Do Evangelicals Believe in Any Sacraments?

[JustaServant]

As Catholics we believe in the seven tradition sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, anointing, orders, and matrimony). “Mainline” Protestants believe in only 2 (baptism & “the Lord’s Supper”). Do other Protestants (e.g. Non-Denominational Evangelicals, Baptists, & Fundamentalists) believe in NO sacraments?

Getting back to the OP, human beings are physical, our expression demands the physical, which is at the foundation of what a Sacrament is. Just because something is not called a sacrament, does not mean it isn’t. The sacraments of people who reject sacraments are still there, they are just called something different, but it amounts to the same.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Uh no it’s not the norm
I was born Catholic but spent almost two decades in various fundamentalist and evangelical churches, many of them in a pulpit myself, before I came back to the Church. So I know what I am talking about.
If you want to critique evangelical mega-churches you will find many allies among evangelicals themselves. What you are doing is making Catholics look like a bunch of high-brow bigots looking down their noses at the evangelical commoners. I know you’re zealous, but perhaps some of that energy would be put to better use by NOT treating people with disrespect.

I do not mean to high brow at all I am glad to hear it is not the norm for most.

I have simply been speaking from my own experience. I live in an area full of “mega churches”. My experience as an evangelical is in mega churches.

I said several times on the thread that I am happy if it is not the norm. That doesn’t change my experience in evangelicalism though. It also doesn’t lessen the amount of mega churches in my area.

I repeat that my concern is with an evangelical underlying theology that allows for a mega church to be considered something to be sought after by so many.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Sorry bro’, we know you are not like that and I’m sad about the generalizations

i too know Dronald and others are not like that, again perhaps I live in a surf culture laid back, Hollywood infused, wealth seeking community in Southern California that’s not reflective of the rest of the country.

It is not a generalization very much in my area. It is pretty normative. Yes there are smaller churches, but most of the evangelical churches are mega churches to the umpteenth degree.

I can only speak from my experience.

There are three mega churches within 5 mins of my house all of which I’ve attended…all of which advertise well their “features”. I share this to offer the area and the churches I am familiar with and what they are like.

I also don’t ever say good things don’t come from these churches, they do. They do lots of good, I am more concerned about people not truly becoming disciples because of the frills and ease of not being engaged, and the waste of resources because all these churches duplicate effort and don’t really work together at all. When I was involved in ministries there these were constant themes. We never considered that the system was broken, just tried to add more programs to fix it.

 

[JustaServant]

I repeat that my concern is with an evangelical underlying theology that allows for a mega church to be considered something to be sought after by so many.

Not really, evangelical and fundamentalist theology comes directly from mainline Protestant theology. Mega-church philosophy is actually a marketing technique that finds its germ in the teachings of Charles Finney back in the 19th century. Although I believe Finney himself would be shocked by what goes on in MCs.
There are many evangelicals who reject the whole mega-church philosophy.

 

[guanophore]

It is where I live and it seems you cannot have an evangelical church without a coffee bar to serve lattes to take into church.

The church I attended for years, chuck Swindoll’s old church, held Easter in a football stadium completely closing the church, they had bounce houses, opened the service with songs from the movie Frozen, and launched T Shirts into the stands to the roaring crowd.

The church is very Evangelical.

If it was an anomaly I’d treat it as such, but it is far too often the norm. And as I said before, it is the underlying erroneous roots that cause this stuff to flourish.

How is this argument any more valid than Protestants objecting to the CC having so much “money and property”?

I have heard the claim made that all the treasures and artwork of the Vatican sold and money given to the poor.

 

[SteveVH]

How is this argument any more valid than Protestants objecting to the CC having so much “money and property”?

I have heard the claim made that all the treasures and artwork of the Vatican sold and money given to the poor.

Yeah, I wonder what we could get for the Sistine Chapel; maybe throw in the Pieta.

 

[guanophore]

Yeah, I wonder what we could get for the Sistine Chapel; maybe throw in the Pieta.

You have to admit, they would be worth more than stadium chairs and coffee bars!

 

[SteveVH]

You have to admit, they would be worth more than stadium chairs and coffee bars!

Indeed.

 

[Jon_S_1]

How is this argument any more valid than Protestants objecting to the CC having so much “money and property”?

I have heard the claim made that all the treasures and artwork of the Vatican sold and money given to the poor.

