Protestants' Understanding of Sacraments

[ltwin]

Churches in the Baptist, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, and Evangelical (ABEP) traditions vary widely on this matter as on all others, but in general affirm only two sacraments. They do not believe them to be necessarily a “means of grace” in either a Lutheran or Reformed understanding, but rather merely external signs of grace already given independently of the ritual, either through predestinarian election or as a result of the Christian’s acceptance of Christ as Lord. Some congregations do believe the performance of the sacrament serves a distinct spiritual function for the believing participant, while others merely see them as social-theological phenomena meant to educate and better connect the congregation as a church community. Due to these positions, many Protestants in this grouping dislike even the term “sacrament” instead preferring less mystically charged terminology like “ordinances.” Most would adhere to the same position regarding administration as the Lutherans and Reformed.

Coming from a Pentecostal background, we consider them “sacerdotal ordinances.” I’ve heard both the terms “ordinance” and “sacrament” used. The Lord’s Supper seems to be especially referred to as “the Sacrament” often.

When it comes to baptism, we don’t leave it as an “option” because not getting baptized would be direct disobedience to Christ’s command. However, we don’t think baptism in and of itself is necessary to be saved. There is a sense that the Holy Spirit is at work during baptism. It sometimes happens that people get “blessed” while being baptized, either in the form of a simultaneous Spirit baptism with speaking in tongues or other forms of blessing like shouting and glorifying God in response to sensing his presence as they come out of the water.

In Communion, the elements are symbolic emblems of Christ’s body and blood. Christ is considered spiritually present and their is an intense focus on the presence of the Holy Spirit. The focus is on Communion as a bridge between Jesus’ Last Supper and the future marriage supper of the lamb. The sacrament has also been thought of as the ultimate sacrament of healing, whereby in a sense we really do feed on Christ and are made spiritually and physically strong when we correctly discern the Lord’s body as Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians. So there is a belief that healing can occur by taking communion (and that people can get sick if they take it in unbelief or unconfessed sin). Communion, like baptism, is often a time when the Holy Spirit intervenes directly in the service and their is a sense of God’s tangible anointing moving on the congregation.

We don’t have confession as a sacrament, but we do have private confession to God where we ask forgiveness for our sin. This is not optional, but necessary daily. Their are times when we also confess our sins one to another, but mostly we confess our sins directly to God in prayer.

Many Pentecostals consider foot washing to be a sacrament instituted by Christ. It is viewed as an ordinance of humility but also of cleansing. It also seen almost like a love feast. This rite is often used during times of strife or turmoil within congregations because it has been found to be a means by which the Holy Spirit reconciles people together. My mother told me about a time in church where she had to wash the feet of a rival woman in the congregation and how both women were convicted of their sins towards one another and were able to forgive one another. They can be quite emotional and powerful events.

 

[Indifferently]

There is an Anglican church down the road which has daily Mass. Some Anglicans only celebrate the Eucharist once a month. There are a variety of views all the way from the sacrifice to appease the Father to a memorial and nothing more. I fall somewhere in between.

 

[GKC]

There is an Anglican church down the road which has daily Mass. Some Anglicans only celebrate the Eucharist once a month. There are a variety of views all the way from the sacrifice to appease the Father to a memorial and nothing more. I fall somewhere in between.

Anglicans=motley.

Anglicans such as myself fall over on the Real Presence side, up to benediction/adoration of the Blessed Body. And all that implies. Just addressing the Eucharist here.

GKC

 

[Razanir]

In Communion, the elements are **symbolic **emblems of Christ’s body and blood. Christ is considered spiritually present and their is an intense focus on the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Before I ask this question, two things:

1. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want
2. I ask this educationally not argumentatively

Why do some Protestant groups take parts of the Bible so literally as to believe in a 6-day creation and a 6000-year-old Earth, and yet not take Jesus literally when he says “this IS my body”

 

[JonNC]

Cyclopedia?

Do you have to read it with only one eye?

lol. I didn’t name the thing, though in my sports officiating days, some coaches accused me of less than one eye.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well that’s pretty interesting. Another instance of people taking Luther’s ideas and running into places he wouldn’t have dreamed with it? (I’m increasingly convinced even sola scriptura falls into this category)

Since you’re in a privileged place as a “PK” what was done with the remaining elements from communion? Were they reserved? Otherwise disposed of?

