G
guanophore
Guest
So when Lutherans say “saving grace” is in the sacraments, they are talking about that sacrament getting the person to heaven?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Forgiveness of sins, yes.So when Lutherans say “saving grace” is in the sacraments, they are talking about that sacrament getting the person to heaven?
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yet, marriage has now the nature of being an icon, a symbol, of the relationship between Christ and the Church.Not that Jesus did not preside over one, but that marriage was not instituted by Christ during His ministry. Marriage was instituted at creation. The second point would be that the institution, in and of itself, does not grant faith, forgiveness, and saving grace.
Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg defends the sacramentality of marriage in his Systematic Theology, vol. 3.
S
steido01
Guest
And it is his freedom to argue that point as a Lutheran. Curious, how does he layout his argument?Yet, marriage has now the nature of being an icon, a symbol, of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg defends the sacramentality of marriage in his Systematic Theology, vol. 3.
Separately, I wonder how much of the confusion here is language-based. Would it be more clear to Catholics what Lutherans mean when we say “there are two or three sacraments and about 5 rites” if we said instead, “there are seven sacramental rites traditionally recognized by the church, two or three of which hold a particularly higher status because they were specifically instituted by Christ during his earthly ministry for the remission of our sins.” ? Something akin to how certain books of Scripture (the four Gospels, for instance) hold a higher place than others (James or Revelation, perhaps).
G
GKC
Guest
What Anglicans often refer to as Dominical sacraments.And it is his freedom to argue that point as a Lutheran. Curious, how does he layout his argument?
Separately, I wonder how much of the confusion here is language-based. Would it be more clear to Catholics what Lutherans mean when we say “there are two or three sacraments and about 5 rites” if we said instead, “there are seven sacramental rites traditionally recognized by the church, two or three of which hold a particularly higher status because they were specifically instituted by Christ during his earthly ministry for the remission of our sins.” ? Something akin to how certain books of Scripture (the four Gospels, for instance) hold a higher place than others (James or Revelation, perhaps).
GKC
G
guanophore
Guest
So the other rites are not considered sacraments because there is no forgiveness of sins involved?Forgiveness of sins, yes.
How do Lutherans see this passage:
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16
(Jas 5:14–16)
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Yes, but the practice is not one commanded by Christ to His apostles to be carried out by the church.So the other rites are not considered sacraments because there is no forgiveness of sins involved?
How do Lutherans see this passage:
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16
(Jas 5:14–16)
I think the confusion here is “holy” with “sacrament.” You mentioned the passage from 1 Cor. 7:14, for example. A sacrament is always holy, but not everything that is holy is a sacrament. Oil combined with the prayer of the church can forgive sin, marriages gives many graces. We still wouldn’t define them as a sacrament.
Of course, that others choose to call them sacraments doesn’t phase me, nor do I argue the point.
T
Tomster
Guest
Marriage as a sacrament. Please refer to Matthew 19: 4-9 and Ephesians 5: 20-32.Not that Jesus did not preside over one, but that marriage was not instituted by Christ during His ministry. Marriage was instituted at creation. The second point would be that the institution, in and of itself, does not grant faith, forgiveness, and saving grace.
G
guanophore
Guest
When He sent out the 70 they engaged in this practice:Code:Yes, but the practice is not one commanded by Christ to His apostles to be carried out by the church.
12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. (Mk 6:12–13)
I can’t imagine they did that on their own!
Surely this was a practice in which they had been trained or instructed by the Lord.
"
Yes, this makes sense, and the faith passed down to us from the Apostles tells us that what defines a Sacrament, in part, is that it came from the Lord. What I am trying to figure out is why Lutherans do not see this coming from the Lord. Is it because the actual quote is not in the text that says “anoint them with oil and heal the sick”?I think the confusion here is “holy” with "sacrament. You mentioned the passage from 1 Cor. 7:14, for example. A sacrament is always holy, but not everything that is holy is a sacrament.
Also, why must it come from the lips of Christ? How are these passages that indicate this was a practice sufficient to establish that it was part of Christ’s instruction?
We never hear Christ Himself say “it is better to give than receive”, but because it came from one of the Apostles, we believe He said it. How is this different?
