[tgGodsway]

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The key to understanding Paul here is the word “WE” We were buried with Him… We SHOULD walk in newness of life. Implying that we may not. But who is the WE Paul was referring to? In this case it was “All those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints,” Ro.1

They were saved believes part of the Church of the living God. Those are the one’s Paul encouraged to walk in newness of life.
But Paul forgot the baptism rule you insist on applying here. Actually he did this in many passages where eternal salvation is taught.

The “washing of regeneration” is a spiritual expression not literal. notice how the word “water” is not included. You need water to have a water baptism ceremony. Oh yeah… the word baptism is also missing from the passage. Ooops.

 

[JonNC]

The “washing of regeneration” is a spiritual expression not literal. notice how the word “water” is not included. You need water to have a water baptism ceremony. Oh yeah… the word baptism is also missing from the passage. Ooops.

Why is it not literal? I’m always curious why the only things not literal are those things spoken of the sacraments.
Maybe the word Baptism isn’t there because the audience understood the meaning.
Baptism isn’t merely a "water ceremony " (that phrase isn’t in the Bible. Oops). Baptism is water and the word.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The key to understanding Paul here is the word “WE” We were buried with Him… We SHOULD walk in newness of life. … But who is the WE Paul was referring to? In this case it was “All those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints,” Ro.1

Uh, yeah. Because they were all baptized.

Implying that we may not.

Correct. If they did not believe. Mark 16:16

They were saved believes part of the Church of the living God. Those are the one’s Paul encouraged to walk in newness of life.

As the Church still does, today. We don’t believe in once saved always saved. As you do, apparently.

But Paul forgot the baptism rule you insist on applying here.

If you mean, being born again by baptism, you are simply reading it out of the verse. You read the word “should” as though it denies the fact that one is born again in Baptism. But it merely means that one who is born again should walk as though he is born again and not return to his old way of life.

Actually he did this in many passages where eternal salvation is taught.

You simply read them out, because, you don’t have an anchor upon which to rest your understanding of Scripture.

You, use Scripture alone as your hermeneutical system. But, that means that you use your “interpretation of Scripture alone” as your hermeneutical system. Thus, you use your errors, the ones in which you believe, to get understanding from the rest of Scripture. And in this way, you twist the word of God to your own destruction.

But we, Catholics, compare what we read in Scripture to the Doctrines we have already learned and which have been passed down through the Church by Jesus Christ. This is our hermeneutical system.

Thus, when we read words like “Washing of Regeneration”, we already know it means Baptism. We don’t have to guess.

The “washing of regeneration” is a spiritual expression not literal. notice how the word “water” is not included.

I’m pretty sure the Apostles washed things in water, even way back then.

You need water to have a water baptism ceremony. Oh yeah… the word baptism is also missing from the passage. Ooops.

Baptism means “washing”. And, again, we don’t go by Scripture alone. You don’t read the word Trinity in Scripture. But you believe in it. Guess why? Because the Catholic Church coined it for you.

Yeah, and you’re not even grateful for all the Doctrines the Catholic Church developed and has taught through the centuries, which you believe and hold. Yeah, even your faith in Jesus Christ was taught by the Catholic Church, FIRST.

 

[tgGodsway]

Why is it not literal?.. Because almost all of the New Testament Truths are spiritual. We have been made spiritual so that we can understand them. The natural man does not understand spiritual truth. Catholicism is very literal, physical, and natural. All appealing to the natural senses. Holy water, incent, Cathdrial Church buildings, statues, etc. It is an impressive show. But our truths are spiritual.

 

[JonNC]

Why is it not literal?.. Because almost all of the New Testament Truths are spiritual. We have been made spiritual so that we can understand them. The natural man does not understand spiritual truth. Catholicism is very literal, physical, and natural. All appealing to the natural senses. Holy water, incent, Cathdrial Church buildings, statues, etc. It is an impressive show. But our truths are spiritual.

And yet the truth of baptism is water and the word, physical and spiritual. The truth of the Lord’s Supper is spiritual and physical. Confirmation, Anoiting.
In fact, having been raised Lutheran, that was one of the factors of what they consider a sacrament:
instituted by Christ, a promise of the forgiveness of sins, and the use of a physical element.
Spiritual and physical.
Christ regularly used physical elements: water, bread and wine, mud, bread and fishes, as examples.
It isn’t either/or, but both/and .

 

[De_Maria]

Why is it not literal?.. Because almost all of the New Testament Truths are spiritual.

Spiritual doesn’t mean metaphorical. It means, true. The spirit is truth.

We have been made spiritual so that we can understand them. The natural man does not understand spiritual truth.

This is correct. But the Spiritual man doesn’t believe in sola Scriptura. Because it is a teaching which requires one to go by a dead letter.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Catholicism is very literal, physical, and natural. All appealing to the natural senses. Holy water, incent, Cathdrial Church buildings, statues, etc. It is an impressive show. But our truths are spiritual.

On the contrary, Catholicism is accepts the order which God provided. God has chosen to work through the natural order.

1. God became flesh.
2. God pours out His grace through material things, like water, mud, handkerchiefs, bones, etc.
3. God’s spirit dwells in man.

Protestants reject and deny the will of God.

First by denying the works which He accomplishes in us when we cooperate with His will to do what He commands.

Next, when they deny His Word passed down in His Doctrines and Traditions through the Church.

And then, to embrace their private word which they read into the Scriptures to disobey and contradict the Word He passed down through His Church.