Non-Catholic Sacramental Christian views

[Tomyris]

Here is where I am confused. When I read, it looks like Jesus commanded those He sent to “heal the sick”. They did this by anointing them with oil.

“And he called the twelve; and began to send them two and two, and gave them power over unclean spirits.” Mark 6:7

“Heal the sick…” Matt 10"8

“And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” Mark 6:13

Then there is an Apostolic command from James:

"Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests 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 shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. " James 5:14–15

I am befuddled why the Apostles would engage in this behavior if it was not commanded. It also appears that grace is attached to this rite.

Would it qualify as a sacrament if Matt. said “anoint the sick with oil and heal them”?

I’ve been reading this thread with interest because Lutherans and Catholics are amazingly close, and I could really screw up a fine discussion charitably done due to my own personal clumsiness, etc.

So here goes.

The elders get together and pray for the sick sometimes. Sometimes, I guess, sin is discussed. I don’t really ask: *Hey, did you confront Suzy about her awful gluttony. I mean, I know she is dying of cancer, but she needs to face the fact she eats too much chocolate, the sow. * I’ve been prayed for, and either because I have the disposition of a Rottweiler or an angel sin hasn’t been mentioned. But we do not consider it a sacrament or an ordinance.

 

[guanophore]

It seems to me that the healing is separate from the forgiveness of sins. But, as my signature says, I’m not a trained theologian. If someone were to consider it a Sacrament on its own right, I suppose they could. It’s the use that matters to Lutherans, not the number. Whatever the case, the ‘use’ returns us to the promise of Baptism.

The Apostles taught that the effects of Baptism are singular, and although we can return to grace after post-baptismal sin, it is not the same as Baptism, because there are still temporal consequences of sin.

I am curious about your statement that healing is separate from the forgiveness of sins. It seems to me that Jesus was very clear in his teaching about the relationship between sin and sickness. It also seems very clear that the OT treatment of leprosy, revealed in the NT as a symbol for sin was used by Christ to demonstrate cleansing.

How can forgiveness of sins NOT be healing, if not on a physical plane, at least spiritually, mentally, and emotionally?

 

[guanophore]

But we do not consider it a sacrament or an ordinance.

Why do you think Jesus sent His Apostles to heal the sick, and they anointed them with oil in the process?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The Catholic Catechism sums up it’s teaching on the anointing of the sick as follows -

IN BRIEF

1526 “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 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” (Jas 5:14-15).

1527 The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick has as its purpose the conferral of a special grace on the Christian experiencing the difficulties inherent in the condition of grave illness or old age.

1528 The proper time for receiving this holy anointing has certainly arrived when the believer begins to be in danger of death because of illness or old age.

1529 Each time a Christian falls seriously ill, he may receive the Anointing of the Sick, and also when, after he has received it, the illness worsens.

1530 Only priests (presbyters and bishops) can give the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, using oil blessed by the bishop, or if necessary by the celebrating presbyter himself.

1531 The celebration of the Anointing of the Sick consists essentially in the anointing of the forehead and hands of the sick person (in the Roman Rite) or of other parts of the body (in the Eastern rite), the anointing being accompanied by the liturgical prayer of the celebrant asking for the special grace of this sacrament.

1532 The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:

• the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;
• the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;
• the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;
• the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul;
• the preparation for passing over to eternal life.

The authority is Biblical. It’s in the New Testament book of James.

If the Bible is inspired by God, then God is giving the instruction through the writer of Scripture.

Therefore it is a valid sacrament. It’s a visible sign of an invisible grace.

 

[Tomyris]

Why do you think Jesus sent His Apostles to heal the sick, and they anointed them with oil in the process?

He had compassion on the multitudes. As you know, the oil represents the Spirit of God.

 

[KjetilK]

Why do you think Jesus sent His Apostles to heal the sick, and they anointed them with oil in the process?

He had compassion on the multitudes. As you know, the oil represents the Spirit of God.

Yes, and the water represents cleansing (in the Holy Spirit). I agree with guanophore. Annointing is a sacrament: It provides bodily, as well as spiritual, healing, and it seems that it was instituted by Christ, if we see his commandment of the Apostles as constitutive, and St. James’s use of this as the continuation of this.

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic Catechism sums up it’s teaching on the anointing of the sick as follows -

The authority is Biblical. It’s in the New Testament book of James.

If the Bible is inspired by God, then God is giving the instruction through the writer of Scripture.

Therefore it is a valid sacrament. It’s a visible sign of an invisible grace.