I am trying to understand what is lacking in them that is found in the ones that are accepted.Oil combined with the prayer of the church can forgive sin, marriages gives many graces. We still wouldn’t define them as a sacrament.
Why is it not important that they were considered sacraments up till that time?
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, I agree, but it seems that Christ raised marriage to a higher level, and Paul uses marriage as a symbol of Christ’s relationship with His One Body, the Church. I know there are places in the OT where God speaks of Israel as an unfaithful spouse, but Jesus teaching on marriage superceded even that of Moses.Not that Jesus did not preside over one, but that marriage was not instituted by Christ during His ministry. Marriage was instituted at creation.
Yes, I agree, but then neither does a faithless participation in baptism and eucharist. What grace a person receives is dependent upon their disposition. If a faithless person participates in a baptism, all one has is a wet participant. If a non-Christian receives communion, there is not faith, forgiveness, and saving grace. Sacraments must have the proper form, matter, and intention.The second point would be that the institution, in and of itself, does not grant faith, forgiveness, and saving grace.
Jesus was very clear about all three of these elements with regard to marriage. One man, one woman, indissoluable.
What does this verse mean, if it is not the husband and wife getting one another to heaven through saving grace?
"Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife? "(1 Co 7:16).
The ancient faith has taught us that each member of the marriage becomes sanctified through their relationship with one another, with God at the Center.
G
guanophore
Guest
this seems pretty straight forward where the annointing with oil is concernedForgiveness of sins, yes.
M
mayogirl25
Guest
Christian baptism is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics believe that the actual Body and Blood of Christ is present via the Priest at a Catholic Mass through transubstantiation and therefore the true Sacrament of Holy Communion. Protestant denominations do not have this. Therefore the difference.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Lutherans profess this too - just without the dogma of Transubstantiation.Catholics believe that the actual Body and Blood of Christ is present via the Priest at a Catholic Mass
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
It is. No dispute there. Though it may be more connected to Absolution than to the oil.this seems pretty straight forward where the annointing with oil is concerned
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, but the oil is the physical element involved that defines it sacramentally, unless one does not believe this practice came from Jesus…It is. No dispute there. Though it may be more connected to Absolution than to the oil.
A
AtDawn
Guest
As someone who grew up i a Lutheran country I can tell you that to me this does that Bible quote not at all look like anointing of the sick, the so called “last rites”. I realise that is not the name you have for it, probably because you find it misleadning, but still. That quote from the Bible to me looks like what people in charismatic churches would use a lot - the Pentecostales, etc. Those who claim that the Holy Spirits makes wonder today, in healing people. In Catholic faith people get healed from praying, asking saints to pray for them, right? Of the Lutheran churches some don’t stress it much at all, and don’t think it happens much, but when healing is performed in (I hate to call them Lutheran. What word should I choose… “post-reformation”?) churches, it is typically done by a pastor or someone supposed to have been given the gift of healing laying their hands on the sick wanting to be healed, usually accompanied with speaking in tongues and other extatic expressions. Personally I am very sceptical of this particular church variety, but I am sure these Christian would question you on these Bible verses: do the sick who get anointed actually get healed?How do Lutherans see this passage:
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16
(Jas 5:14–16)
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Reconsider your reading of the passage. With the ritual there are enjoined three promises: (1) the salvation of the sick, (2) his raising up by God, and (3) the forgiveness of his sins.As someone who grew up i a Lutheran country I can tell you that to me this does that Bible quote not at all look like anointing of the sick, the so called “last rites”. I realise that is not the name you have for it, probably because you find it misleadning, but still. That quote from the Bible to me looks like what people in charismatic churches would use a lot - the Pentecostales, etc. Those who claim that the Holy Spirits makes wonder today, in healing people. In Catholic faith people get healed from praying, asking saints to pray for them, right? Of the Lutheran churches some don’t stress it much at all, and don’t think it happens much, but when healing is performed in (I hate to call them Lutheran. What word should I choose… “post-reformation”?) churches, it is typically done by a pastor or someone supposed to have been given the gift of healing laying their hands on the sick wanting to be healed, usually accompanied with speaking in tongues and other extatic expressions. Personally I am very sceptical of this particular church variety, but I am sure these Christian would question you on these Bible verses: do the sick who get anointed actually get healed?
