Cooperation with Grace

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But: You have to ask yourself: What was the methodology and criteria for the basis of their sacramental theology?

I think the problem they had was that they went too far and too rigid in Sola Scriptura thinking.

As for the other churches that lack a more robust sacramental theology: I think we can both agree, from Scripture alone; that tossing out some or God forbid even most Sacraments is a sad error.

Which: We must remember isn’t found in the Bible. The Bible itself never says that it’s the only infallible guide to faith and morals.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
But: You have to ask yourself: What was the methodology and criteria for the basis of their sacramental theology?
Click to expand...
I’m no expert, but they probably sought to remove what they considered the medieval accretions that had been layered on top of Augustine’s original theology.
 
I understand. There’s a lot of misperceptions as to what the medieval Church taught.

Do you have any particulars in mind that I can help you out with?
 
Not an expert, but I think this post brings out some of the issues, “Luther’s Theology: The Sacraments”.
Luther thinks of the sacraments as visible words. Fesko notes that Luther followed the medieval tradition going back to Augustine of defining the sacrament “as a sign of a sacred thing.” However, there’s a distinct timbre to Luther’s sounding of this same old tune, which fits his overarching theology of Sola Fide (faith alone) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), that is, his joining Baptism and the Lord’s Supper inseparably to the Word of God. Thus, he calls the sacraments “promises which have signs attached to them.”[5] In Fesko’s words, this meant a movement from conceiving of the sacraments as communicating grace as “a substance infused” to thinking of them in terms of “a promise declared.” [6]

Since the sacraments are visible words, they must be joined with faith in the believer to benefit us. Grace cannot be conferred in the sacraments as if it were a substance in the kind of automatic way that marked the language of late medieval theology. Instead, the way we benefit from the sacraments is analogous to the way we benefit from the preaching of the Gospel. We hear preaching, we see and hear the sacraments (because the Word of God must always accompany the actions and elements of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper), and in response to both, we believe God’s Word and are thereby made partakers of Christ and his benefits by faith.[7]

Finally, in contrast to a Roman view of baptismal regeneration, Luther stressed that the benefit of Baptism is not confined to the moment in which water is applied. “Rather, because baptism is the visible Word of God, its effects are supposed to echo throughout a person’s life.”[8] Luther would have us return often to the privileges and responsibilities declared to us in Baptism, a notion compatible with the Westminster Larger Catechism treatment (Q&A 167) of “improving our Baptism,” by which is meant “serious and thankful consideration” of what it signifies. Perhaps it’s as we heed this call, that we will be better prepared both to address persisting doctrinal differences and rejoice in our like precious faith.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting.

Here’s my take:

I think that what Luther did is replace what he believed was an error with the uncertainty of faith.

One way to think of it is this: In medieval theology and modern Church teaching; a Sacrament isn’t a promise. It’s the real thing.

What Luther does, IMO; is take the sacramental realityvand replace it with the subjectivity of whether or not I believe in it.
 
You have to bear in mind:

If we go by Scripture alone, Jesus cannot be a liar, correct?

If He said it, it must be a reality. No?

Reality, not a promise.

I think Luther was hairsplitting; IMO.

In Church teaching; Baptism is an indelible mark. Once done and can never be undone. The Sacrament of Confirmation is the same way.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
One way to think of it is this: In medieval theology and modern Church teaching; a Sacrament isn’t a promise. It’s the real thing.
Click to expand...
Luther also thought the Sacraments were “real”. He took Christ’s words of “This is my body” literally.
 
In my reading of the post above: He wrote Promise; not substance. How can that not be a denial of a substantial reality?
 
A proper understanding of a Sacrament is that it’s a reality; not a promise.

