Do Evangelicals Believe in Any Sacraments?

[aidanbradypop]

I am curious why you and evangelicals in general “object” to the word sacrament.

Here is the definition:

Sacrament- a religious ceremony or act of the Christian Church that is regarded as an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual divine grace, in particular.

If an altar call is not a sacrament in evangelicalism I don’t know what is! Doesn’t the altar call fit with that definition?

I’m curious why you as an evangelical don’t practice anointing of the sick?

Protestants and Evangelicals see ordinances as symbolic reenactments of the gospel message that Christ lived, died, was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will someday return. Rather than requirements for salvation, ordinances are visual aids to help us better understand and appreciate what Jesus Christ accomplished for us in His redemptive work. Ordinances are determined by three factors: they were instituted by Christ, they were taught by the apostles, and they were practiced by the early church. Since baptism and communion are the only rites which qualify under these three factors, there can be only two ordinances, neither of which are requirements for salvation.

Ordinances are generally understood to be those things Jesus told us to observe with other Christians. Regarding baptism,Matthew 28:18-20 says, "Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” As for communion, also called the Lord’s Supper,Luke 22:19 says, “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’” Most churches observe these two practices, but may not necessarily refer to the as a sacrament.

As far as anointing the sick, ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/gendoct_12_sick.cfm

The idea that God does not act through the church in a real and physical way, led to a sort of Deist thinking on my part.

After that, really and truly experiencing Gods grace in a palpable way in the sacraments was all the sweeter.

Glad you found peace!

 

[Koineman]

The idea that God does not act through the church in a real and physical way, led to a sort of Deist thinking on my part.

It’s also a very gnostic way of thinking. There are more problems in evangelicalism than many suppose.

 

[Koineman]

I should add a fourth reason why evangelicals deny sacraments, though this is more of a supposition on my part rather than being based on personal experience:

1. It’s easier to believe that the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are only symbols. To believe there is something spiritual happening at the same time those sacraments are carried out requires more faith because it tends to go against reason.

 

[aidanbradypop]

It’s also a very gnostic way of thinking. There are more problems in evangelicalism than many suppose.

"Originally Posted byJon S

The idea that God does not act through the church in a real and physical way, led to a sort of Deist thinking on my part."

Koineman,

Just because Jon had an experience like this does not make it true.

God does act through and in the church in a real, physical and spiritual way.

Your opinion about the problems in Evangelicalism has some truth. Every faith tradition has issues.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I should add a fourth reason why evangelicals deny sacraments, though this is more of a supposition on my part rather than being based on personal experience:

1. It’s easier to believe that the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are only symbols. To believe there is something spiritual happening at the same time those sacraments are carried out requires more faith because it tends to go against reason.

Once again…your opinion and I thank you for it.

 

[Koineman]

Just because Jon had an experience like this does not make it true.

I was actually referring to a gnostic tendency, which was not what Jon referred to.

Your opinion about the problems in Evangelicalism has some truth. Every faith tradition has issues.

Some more than others …

 

[Koineman]

Once again…your opinion and I thank you for it.

Yup. THIS one is more opinion than fact, so I grant you permission to reject it.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I was actually referring to a gnostic tendency, which was not what Jon referred to.

Some more than others …

Very true

 

[Jon_S_1]

Protestants and Evangelicals see ordinances as symbolic reenactments of the gospel message that Christ lived, died, was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will someday return. Rather than requirements for salvation, ordinances are visual aids to help us better understand and appreciate what Jesus Christ accomplished for us in His redemptive work. Ordinances are determined by three factors: they were instituted by Christ, they were taught by the apostles, and they were practiced by the early church. Since baptism and communion are the only rites which qualify under these three factors, there can be only two ordinances, neither of which are requirements for salvation.

Ordinances are generally understood to be those things Jesus told us to observe with other Christians. Regarding baptism,Matthew 28:18-20 says, "Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” As for communion, also called the Lord’s Supper,Luke 22:19 says, “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’” Most churches observe these two practices, but may not necessarily refer to the as a sacrament.

As far as anointing the sick, ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/gendoct_12_sick.cfm

Glad you found peace!

Thanks for the info, as Assembly of God I think you are closer to a sacramental thinking than most evangelicals.

When I was evangelical (baptist) I never saw or heard of anyone being annointed with oil, although of course we prayed and occasionally laid hands. This was done by everyone though, and the elders never did it in a way outside everyone else.

This was very strange to me after reading the book of James, how did something in black and white in scripture, in the new testament go by the wayside!?

From an evangelical standpoint, I find it odd to hear evangelicals say no grace is received in baptism and communion, I know that’s false because I experienced Gods grace in those ordinances as an evangelical.

I think evangelicals would do well to acknowledge God can and does work through such things and there are 5 more that equally God uses.

Did Jesus receive something from God when he was baptized?