Welcome to the thread, Bob, and thank you for participating, but I urge you to please read the OP and avoid posting the Catholic position on this thread.

I am interested in understanding why non-Catholics do not consider the CC position to be valid/accurate.

 

[guanophore]

He had compassion on the multitudes. As you know, the oil represents the Spirit of God.

Yes I agree that is why the Lord sent them to preach and heal, but the Scripture is clear that they accomplished this by anointing them with oil. I agree that it is a symbol of the HS, but I am wondering why modern Lutherans think the Apostles took it upon themselves to do this, without a directive from Christ?

 

[Micko]

There were only two original ordinances we are directed to follow by Christ:

Believers Baptism

Communion

Nothing wrong with others, but we should not mistake our works for holiness or righteousness. Only God is Holy and only God is Righteous.

I must stress that only a professed believer who has repented of all sin should be Baptized. ROM 10:9, Acts 2:38

Confession of sins to the Lord is important for spiritual growth. Counseling is encouraged.
Reconciliation has already taken place for the believer. Rom 10:9. We should strive to be righteous James 1.

And Clearly, only a professed believer should receive communion. 1Cor 27-29

Confirmation makes no sense accept for perhaps a clergyman or woman who is to be ordained into the ministry. Ordination of Bishops (pastors), Evangelists, etc.

Last Rites is as close as some denominations get to embracing their faith and salvation.
We should make peace with our maker long before we are old and sick. We must give the Holy Spirit time to change us. We are called to be saints. Salvation is a Gift from God and it is unearned. Eph 2:8. But we must strive to be worthy of it. James 1.

Marriage is so very important. I can’t stress enough the need for marriage education.
Too many people marry for the wrong reasons. A marriage should be unselfish.

 

[guanophore]

There were only two original ordinances we are directed to follow by Christ:

Believers Baptism

Communion

Thank you for participating, Micko. Where do you find these in Scripture?

Why do you refer to them as “ordinances”? Do you get that term from Scripture too?

Nothing wrong with others, but we should not mistake our works for holiness or righteousness.  Only God is Holy and only God is Righteous.

Do you think that confessing your sins to someone who has been given authority by God to forgive them is a human “work”?

I must stress that only a professed believer who has repented of all sin should be Baptized. ROM 10:9, Acts 2:38

It is interesting you would mention Acts, since in this passage, it is written:

9 For the promise** is to you and to your children **and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Do you think that the Apostles misunderstood the doctrine, and their disciples misunderstood, and all of Christendom misunderstood (by baptizing infants) until the last 200 years?

Also, I am wondering why you reject the Scriptures when they say that “baptism now saves you”.

Reconciliation has already taken place for the believer.  Rom 10:9.  We should strive to be righteous James 1.

Why do you think it is mentioned in the NT about confessing sins to people, and that people have the authority to forgive sins?

Confirmation makes no sense accept for perhaps a clergyman or woman who is to be ordained into the ministry. Ordination of Bishops (pastors), Evangelists, etc.

Christianity came out of the Jewish religion. Jews consecrated their children to God with sacrifices, and for boys, circumcision. In the NT, circumcision was replaced with Baptism. Children that grew up in the Jewish faith had a coming of age ceremony when they became old enough to be responsible for practicing their own faith (without depending on parents). Confirmation is the same in the Christian faith, where a young person takes upon themselves the vows made to God at their baptism.

Last Rites is as close as some denominations get to embracing their faith and salvation.

This is a sad fact.

 Marriage is so very important.  I can't stress enough the need for marriage education.

Too many people marry for the wrong reasons. A marriage should be unselfish.

You are right, but human beings are selfish by nature. It is only God’s grace, working in and through the marriage, that can make it successful.

 

[Tomyris]

Yes I agree that is why the Lord sent them to preach and heal, but the Scripture is clear that they accomplished this by anointing them with oil. I agree that it is a symbol of the HS, but I am wondering why modern Lutherans think the Apostles took it upon themselves to do this, without a directive from Christ?

Well, I can’t answer for the Lutherans.

 

[Tomyris]

Yes, and the water represents cleansing (in the Holy Spirit). I agree with guanophore. Annointing is a sacrament: It provides bodily, as well as spiritual, healing, and it seems that it was instituted by Christ, if we see his commandment of the Apostles as constitutive, and St. James’s use of this as the continuation of this.

The Westminster Confession of Faith only recognizes two sacraments - baptism and the Eucharist - and I think that is because they were directly commanded by Christ in the Gospels for all.