I think you miss my point…it’s not about the value of the chairs. Or the coffee bar. It is about mega churches competing with each other as if they were the newest Disneyland in town. (Please all note I am saying mega churches now).

It’s about church ACnot losing audience and dollars to church B that popped up across town.

It’s about the money wasted in the race to the top.

this was priority a to the elders in the last pastoral search. They fired the pastor because he “wasn’t current anymore” I mean officially I think he was “moving on to another ministry” they then began their search for someone that would fill the seats.

Again this is a bit personal for me, my friends were personally hurt by this stuff.

But, the seats, the entertainment…,
I wouldn’t even bring this issue up if there were one and not ten mega churches within 10 miles of me.

It just seems the underlying theology is at the root of this division dysfunction. The lack of authority outside the individual church is a problem.

Anyway. Seems this thread is much derailed…can we go back to the sacrament/ordinances now.

These threads always go astray because evangelicalism is near impossible to define and someone writes of their evangelical experience and another evangelical says that’s not really evangelicalism.

 

[ltwin]

Possibly, but that wasn’t my question. What I would like to know is why you pray for another rather than telling them to pray to God themselves?

Besides the fact that it is Scriptural, we pray for others because we love them.

Let’s say that someone needs a job and asks you to pray for this specific purpose. Do you think your prayers will help him get that job?

I believe they could.

If you believe this truly, why can’t the trinity utilize the people in heaven as they do your friend on earth? Is God incapable if doing that?

It’s not a matter of God’s capability nor is it a matter of the righteous dead participating in the communion of saints. It’s a matter of Scriptural precedent for praying to the deceased.

Why do you think so? The same could be said of God, but by faith you believe he can hear you despite not seeing him. Why can’t the same be said of this who are with God fully in heaven? Couldn’t God allow this?

He could allow this. Though we have no Scriptural indication that communication with the righteous dead is right use of prayer. We would also be assuming who is in heaven, which, the Catholic practice of sainthood notwithstanding, is not within our power to determine.

Why? The successors to the Apostles, Catholic bishops, who have the power to bind and loose and the power to forgive sins have ordained them with this authority. It is the mercy of God in action and the Church wishes this mercy to be available to the whole world through her priests. They have the authority to administer all of the sacraments except Confirmation, which is reserved to the bishop, unless there are special circumstances.

But please tell me, how many ways can that verse be interpreted? Do you think that Jesus somehow really didn’t give the Church the authority to forgive sins?

I believe this authority was given to the Church, as a whole in the sense that all believers are priests who posses the Holy Spirit and have authority to speak in Jesus’ name. When believers tell people about what Jesus has done and speak His word in the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is speaking through them. Those who believe will be forgiven, but those who do not believe will not be forgiven. And since believers are Jesus’ voice and proclaimers of His truth, it is they who are forgiving or withholding forgiveness.

 

[ltwin]

Sometimes you are so amazingly Catholic, Itwin!

Nah. Just Pentecostal.

How do you define this?

I offered a definition in this post in the Defining “Evangelical Christian” thread.

I am curious what you believe happens to souls after this life. Do you believe in "soul sleep’?

No. I believe in an intermediate state where the saved are in the presence of the Father and Christ until the resurrection.

So now I am confused. Are you speaking here of a third “plane of existence” in which the saints dwell? If not, then how is it we are able to wage spiritual warfare against evil in the Spiritual plane, but cannot communicate with the members of the Body who have passed from this life? We know that nothing can separate us from God’s love, so why would death separate us from our forefathers in faith? Do you think they are no longer members of the One Body?

First, it would require us to make judgments about who is and is not alive with Christ.

I am curious how the events of I Samuel 28 fit into your paradigm of communication with the afterlife. It is clear from this passage that Samuel, the prophet of God, did appear to Saul and have a conversation with him. Samuel is well aware of events that occur here on earth, just as Moses and Elijah were when they spoke to Jesus. The souls who have departed are also aware of events that are about to occur (imminent death in both cases).

What I take from 1 Samuel 28 is don’t attempt to communicate with the dead. It was clear from the context that Samuel was not happy at being summoned and disturbed. The transfiguration is obviously a unique event related to Jesus Christ in which Moses and Elijah were actually present.