 

[Koineman]

Thanks for the info, as Assembly of God I think you are closer to a sacramental thinking than most evangelicals.

Actually, it’s really not. The description you’re referring to describes a belief in sacraments as only symbols and visual aids. That is precisely what nondenominational and baptist churches believe, which comprise a huge part of evangelicalism.

Did Jesus receive something from God when he was baptized?

An excellent question!

 

[aidanbradypop]

Thanks for the info, as Assembly of God I think you are closer to a sacramental thinking than most evangelicals.

When I was evangelical (baptist) I never saw or heard of anyone being annointed with oil, although of course we prayed and occasionally laid hands. This was done by everyone though, and the elders never did it in a way outside everyone else.

This was very strange to me after reading the book of James, how did something in black and white in scripture, in the new testament go by the wayside!?

From an evangelical standpoint, I find it odd to hear evangelicals say no grace is received in baptism and communion, I know that’s false because I experienced Gods grace in those ordinances as an evangelical.

I think evangelicals would do well to acknowledge God can and does work through such things and there are 5 more that equally God uses.

Did Jesus receive something from God when he was baptized?

Many believe that fundamentals are not Evangelical, yet there are many. The more fundamentalist a denomination is, the less they tend to even call the Ordinances.

I was raised SBC. The congregation I was in was solely fundamentalist.

As to the last question, this is how I was always taught…

When John hesitated tobaptizethe sinless Son of God,Jesusreplied that it was proper to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). By this He alluded to the righteousness that He provides to all who come to Him to exchange their sin for His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).

It was the start of His public ministry. Kind of like when a person is born again and saved, they usually become baptized, depending on the tradition. That marks their public ministry because when you become a disciple of Jesus, you have a command to share the Gospel and many different ministries.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Actually, it’s really not. The description you’re referring to describes a belief in sacraments as only symbols and visual aids. That is precisely what nondenominational and baptist churches believe, which comprise a huge part of evangelicalism.

I know a congregation here that is a non-denom and they are actually former LCMC. Another non denom is a former ELCA. Non denom does not always mean baptist.

 

[Koineman]

I know a congregation here that is a non-denom and they are actually former LCMC. Another non denom is a former ELCA. Non denom does not always mean baptist.

I didn’t say it “always” meant it. In my experience, ALL the nondenom churches I ever visited or attended were baptist in their views. There may be exceptions to that, but I’d say they are rare.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I didn’t say it “always” meant it. In my experience, ALL the nondenom churches I ever visited or attended were baptist in their views. There may be exceptions to that, but I’d say they are rare.

Non denom can be really great congregation and then you get ones like Joel Olsteen. The ones in my area (heavily Lutheran) are usually ex Lutherans and Calvinist.

 

[Koineman]

Non denom can be really great congregation and then you get ones like Joel Olsteen. The ones in my area (heavily Lutheran) are usually ex Lutherans and Calvinist.

I don’t think I’d ever go back to a nondenom church. Just too many problems, both in theology and practice. Not to mention the fact that I’d avoid taking communion in one.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I don’t think I’d ever go back to a nondenom church. Just too many problems, both in theology and practice. Not to mention the fact that I’d avoid taking communion in one.

Each their own I suppose. I have nothing against them. Just not for me is all.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Many believe that fundamentals are not Evangelical, yet there are many. The more fundamentalist a denomination is, the less they tend to even call the Ordinances.

I was raised SBC. The congregation I was in was solely fundamentalist.

As to the last question, this is how I was always taught…

When John hesitated tobaptizethe sinless Son of God,Jesusreplied that it was proper to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). By this He alluded to the righteousness that He provides to all who come to Him to exchange their sin for His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).

It was the start of His public ministry. Kind of like when a person is born again and saved, they usually become baptized, depending on the tradition. That marks their public ministry because when you become a disciple of Jesus, you have a command to share the Gospel and many different ministries.

This answer (I’ve heard before) seems to leave so much out there and do disservice to the text.

If all it was was a declaration of Jesus starting his ministry, why all the fanfare of the heavens opening and God speaking, and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove upon him.

If it’s just a symbolic act why did something more than a symbol occur, and why did the Father, send the Holy Spirit down upon him.

 

[Koineman]

This answer (I’ve heard before) seems to leave so much out there and do disservice to the text.

If all it was was a declaration of Jesus starting his ministry, why all the fanfare of the heavens opening and God speaking, and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove upon him.

If it’s just a symbolic act why did something more than a symbol occur, and why did the Father, send the Holy Spirit down upon him.

I’ve never encountered that argument, Jon. It’s a very strong, excellent one.

 

[aidanbradypop]

If all it was was a declaration of Jesus starting his ministry, why all the fanfare of the heavens opening and God speaking, and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove upon him.

Because Jesus startes His public ministry.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because Jesus startes His public ministry.

Is the main evangelical objection to sacraments that physical matter cannot give salvation?