Salvation can mean the healing of the body, but it more primarily means the salvation of the soul. Remember the Lord’s counsel to not fear those who could destroy the body but rather those who can destroy both the body and the soul?
Raising of the person could mean the raising of his body in the sense that he he is healed well enough in order to rise out of bed. I would argue that it more likely refers to the final resurrection, in which all will rise to be judged, but the just to eternal reward and the wicked to eternal punishment. For that reason, the righteous can be said to rise again in a more excellent way. The wicked, although they are restored in body, can be said not to rise, but to fall to their eternal destruction. Consider the words of the first Psalm where for that reason it attributes rising to the just only: The unjust will not rise in the judgment, nor the sinners in the council of the just, for the Lord knows the way of the just but the path of sinners will perish.
Finally, the forgiveness of sins can occur without the healing of the body.
That is not to say that physical healing cannot occur with the sacrament. This is from the 1582 Rheims NT Commentary:
Shall raise him up. When it shall be good for the salvation of the party, or agreeable to God’s honor, this Sacrament restores also a man to bodily health again, as experience often teacheth us. Which yet is not done by way of miracle, to make the party suddenly whole, but by God’s ordinary providence and use of second Causes, which otherwise would not have had that effect, but for the said Sacrament. This is the second effect.
sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/james/douay-rheims-study-bible-on-james/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5
Although the sacrament of extreme unction can cause the healing of the sick, it would not be fitting if that occurred in every case regardless of circumstances for the same reason that baptism ought not to prevent the death of the body. If carnally minded people who otherwise despised holy things saw the miraculous effects of the sacraments, they would seek them out for carnal reasons and not for holy reasons. And besides that, we all have our time to die eventually. St. Paul says in the Second Letter to the Corinthians that he would rather be with the Lord in heaven than on earth in his body. It wouldn’t make sense if Christ instituted a sacrament that always kept someone from dying and commanded it to be used in danger of death whenever possible. Sacraments are supposed to help us get to heaven, not stop us from getting to heaven.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
This is an example of a difference between Lutheran and Catholic understandings. Catholics see a difference between marriage and the sacrament of marriage. Non-Christians can be validly married in the eyes of the Church, yet their marriage is not a sacrament. Catholics believe that Christ sanctified marriage, elevating it beyond a natural institution to a sacrament of Christ and the Church.A sacrament must meet three tests:
An activity that does not involve all three is considered a Rite, and is still performed (the Rite of Holy Matrimony).
- Commanded by God
- Uses a material or earthly element
- Connected with a Divine promise (forgiveness and salvation)
G
guanophore
Guest
I guess I am not seeing that there is a difference.This is an example of a difference between Lutheran and Catholic understandings. Catholics see a difference between marriage and the sacrament of marriage. Non-Christians can be validly married in the eyes of the Church, yet their marriage is not a sacrament. Catholics believe that Christ sanctified marriage, elevating it beyond a natural institution to a sacrament of Christ and the Church.
A sacrament must meet three tests:
Code:
Commanded by God
Uses a material or earthly element
Connected with a Divine promise (forgiveness and salvation)
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
When I said there is a difference, I meant that Lutherans and Catholics believe different things about marriage. In the Lutheran perspective, a secular marriage does not fundamentally differ from a Lutheran marriage in a Church. This is different from the Catholic view where a valid marriage between two validly baptized is a sacrament whereas for others it is not.I guess I am not seeing that there is a difference.
A sacrament must meet three tests:
It seems to me that Catholic sacramental marriage meets all these criteria, so that must mean that Lutherans have redefined these criteria so that they don’ t mean what I think they mean.Code:Commanded by God Uses a material or earthly element Connected with a Divine promise (forgiveness and salvation)
As for the criteria of a sacrament you quote, originally given by Stilldreamn, I think the first ought to be modified to say that the sacrament must be instituted by Christ as a part of the New Covenant. Under the definition originally given, even the Levitical sacrifices would be as much a sacrament as the Eucharist since they are instituted by God, have a material element and are connected with the promise of forgiveness. You can see how the modified criteria would more support the Lutheran line of argument. If Christian marriage is the same as all other marriages, then it really was instituted in the beginning and it would not be called a sacrament.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.