One clarification, I don’t maintain that the departed can’t know what goes on here. My position is whether they know or not, we don’t have any good Scriptural reasons for praying to or communicating with them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe this authority was given to the Church, as a whole in the sense that all believers are priests who posses the Holy Spirit and have authority to speak in Jesus’ name. When believers tell people about what Jesus has done and speak His word in the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is speaking through them. Those who believe will be forgiven, but those who do not believe will not be forgiven. And since believers are Jesus’ voice and proclaimers of His truth, it is they who are forgiving or withholding forgiveness.

I am curious why Jesus would breathe on the 12 and speak only to the 12 regarding this if it was meant for everyone?

Why not tell everyone during one of his public sermons?

Also God breathing on someone seems very very significant. I think that only happened once before when he created us.

 

[guanophore]

He could allow this. Though we have no Scriptural indication that communication with the righteous dead is right use of prayer. We would also be assuming who is in heaven, which, the Catholic practice of sainthood notwithstanding, is not within our power to determine.

Surely you believe God can reveal who is in heaven? If He were to do this, how might it happen?

I believe this authority was given to the Church, as a whole in the sense that all believers are priests who posses the Holy Spirit and have authority to speak in Jesus’ name. When believers tell people about what Jesus has done and speak His word in the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is speaking through them. Those who believe will be forgiven, but those who do not believe will not be forgiven. And since believers are Jesus’ voice and proclaimers of His truth, it is they who are forgiving or withholding forgiveness.

I have always found this position curious, not only because this is something Jesus gave specifically to HIs apostles, but because they understood it to be peculiar to them, and passed this responsibility on to their successors, the bishops. I find it strange that the Church, for 1500 years, considered this to be a function only of ordained priests.

It is as if those who reject this doctrine believe that Jesus became so weak and disinterested in His Church that he could not explain to her what she was doing wrong. What happened to the powerful Jesus in the book of Rev.? How come he can’t correct the Church anymore?

 

[guanophore]

What I take from 1 Samuel 28 is don’t attempt to communicate with the dead. It was clear from the context that Samuel was not happy at being summoned and disturbed. The transfiguration is obviously a unique event related to Jesus Christ in which Moses and Elijah were actually present.

But it seems clear from the context that Samuel is very much alive, and that God has enabled him to communicate with Saul. Samuel was not happy with Saul over a great many things even before he passed from this life.

Ultimately, Saul’s prayers, however misguided, were answered. He needs to prepare his soul to meet his maker on the next day.

What would be God’s purpose in allowing such a conversation?

Many saints have appeared to many Christians over the milennia. I don’t think this conversation with Moses and Elijah was isolated at all.

 

[ltwin]

I am curious why Jesus would breathe on the 12 and speak only to the 12 regarding this if it was meant for everyone?

Why not tell everyone during one of his public sermons?

Also God breathing on someone seems very very significant. I think that only happened once before when he created us.

In John 20, the disciples receive the Holy Spirit and authority to forgive sins. Later, at Pentecost, all the gathered believers (120 in all, including Mary and the other women) receive the Holy Spirit and power and the obligation to be Christ’s witnesses in all parts of the world.

John 20:22-23

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Acts 1:7-9; 2:1-4

Chapter 1

7 He said to them, “. . . . . 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Chapter 2

2 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And **they were all filled with the Holy Spirit **and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

 

[ltwin]

Surely you believe God can reveal who is in heaven?

He can, but would this not be private revelation. How could we ever test such a revelation as to its authenticity?

If He were to do this, how might it happen?

I don’t know how God might do it, besides a form of personal revelation such as a word of prophecy or an internal impression, an inner knowledge of peace that surpasses all understanding, a word of comfort to a loved one concerned about the eternal destiny of their loved ones, even a dream perhaps.

I have always found this position curious, not only because this is something Jesus gave specifically to HIs apostles, but because they understood it to be peculiar to them, and passed this responsibility on to their successors, the bishops. I find it strange that the Church, for 1500 years, considered this to be a function only of ordained priests.

Well, there has been lay confession at various times in both the Latin and Greek churches. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has an entire article on it. In regards to the 1st and 4th centuries, it states:

1st to 4th Centuries. Not only deacons, but Christians without hierarchical rank sometimes acted as confessors. The laymen belonged to a class called “saints” (les spirituels); it was a kind of charismatic order, enjoying special graces and gifts, including the power to hear confessions, even to absolve (among many witnesses are Tertullian-Montanist, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen). This class, functioning alongside the hierarchy, was involved in an abusive practice, that may have developed out of a faulty interpretation of Jn 20.22–23. It at least paralleled a practice in some of the monasteries of the time, where the “saints” filled the role of confessor. However, during this period, for grave sins, the penitent was obliged to submit to the bishop in public penance.

