Non-Catholic Sacramental Christian views

[Tomyris]

Here is the head chapter on sacraments from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Chapter XXVII

Of the Sacraments

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.[5]

II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[9]

IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]

V. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.[11]

There are chapters following on baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Tomyris]

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.

I thought this very well put.

We need to pull back a bit and note that Catholics and Reformed look at sacraments in radically different ways. In Catholic thought they impart justifying grace, in Reformed thought they are an additional blessing. I may be mucking that up. But we cannot say that ‘church’ means the same thing to the Reformed or the Catholic, even, or ‘sacrament’.

 

[guanophore]

 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.

So what is lacking that it is not considered a sacrament?

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

Thanks Tomi, yes I do. I know there are non-Catholic Christians that do espouse at least some sacraments, and it seems to me that the definition of a sacrament was changed during the reformation, so that is what I am trying to grasp.

 

[Tomyris]

So what is lacking that it is not considered a sacrament?

Thanks Tomi, yes I do. I know there are non-Catholic Christians that do espouse at least some sacraments, and it seems to me that the definition of a sacrament was changed during the reformation, so that is what I am trying to grasp.

We need to look at what we mean by sacrament, first. I am thinking of Grudem’s comparison between Catholic and Reformed understandings, but I want to couch a response per your definition of a sacrament, as we do, I believe, define it differently.