A privilege, and sometimes a curse, for example during my catechetical class days.
Gaelic and you have it right, though in Luheranism the term piscina. If a parish does not have one, it is poured onto the ground, usually in a special place. Consecrated hosts are usually reserved separate from unconsecrated, kept in the sacristy and rarely displayed.

The most appropriate practice is consumption of all the reliquae, except that which is used for sick and shut-in.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=hotdiggity;10284720]having come home to the Catholic Church via the lcms and then wels, i can say my experience in both synods (and other’s mileage may vary) was that the leftover, consecrated, wafers and wine were recycled into the wine bottle for the wine and a tupperware or other locking type container for the wafers and both placed back in the church fridge for the next use…

I can’t speak for WELS, but this is not a reverent practice at all. Luther would spin in his grave, as I am spinning outside mine.

and in both synods, communion was every other week, not weekly…but again, i realize other churches did things differently…

my last church (wels) would only give communion twice a month because they did not want to offend any non-members who may be present and who weren’t allowed to commune…

As an Elder in my parish, this is my consistent (my fellow elders would say ad nauseum) complaint. We offer the sacrament the first, third, fifth Sundays, and important feast and festival days. Failure of the parish to offer the sacrament is completely inconsistent with the Lutheran Confessions.

Augsburg Confession:

Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among 2] us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added 3] to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned 4] be taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not only has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by the people 1 Cor. 14:2-9, but it has also been so ordained by man’s law. 5] The people are accustomed to partake of the Sacrament together, if any be fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of public 6] worship. For none are admitted 7] except they be first examined. The people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the Sacrament, how great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they may learn to believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. 8] [In this connection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings on the Sacrament.] This worship pleases God; such use of the Sacrament nourishes true devotion 9] toward God. It does not, therefore, appear that the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us.
…

Now, forasmuch as the Mass is such a giving of the Sacrament, we hold one communion every holy-day, and, if any desire the Sacrament, also on other days, when it is given to such as ask for it.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

lol. I didn’t name the thing, though in my sports officiating days, some coaches accused me of less than one eye.

Jon

Haha! They called me blind thou…

 

[PatriciusRex]

Many Pentecostals consider foot washing to be a sacrament instituted by Christ.

This is interesting, a possible Protestant “third” sacrament? I know it’s in practice in some groups but so far I’ve only personally known it done in SDA churches. How widespread is this practice do you think?

For Catholics, the “sign of peace” which precedes the communion of the people is meant to serve the same function you describe, though obviously washing someone’s feet is a lot more intimate than the standard American Catholic practice of hand shaking. In other cultures though the act retains its intimate aspect. My fiancees family for instance is Vietnamese and you’d never bow to someone you were angry with or harbored resentment towards. In various Mediterranean countries the practice is to kiss on both cheeks, something that would probably also force you to confront any negative feelings.

But as for actual foot washing, the only times Catholics do that is on Holy Thursday when the priest washes the feet of members of the parish. While it’s held to be done in the imitation of Christ, there’s no specific grace tied to the act so it’s never been considered a “sacrament” properly speaking, though it would probably qualify as a “sacramental.” “Sacramentals” are objects or actions used as prayer/meditative aids essentially. Most of the “stuff” of Catholicism fits this bill (Rosaries, holy cards, statues, etc). They don’t impart any grace in and of themselves, but help direct the Christian towards the source of all Grace, God.

 

[PatriciusRex]

Why do some Protestant groups take parts of the Bible so literally as to believe in a 6-day creation and a 6000-year-old Earth, and yet not take Jesus literally when he says “this IS my body”

I’d imagine it has to do with the fact that outside John’s Gospel, the new testament accounts never speak in such definite terms. And even then when Jesus describes himself as the “Bread of Life” in John, and answers the question, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” by stating his flesh is real food and his blood real drink, this is generally (I think) understood in the same spirit as his answer to Nicodemus’s question “Surely they can not enter a second time into their mother’s womb?”

In 1 Corinthians 10:14-17, Paul discusses the matter but in terms sufficiently vague that Catholics can see the Real Presence and Protestants can just as clearly read a pneumatic Presence (which I describe as the Reformed position above). Though to be honest, I find pure memorialism to be the most difficult to prove out of Scripture.