It is as if those who reject this doctrine believe that Jesus became so weak and disinterested in His Church that he could not explain to her what she was doing wrong. What happened to the powerful Jesus in the book of Rev.? How come he can’t correct the Church anymore?

That’s like asking what happened to the God of the Old Testament, why was He so weak that He couldn’t correct Israel time after time. We are told that Christ is returning for a glorious church without spot or blemish, but that does not mean that the church does not have to go through some perfecting before we’re ready for the marriage supper of the Lamb.

But it seems clear from the context that Samuel is very much alive, and that God has enabled him to communicate with Saul. Samuel was not happy with Saul over a great many things even before he passed from this life.

Ultimately, Saul’s prayers, however misguided, were answered. He needs to prepare his soul to meet his maker on the next day.

His prayers were answered? He participated in witchcraft, in direct disobedience to divine law.

What would be God’s purpose in allowing such a conversation?

I suppose to teach us not to pursue through witchcraft and necromancy what we cannot attain through prayer and the spiritual gift of prophecy.

Many saints have appeared to many Christians over the milennia. I don’t think this conversation with Moses and Elijah was isolated at all.

Perhaps not. But it is certainly not normative.

 

[Jon_S_1]

In John 20, the disciples receive the Holy Spirit and authority to forgive sins. Later, at Pentecost, all the gathered believers (120 in all, including Mary and the other women) receive the Holy Spirit and power and the obligation to be Christ’s witnesses in all parts of the world.

John 20:22-23

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Acts 1:7-9; 2:1-4

Chapter 1

7 He said to them, “. . . . . 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Chapter 2

2 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And **they were all filled with the Holy Spirit **and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Jesus breathed on Peter, and a change also happened at Pentecost. These are separate events.

What is different about the first encounter with Christ?

Think here, these are fundamentally different.

If they were the same, the apostles would have received nothing in Pentecost, and Peter would have been preaching prior to Pentecost.

Regardless, why did Jesus give the 12 the power to forgive or retain sins? For what purpose? How does this reflect in your church today?

 

[guanophore]

His prayers were answered? He participated in witchcraft, in direct disobedience to divine law.

Yes, he did try to answer his own prayer by going astray, but despite Saul’s use of desparate and forbidden measures, ,God did grant his prayer to get direction from Samuel.

I suppose to teach us not to pursue through witchcraft and necromancy what we cannot attain through prayer and the spiritual gift of prophecy.

There is nothing in the text itself that would lend itself to this conclusion. On the contrary, despite Saul’s method, God allowed Samuel to speak to Saul, and to inform him about his upcoming departure from this world, just as Moses and Elijah came to Jesus and spoke to him of his upcoming departure. God granted Saul’s prayer. He provided prophetic direction.

Perhaps not. But it is certainly not normative.

It is for a lot of us.

 

[ltwin]

Yes, he did try to answer his own prayer by going astray, but despite Saul’s use of desparate and forbidden measures, ,God did grant his prayer to get direction from Samuel.

There is nothing in the text itself that would lend itself to this conclusion. On the contrary, despite Saul’s method, God allowed Samuel to speak to Saul, and to inform him about his upcoming departure from this world, just as Moses and Elijah came to Jesus and spoke to him of his upcoming departure. God granted Saul’s prayer. He provided prophetic direction.

No, God did not provide him with direction. He pronounced judgment through Samuel, but this was not anything that Saul hadn’t heard before. Because God would not communicate with him through the various divinely sanctioned means of divination, Saul thought he would recruit Samuel to intercede. But all Saul got from Samuel was a “Captain Obvious” moment–sin has consequences.

16 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David.

 

[guanophore]

No, God did not provide him with direction. He pronounced judgment through Samuel, but this was not anything that Saul hadn’t heard before. Because God would not communicate with him through the various divinely sanctioned means of divination, Saul thought he would recruit Samuel to intercede. But all Saul got from Samuel was a “Captain Obvious” moment–sin has consequences.

16 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David.

So, since Saul had already heard this from Samuel before, why did God allow him to appear and say it again? Especially since Saul was using a forbidden method?

Could it have happened for our instruction? So that we can know that God allows the saints who have gone on before us to be aware of what is happening here, and to communicate with us about it?