To make it a promise that depends on whether or not I believe in it for it to work; makes God subject to man. IMO
 
Michael16 said:
In my reading of the post above: He wrote Promise; not substance. How can that not be a denial of a substantial reality?
Click to expand...
Thomas Aquinas taught that “created” grace is a substance infused into a sinner to bring spiritual healing. The Reformers defined grace as God’s favor. John Calvin wrote that “Christ communicates his riches and blessings to us by his word” and "he distributes them to us by his sacraments.” The Spirit creates faith in us by the preaching of the Word and confirms it with the sacraments.
Michael16 said:
A proper understanding of a Sacrament is that it’s a reality; not a promise.

To make it a promise that depends on whether or not I believe in it for it to work; makes God subject to man. IMO
Click to expand...
We are talking about God’s promises, not ours. The sacraments are God’s visible pledge (the signs and seals of the covenant of grace) to us. Because God’s Word is not in vain, there is a sacramental union of sign and reality. God gives what he represents in the sacraments.

In contrast, the Jesuit Robert Bellarmine said that “The sacrament, therefore, should not be called the seal of the Word, but the Word the seal of the sacrament” (preface to vol. 3 of De Sacrament).
 
Last edited:
🤔 Let’s look at the word promise. Promise means something that hasn’t happened yet but the promise maker commits to doing in the future.

Here’s the thing: When you look at when Jesus said: “ This is My Body… “ it wasn’t “ This will be My Body… “

It was an immediate, it’s already done type thing. It’s real. Not a IOU to be cashed in.
 
God’s grace isn’t conferred by His Word in the Sacrament. It’s conferred by His action. Not favor; actual power from on High. I’ve felt it and I’ve seen it.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
🤔 Let’s look at the word promise. Promise means something that hasn’t happened yet but the promise maker commits to doing in the future.

Here’s the thing: When you look at when Jesus said: “ This is My Body… “ it wasn’t “ This will be My Body… “

It was an immediate, it’s already done type thing. It’s real. Not a IOU to be cashed in.
Click to expand...
The sacraments are sacraments precisely because God has promised that his grace will be attached to them. Otherwise, the sacrament would be no different from a fond ceremony. This is what the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (a Lutheran confessional statement) says:
Therefore Baptism , the Lord’s Supper , and Absolution , which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us [5]](https://bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para5) for Christ’s sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.
Click to expand...
Article XIII. (VII): Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments.
Michael16 said:
God’s grace isn’t conferred by His Word in the Sacrament. It’s conferred by His action. Not favor; actual power from on High. I’ve felt it and I’ve seen it.
Click to expand...
The sacrament is indistinguishable from his Word because it is by his Word that the sacrament becomes a sacrament.
 
Last edited:
🤔

I will invite you to please show me where in Scripture any of the Sacraments have promises, not reality; of grace attached to them. To me, the promise vs reality thing sounds sketchy IMO.
 
Michael16 said:
I will invite you to please show me where in Scripture any of the Sacraments have promises, not reality; of grace attached to them. To me, the promise vs reality thing sounds sketchy IMO.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand. God promises the reality.
 
But you’re not looking at the word itself. Promise means something that hasn’t happened yet. Reality is fact already accomplished.
 
Michael16 said:
But you’re not looking at the word itself. Promise means something that hasn’t happened yet. Reality is fact already accomplished.
Click to expand...
OK. Let’s try this. I’m a high school social studies teacher. I have students who need extra help. I promise to make myself available during the lunch hour to any student who needs help every day of the week except Mondays and Tuesdays (on which I have professional development meetings and lunch duty). In doing so, I have committed to being in my room Wednesday through Friday every school day for the entire year. My students can have confidence that I will be in my room on the assigned days because I have given them my word, and of course, I would never lie to them.

That is what Christ did when by his Word he instituted the sacraments. He promised to give his grace in the sacrament. And, every time the sacrament is administered the grace is given.

That is what Luther would have believed at any rate; as far as I understand. Remember, I’m not an expert and I’m not even Lutheran (I"m a Pentecostal). So take that for what it’s worth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top