Biblical Support for Sacraments being a vehicle of grace

[rcwitness]

You have a need to extract your doctrines from the text, but we do not have this need, since the doctrine is what produced the texts.

That does become a dilemma. Trying to open up the Scriptures by the text being the primary authority. Scriptures can and will be twisted by all of us to some degree. Its the Spirit which gives understanding. And we know that this Spirit is not at odds which Church Teaching. So we strive to listen to the Spirit open our minds to the harmony of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Traditions!

Jesus warned those who search the Scriptures to find life, but do not come to Him! How does each generation come to Him? He said the same thing, in essence, to those who demanded miracles without faith! He presented them with the profound mystery (Sacrament) of His Eucharist meal! This meal didnt just escape the minds of those who disbelieved, but even His disciples. But something was different with those who stayed! They believed that He would provide the promise to His words, because they believed His words held life!

It was like Abraham telling Isaac that God would provide a Sacrifice. Isaac didnt understand, he was like the child whom the kingdom belongs to.

Jesus said, no one can come to me unless the Father beckons them! The Scriptures are the Word of the Father beckoning us to come to Christ. And we come to Him in many ways, even as His grace is received in many ways, as the Church testifies!

But the Sacraments are special, in that we are all called to come to Jesus through them (though not all of them).

I can understand the concern for any Christian (or even an unbaptized seeker) to approach the Sacraments with an open heart to faith in His sovereignty, goodness, power, and grace! Its when it turns into a contempt for the the belief that grace is given through the Sacrament which turns me off!

The Sacraments are not to be neglected. In honoring them, in truth, we are conformed to Jesus’ humility and charity.

So i can honestly say that i struggle to honor them in pureness of heart! To the degree which i lack love for Jesus, i also lack in sincerely receiving His Eucharist. So no one needs to tell me how great I rely on His grace!

I hear Christians of various denominations try to use His grace as a means to accept things that are opposed to God’s laws! The indissoluble union of Marriage is a prime example! Open Communion between churches with opposing teachings is another.

We know God is not only full of grace, but the source of all grace. But we are also warned by the Apostle of both the kindness and the severity of God! So preaching grace at the expense of His laws and commandments can be a dishonor to His grace!

 

[tgGodsway]

Ultimately the theological debate rests on authority. I am not disappointed to be found riding on the coattails of the Apostles (if indeed there is such a thing). We will both agree that the scriptures are authorative. The difference is that you interpret them in the light of Reformed tradition that emerged during the Reformation 1500 years after the NT was written, where Catholics interpret the NT through the lens of the faith that authored it. Naturally there will be differences.

Well, that is an opinion only. It is arguable that the RCC interprets in line with the Apostles. I for one contest your claim. The opposite is true in my view, at least on certain things.

 

[tgGodsway]

You have a need to extract your doctrines from the text, but we do not have this need, since the doctrine is what produced the texts

I agree the doctrine produced the text. Paul’s doctrine for example produced his Epistle to the Galatian Church. So what is your point?

 

[guanophore]

I for one contest your claim. The opposite is true in my view, at least on certain things.

The Catholic Church, tgG, is not “Roman”, and of course it would seem to you that the Church understands the scriptures in a manner opposing yours. The main point of the whole Reformation was to organize opposition to Catholicism. It was quite effective, don’t you think?

I agree the doctrine produced the text. Paul’s doctrine for example produced his Epistle to the Galatian Church. So what is your point?

For Catholics, that preached doctrine was never separated from the text that emanated from it, and it is the lens through which we interpret the writings. However, I would love to get my hands on the two years of discussion Paul had at Tyrannus!

 

[tgGodsway]

The Catholic Church, tgG, is not “Roman

Yes, I know!.. I’ve been corrected by others on this site for using the word R. Somewhere in the past the C Church voted the word out of your vocabulary. Not sure why? The Church I grew up in looked like a Roman cathedral and the priest were dressed in Roman garb. Many of the traditions come from Rome. The Catholic Church was established in Rome. And the head of the CC resides in Rome, yet we shouldn’t use the word!.. go figure.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I know!.. I’ve been corrected by others on this site for using the word R. Somewhere in the past the C Church voted the word out of your vocabulary. Not sure why? The Church I grew up in looked like a Roman cathedral and the priest were dressed in Roman garb. Many of the traditions come from Rome.

The Latin Rite of the Church is the largest, and most common in the West. Since the Reformation was the child of the Latin Church, it was the See of Rome that interacted with the Reformers, and convened the Council of Trent. All the Reformation related documents say “Roman Catholic”. But the Latin Rite is only one of 23, and their are Bishoprics around the world in every language and culture. It is an insult to these other non-Latin Rites to refer to them as “Roman”, though they are all Catholic.

The Catholic Church was established in Rome. And the head of the CC resides in Rome, yet we shouldn’t use the word!.

Actually, the CC was established in Palestine, where Jesus renamed Simon “Cephas” and told him he would build his church upon him. It spread first to Antioch of Syria, where there is a line of Bishops ordained by Peter that is older than the one in Rome.

You can use the word, just be cognizant that you will be insulting the other 22 Rites of the Catholic church when you do so.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, here is some early evidence of the Tradition of one of the Sacraments, and its purpose and grace:

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another”

 

[rcwitness]

Well, if someone says “Roman Catholic” and they mean “in communion with the Bishop of Rome”, then they are correct with all 23 Rites.

I chose rcwitness because of that reason. But i do prefer to call my religion and Church Catholic, or Christian. Catholic refers to universal Christianity, and Roman to the orthodoxy of the universal Church.

Interestingly enough, the date of the death of an Apostle, Saint, or Church Father became significant to establish Peter’s succession where his episcopacy resided.