The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve, et al,

The Catholics are justly referred to as sacramentalists, often with a negative connotation. I believe many evangelicals are more sacramentalist than they care to admit.

First, it seems good to let the Catholics define what a sacrament is. Webster's is of little help. In the Catholic Encyclopedia we find the following:

"Sacraments are an outward sign of an inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification."

And:

"...if it is known God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on man, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those divinely appointed means."

Allyn said in another post: "Some in the Church of Christ add to baptism a sacramental (grace is imparted at or through the act) aspect that is not in scripture".

I suppose I must enter my "mea culpa" (that is, if it is a fault ). I am a sacramentalist regarding baptism, and so, apparently, is my friend Paidion. There is an important difference, however, between my belief and that of the Catholic. I believe baptism to be an act of faith addressed to God, and having no efficacy apart from faith. The Catholic sees efficacy in the act of baptism, apart from faith, at least in regard to infants.

Steve believes the Baptism of the Spirit is received through the laying on of hands. By the definition given by the Catholic Encyclopedia, is not Steve's position a sacramental one? In both cases an outward, bodily act (confession, immersion in water, and laying on of hands) is the means, or at least the occasion, of receiving a blessing from God. And what of the recitation of the "sinner's prayer"? Is this not the outward act with an expected blessing?

I know for a fact there are some who lead a person through the "sinner's prayer" and then pronounce them saved. Have they invented a non-biblical practice while disparaging the Catholic for theirs? Are the Catholics the only ones guilty of inventing practices which become unexamined traditions, taken for granted to be practiced?

And what of the "slaying by the Spirit" we see practiced through the laying on of hands (ok, a not so subtle push ) practiced often by the televangelist?

Perhaps part of the problem is that in our minds we have defined a sacrament differently than the Catholics do. We tend to see it as somewhat like we view magic or superstition. And perhaps Catholic practice reinforces our perception.

I have heard a Christian speak disgustedly of Catholics and their "holy water". Noted Catholic apologist Carl Keating, in "What Catholics Really Believe", explains that there is nothing special about the water after it is blessed by the priest, nothing supertitious about it. It is still just water (with a touch of salt added). They do not believe the water does anything, it is simply used in their devotion. The water is "holy" in the sense of being set apart for sacred use. Evangelicals have dedication ceremonies for their buildings to set them apart for sacred use. How is this different in kind from the Catholics and their ceremony with their water?

My point in all this is to provoke a reexamination of attitudes toward the idea of sacraments. Are evangelicals totally "sacrament free" or do we have a double standard, being different from Catholics in degree and not in kind?

Hi Homer,

I think you're right. Evangelicals probably have just as many "sacraments" (outward expressions of inward conditions), if not more than do Catholics and therefore shouldn't be so critical.

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with sacraments though. Jesus commanded some of them (baptism for example) and at least suggested others (communion). The apostles practiced some (laying on of hands, annointing with oil, etc.). In the OT, people built altars and monuments to God as a remembrance. We are mostly physically oriented creatures and sometimes physical signs are a useful expression to help remember and confirm to ourselves (and others) certain spiritual realities. The only problem is when the expression itself becomes the only reality and there's really nothing going on spiritually at all. This is when it becomes "dead religion", which exists just as much in the Protestants as it does in the Catholics.

I suppose another problem might be the suggestion that some un-biblical sacraments are required or that one institution is the only valid place to practice it (as the RCC did in the middle ages).

Them's my thoughts.

Even the sacrament of the altar became a confused issue where the Jews started worshipping the sacrifice itself rather then placing the importance on the altar by which the sacrifice was accomplished. So, there is nothing new under the sun.

Homer,
I agree. It is very difficult to not fall into legalism. The emphasis can fall on the act because we can't see the heart of another person, so somtimes it's just easier to point to "sacrament" or ritual and and say "That's what you need to do". This, of course, overlooks the inward aspect that is the reality.