Likewise in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, both a Catholic/Lutheran Real Presence and a Reformed-style pneumatic presence could be read into the text. A Presbyterian who only believes that taking the bread and wine and eating them in faith delivers the grace of God to him, can truly be said to “discern the body of Christ” in the Sacrament, even as he rejects the notion that the bread and wine themselves ARE the body and blood. Though again, I find memorialism appears to have little basis, especially wondering how if the communion is just a plain memorial, how can someone not discerning “eat and drink judgement to himself”?

Ultimately your answer lies in Reformation history. Luther and his followers exemplify what is called the “maximalist” interpretation of Scriptural prescription, embodied in their acceptance of adiaphora “things indifferent.” Basically, anything not explicitly condemned in Scripture, and which is beneficial to instilling the Gospel in the heart of the people can and should be retained. Luther believed that the Catholic Church, even in its state of disrepair in the late Middle Ages, was still at heart the Church, only needing some spring cleaning. As a result Lutherans kept many aspects of Catholic theology and practice, removing only those they felt in some way diminished the Gospel’s proclamation of grace. As in the quotation provided earlier by Jon from the Augsburg Confession, Lutherans continued to hold the Mass in “highest reverence.” Lutheran objections to the Catholic Mass were not over the Real Presence but over the commonly held and erroneous belief at the time that the Mass was itself some additional sacrifice for the propitiation of sins that implied Christ’s death on Calvary was insufficient for the salvation of the world. But the Real Presence and the Grace offered in the Eucharist were at the very heart of Luther’s concept of the Gospel (as they are for the Catholic) and so were retained without question or compromise.

Meanwhile Reformed founders like Zwingli, Calvin, and Bucer, promoted the “minimalist” interpretation, stating only that which is explicitly permitted in Scripture is proper for Christians and should be allowed, with anything outside of Scripture being categorically excluded. The idea being, if belief/ritual X was necessary, Providence would have made sure it appeared in the Scriptures counted canonical. This fits their highly rationalistic method of theology and scriptural exegesis, in which they could argue that since the bread and wine never transform into an actual lump of flesh and cup of blood, their status as the body and blood of Christ cannot be understood in a literal, physical sense. Since Scripture never without ambiguity affirms that the bread and wine shared by Christian communities were in any way physically altered to be other than bread and wine, they reject anything stronger than the pneumatic presence, which is supportable using the passages from John and 1 Corinthians mentioned above.

The minimalist interpretation remains the norm (in various degrees of rigor) among most Protestants with the general exception of Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists.

 

[JonNC]

I’d imagine it has to do with the fact that outside John’s Gospel, the new testament accounts never speak in such definite terms. And even then when Jesus describes himself as the “Bread of Life” in John, and answers the question, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” by stating his flesh is real food and his blood real drink, this is generally (I think) understood in the same spirit as his answer to Nicodemus’s question “Surely they can not enter a second time into their mother’s womb?”

In 1 Corinthians 10:14-17, Paul discusses the matter but in terms sufficiently vague that Catholics can see the Real Presence and Protestants can just as clearly read a pneumatic Presence (which I describe as the Reformed position above). Though to be honest, I find pure memorialism to be the most difficult to prove out of Scripture.

Likewise in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, both a Catholic/Lutheran Real Presence and a Reformed-style pneumatic presence could be read into the text. A Presbyterian who only believes that taking the bread and wine and eating them in faith delivers the grace of God to him, can truly be said to “discern the body of Christ” in the Sacrament, even as he rejects the notion that the bread and wine themselves ARE the body and blood. Though again, I find memorialism appears to have little basis, especially wondering how if the communion is just a plain memorial, how can someone not discerning “eat and drink judgement to himself”?