We practice marriage and the-elders-anointing-with-oil-and-prayer, and probably other things that Catholics and Lutherans agree are sacraments, we just don’t put them in the same group as the Two. Both of these things can convey grace, but neither is for every Christian. Some are sick, some are well. Some get married, some don’t.

I think you need to look at the overall place of the sacraments in the Christian life. Our whole life is to be lived as a sacrament and as a holy offering to God. We are to live sacramentally, never cut off from grace or its means, always bearing Christ, living in and before Him. I don’t think you will ever hear Reformed people deny that the laying on of hands, or prayer, or preaching cannot be a means of grace that God can use!

I don’t think it’s important enough to get into an argument about as to whether the anointing thing is a sacrament or not. I think the Reformed would say it is except for the fact it was not directly and specifically instituted by Christ. Practically, we treat it like one, I think.

 

[Peter_J]

Unfortunately, the thread was invaded and hijacked by Catholic fundamentalists

Oh great, now even fundamentalists are calling themselves Catholics?

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Specifically I am still curious about the anointing of the sick and the series of posts following # 12 in the other thread.

If Jesus did not command the disciples to anoint the sick with oil, and pray that they be healed, what is the origin of this practice?

This should give you a good history of the Lutheran view and practice of Anointing of the Sick:

Lutheran Anointing of the Sick

.

 

[guanophore]

 I think the Reformed would say it is except for the fact it was not directly and specifically instituted by Christ. Practically, we treat it like one,  I think.

What would one need to actually consider it instituted by Christ?

Do the Reformed think that the Apostles just took it upon themselves?

Since the Apostolic commandment is not sufficient, what would be?

On a side note, do non-Catholics believe that Jesus said the words “it is better to give than receive”?

 

[guanophore]

Oh great, now even fundamentalists are calling themselves Catholics?

You didn’t think narrow minded bigotry was confined to Protestants, did you?

 

[guanophore]

This should give you a good history of the Lutheran view and practice of Anointing of the Sick:

Lutheran Anointing of the Sick

.

Thank you Rob. Do you think this practice had it’s origin in Christ, or somewhere else?

 

[Indifferently]

Anointing is a fine practice. As to whether it is a “sacrament” that depends upon how the word “sacrament” is defined.

The Church of England and other Reformed churches teach that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both necessary to all Christians. They are signs and seals of the covenant of grace. Baptism is the sign of initiation in the covenant and communion the sign of continuation and growth in it.

The other practices of the church which are sometimes (and especially following the influence of Peter Lombard) called “sacraments” have a slightly different character to the dominical sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. That is in no way to trivialize these various rites, but merely to refine their categories.

 

[guanophore]

Anointing is a fine practice. As to whether it is a “sacrament” that depends upon how the word “sacrament” is defined.

The Church of England and other Reformed churches teach that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both necessary to all Christians. They are signs and seals of the covenant of grace. Baptism is the sign of initiation in the covenant and communion the sign of continuation and growth in it.

The other practices of the church which are sometimes (and especially following the influence of Peter Lombard) called “sacraments” have a slightly different character to the dominical sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. That is in no way to trivialize these various rites, but merely to refine their categories.

Thank you for your assistance, Indifferently. I am not familiar with these ways of looking at the practices of the Church. Can you direct me to something to read that explains “domincal character”?

I am beginning to think that one of the differences is that Protestants, if they do accept any sacramental view at all, consider those things to be sacraments that are expected to be applied to all believers? This would explain why marriage and Holy Orders are not considered sacraments, because they do not 1) return one to the grace of baptism and 2) apply to everyone?

 

[Tomyris]

What would one need to actually consider it instituted by Christ?

Do the Reformed think that the Apostles just took it upon themselves?

Since the Apostolic commandment is not sufficient, what would be?

Today in church someone testified about something that happened 15 years ago - he had a medical diagnosis that said he would soon be in a nursing home, at the age of 33, for the rest of his life. He asked for the elders. The elders gathered, prayed for him and anointed him with oil. He is perfectly healthy - God healed him and he has been healthy the last 15 years. The focus here is on God’s faithfulness, not the elders’ charism of healing or anything, or his faith, just on God.

But we do not call it a sacrament. I think it is a matter of terminology.

On a side note, do non-Catholics believe that Jesus said the words “it is better to give than receive”?

‘non-Catholics’?? That is wide. I assume you mean non-Catholic Christians.

As for me: Sure. The Bible says He said it (Acts 20:35). That is enough for me.