Ultimately your answer lies in Reformation history. Luther and his followers exemplify what is called the “maximalist” interpretation of Scriptural prescription, embodied in their acceptance of adiaphora “things indifferent.” Basically, anything not explicitly condemned in Scripture, and which is beneficial to instilling the Gospel in the heart of the people can and should be retained. Luther believed that the Catholic Church, even in its state of disrepair in the late Middle Ages, was still at heart the Church, only needing some spring cleaning. As a result Lutherans kept many aspects of Catholic theology and practice, removing only those they felt in some way diminished the Gospel’s proclamation of grace. As in the quotation provided earlier by Jon from the Augsburg Confession, Lutherans continued to hold the Mass in “highest reverence.” Lutheran objections to the Catholic Mass were not over the Real Presence but over the commonly held and erroneous belief at the time that the Mass was itself some additional sacrifice for the propitiation of sins that implied Christ’s death on Calvary was insufficient for the salvation of the world. But the Real Presence and the Grace offered in the Eucharist were at the very heart of Luther’s concept of the Gospel (as they are for the Catholic) and so were retained without question or compromise.
Meanwhile Reformed founders like Zwingli, Calvin, and Bucer, promoted the “minimalist” interpretation, stating only that which is explicitly permitted in Scripture is proper for Christians and should be allowed, with anything outside of Scripture being categorically excluded. The idea being, if belief/ritual X was necessary, Providence would have made sure it appeared in the Scriptures counted canonical. This fits their highly rationalistic method of theology and scriptural exegesis, in which they could argue that since the bread and wine never transform into an actual lump of flesh and cup of blood, their status as the body and blood of Christ cannot be understood in a literal, physical sense. Since Scripture never without ambiguity affirms that the bread and wine shared by Christian communities were in any way physically altered to be other than bread and wine, they reject anything stronger than the pneumatic presence, which is supportable using the passages from John and 1 Corinthians mentioned above.

The minimalist interpretation remains the norm (in various degrees of rigor) among most Protestants with the general exception of Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists.

Gosh, I’m flat-out honored by your representation of Lutheranism here.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is interesting, a possible Protestant “third” sacrament? I know it’s in practice in some groups but so far I’ve only personally known it done in SDA churches. How widespread is this practice do you think?

For Catholics, the “sign of peace” which precedes the communion of the people is meant to serve the same function you describe, though obviously washing someone’s feet is a lot more intimate than the standard American Catholic practice of hand shaking. In other cultures though the act retains its intimate aspect. My fiancees family for instance is Vietnamese and you’d never bow to someone you were angry with or harbored resentment towards. In various Mediterranean countries the practice is to kiss on both cheeks, something that would probably also force you to confront any negative feelings.

But as for actual foot washing, the only times Catholics do that is on Holy Thursday when the priest washes the feet of members of the parish. **While it’s held to be done in the imitation of Christ, there’s no specific grace tied to the act so it’s never been considered a “sacrament” properly speaking, **though it would probably qualify as a “sacramental.” “Sacramentals” are objects or actions used as prayer/meditative aids essentially. Most of the “stuff” of Catholicism fits this bill (Rosaries, holy cards, statues, etc). They don’t impart any grace in and of themselves, but help direct the Christian towards the source of all Grace, God.

This is interesting, because Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, goes into detail about what is and isn’t a sacrament, and yet how important lots of things not considered sacraments are. He says, in part,

Lastly, if among the Sacraments all things ought to be numbered which have God’s command, and to which promises have been added, why do we not add prayer, which most truly can be called a sacrament? For it has both God’s command and very many promises; and if placed among the Sacraments, as though in a more eminent place, it would invite men to pray. 17] Alms could also be reckoned here, and likewise afflictions, which are, even themselves signs, to which God has added promises. But let us omit these things. For no prudent man will strive greatly concerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be retained which have God’s command and promises.

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#article13

Which is why, for Lutherans, the numbering of the sacraments isn’t a dogmatic thing.
We have marriage, Confirmation, and ordination, for example, and even though we don’t term them sacraments, they are very important to us.

A great thread, BTW.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

A privilege, and sometimes a curse, for example during my catechetical class days.
Gaelic and you have it right, though in Luheranism the term piscina. If a parish does not have one, it is poured onto the ground, usually in a special place. Consecrated hosts are usually reserved separate from unconsecrated, kept in the sacristy and rarely displayed.

The most appropriate practice is consumption of all the reliquae, except that which is used for sick and shut-in.

Jon

We go so far as to pour the water used in cleaning the sacred vessles into the sacrarium as there is always some small amount of the precious body and blood left behind, even if not visible to the human eye.

 

[JonNC]

We go so far as to pour the water used in cleaning the sacred vessles into the sacrarium as there is always some small amount of the precious body and blood left behind, even if not visible to the human eye.

I absolutely detest the small individual communion cups, but that said, those are cleaned in the same way, with nothing going down the drain.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

I absolutely detest the small individual communion cups, but that said, those are cleaned in the same way, with nothing going down the drain.

Jon

That’s refreshing to hear.

 

[PatriciusRex]

Gosh, I’m flat-out honored by your representation of Lutheranism here.

Jon

Glad you approve!

Which is why, for Lutherans, the numbering of the sacraments isn’t a dogmatic thing.
We have marriage, Confirmation, and ordination, for example, and even though we don’t term them sacraments, they are very important to us.

I think the importance for Catholics at least comes from the fact that the numerated “sacraments” have specific and unique graces attached to them. Prayer for example, is a very general grace in that it unites us with God and binds us to him, but in a different way than Baptism, for instance, which in its particular, unique, and never repeated grace makes us His forever.

Similarly, Catholics believe that each of the seven recognized sacraments possesses a distinct grace unique and exclusive to that sacrament.

 

[andrewstx]

This is interesting, a possible Protestant “third” sacrament? I know it’s in practice in some groups but so far I’ve only personally known it done in SDA churches. How widespread is this practice do you think?

For Catholics, the “sign of peace” which precedes the communion of the people is meant to serve the same function you describe, though obviously washing someone’s feet is a lot more intimate than the standard American Catholic practice of hand shaking. In other cultures though the act retains its intimate aspect. My fiancees family for instance is Vietnamese and you’d never bow to someone you were angry with or harbored resentment towards. In various Mediterranean countries the practice is to kiss on both cheeks, something that would probably also force you to confront any negative feelings.

But as for actual foot washing, the only times Catholics do that is on Holy Thursday when the priest washes the feet of members of the parish. While it’s held to be done in the imitation of Christ, there’s no specific grace tied to the act so it’s never been considered a “sacrament” properly speaking, though it would probably qualify as a “sacramental.” “Sacramentals” are objects or actions used as prayer/meditative aids essentially. Most of the “stuff” of Catholicism fits this bill (Rosaries, holy cards, statues, etc). They don’t impart any grace in and of themselves, but help direct the Christian towards the source of all Grace, God.

Foot washing is not only a Pentecostal and SDA practice.

That issue came up when my parents were dating. Dad was Free Will Baptist (arminian) whose church practiced foot washing everytime they did communion. Mom was Southern Baptist who had never heard of foot washing.

 

[ltwin]

Before I ask this question, two things:

1. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want
2. I ask this educationally not argumentatively

Why do some Protestant groups take parts of the Bible so literally as to believe in a 6-day creation and a 6000-year-old Earth, and yet not take Jesus literally when he says “this IS my body”

Because they understand him to be talking figuratively.

 

[ltwin]

This is interesting, a possible Protestant “third” sacrament? I know it’s in practice in some groups but so far I’ve only personally known it done in SDA churches. How widespread is this practice do you think?

Footwashing as a practice is fairly widespread among Pentecostals. Belief that it is a sacrament or ordinance is less so. My church for example has practiced foot washing in the past, but we do not consider it an ordinance instituted by Christ.

The nearly 7 million Church of God in Christ and the over 7 million member Church of God (Cleveland, TN) believe it is an ordinance. There are other Pentecostal churches that believe its an ordinance, but these are two of the bigger ones.

For Catholics, the “sign of peace” which precedes the communion of the people is meant to serve the same function you describe, though obviously washing someone’s feet is a lot more intimate than the standard American Catholic practice of hand shaking. In other cultures though the act retains its intimate aspect. My fiancees family for instance is Vietnamese and you’d never bow to someone you were angry with or harbored resentment towards. In various Mediterranean countries the practice is to kiss on both cheeks, something that would probably also force you to confront any negative feelings.

Its fairly common for Pentecostals to also have a time in the service where we greet one another. In my church, people are encouraged to leave their seat and walk around the church greeting people as they circle back around.

 

[KathleenGee]

If people are having difficulty understanding the memorial, one must study the history of Jewish worship.

The Be’kaa is a practice of remembering…remembering an event. In ancient Jewish days, families broke bread every day before their meal to give God thanks for His providence.

You cannot understand the fullness of Catholicism without including its Jewish roots.

Roy Shoeman is Jewish, entered into the Church, and claims he experiences his jewish more as a universal Christian than before. You can go to his site, www.salvationisfromthejews.com.

Christ told His apostles first of all, ‘Do this in memory of Me’. They knew what He was saying…and declaring the new form of worship, the perpetual daily sacrifice of the Memorial.
The Last Supper was both the institution of the Eucharist as well as the priesthood and the authority given by Christ to Peter and His apostles.

The Mass is the fulfillment of the Jewish daily sacrifice to atone for sins.