The Doctrine of the Sacraments
Have you heard of the ‘sacraments’? Do you know what they are and what their purpose is? The sacraments have an important place in the believer’s life but there are many Christians who are unclear about them. In dealing briefly and in a general way with this subject we shall note the positions held by the Reformers on the sacraments. We say ‘positions’ because the Reformers were not wholly united on this matter – and we observe that neither is the Protestant church today. There is however a view on the sacraments which may be termed the ‘Reformed’ view and we hope to indicate what that view is. In doing so we shall naturally make reference to the Reformed confessions and catechisms, particularly the Westminster Standards.
When we speak of ‘the sacraments’ we are referring to baptism and the Lord’s supper. We believe that these are the New Testament equivalents of circumcision and the passover under the Old Testament. It is not our intention here to deal with baptism and the Lord’s supper individually. Plenty of words have been written on both from all angles, highlighting the differences among Christians. Instead, if we can grasp the biblical idea of a ‘sacrament’ then we shall be enabled to come to a clearer understanding and better appreciation of the Reformed view of both baptism and the Lord’s supper.
1) The Name ‘Sacrament’
Here at the outset is a point of controversy. We said in our introduction that we should look at the biblical idea of a ‘sacrament’. But the word ‘sacrament’ does not occur in the Bible! To some that is a fatal flaw in the use of the term: they say that it shows us that the Reformers never really rid themselves of the relics of popery. A modern evangelical writer says of the term ‘sacrament’ as applied to the Lord’s supper: “Its origin is innocent enough but the term is not found in Scripture, it has always been the subject of fierce controversy and is probably best dropped from our vocabulary – if indeed it was ever included!” But is such reasoning sound? Could we not say something similar about the term ‘Trinity’?
The word ‘sacrament’ comes from the Latin sacramentum, meaning something consecrated or holy. There are two explanations for its adoption by the church.
One explanation concerns the Roman military. The ‘sacramentum’ was the oath by which a soldier solemnly pledged his obedience to his commander. This usage was taken up by the Christian church, for when a man was converted he came under an obligation to serve Jesus Christ as the Captain of his salvation. His willing participation in baptism and the Lord’s supper indicated his loyalty to the Saviour. These ‘badges’ distinguished him from the world.
Another explanation concerns the Greek New Testament. When it was translated into Latin in the 4th century A.D. the translators used the term ‘sacramentum’ to translate the Greek word musterion. This word occurs twenty-seven times in the New Testament and is always translated ‘mystery’ in the Authorised Version. In Scripture it means something that is unknown and unknowable until it is made known by divine revelation and divine illumination. This sense is apparent from the words of Christ Himself: “And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” (Matt.13:10,11) In the history of the church the term ‘sacramentum’ therefore came to indicate a wide range of doctrines and ordinances which, although published or public, had a spiritual meaning known only to believers.
Because of this uncertain background and meaning many, including some of the Reformers, were hesitant about the term ‘sacrament’. However the important thing about the term, just as with the term ‘Trinity’, is its usage. How has the church employed the term ‘sacrament’? What definition has she given to it? The following statements are representative of Reformed belief:
Heidelberg Catechism
“Q.66. What are the sacraments?
A. The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross.”
Westminster Shorter Catechism
“Q.92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.”
Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 27, Of the Sacraments):
“I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him; as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his word.”
2) The Nature of the Sacraments
With these definitions in mind we may now analyse the sacraments more closely. A sacrament may be divided into its component parts. Probably all, even the Church of Rome, are agreed that there are two parts to a sacrament. There is something visible and there is something invisible. There is a sign and there is something signified by that sign. In the Westminster Larger Catechism we read:
“Q.163. What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ’s appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.”
The visible sign is what makes a sacrament different from the preaching of the Word. Both convey gospel truths and gospel blessings. The purpose of a sacrament is the same as that of the Word, but its method is different. The Word of God is adapted to the ear and the sacraments to the eye. John Calvin wrote: “God uses means and instruments which he himself sees to be expedient, that all things may serve his glory, since he is Lord and Judge of all. He feeds our bodies through bread and other foods, he illumines the world through the sun, and he warms it through heat; yet neither bread, nor sun, nor fire, is anything save in so far as he distributes his blessings to us by these instruments. In like manner, he nourishes faith spiritually through the sacraments, whose one function is to set his promises before our eyes to be looked upon, indeed, to be guarantees of them to us.” (Institutes, IV.xiv.12) To Calvin the sacraments were the church’s true ‘images’. He stated: “When I ponder the intended use of churches, somehow or other it seems to me unworthy of their holiness for them to take on images other than those living and symbolical ones which the Lord has consecrated by his Word. I mean Baptism and the Lord’s supper, together with other rites by which our eyes must be too intensely gripped and too sharply affected to seek other images forged by human ingenuity.” (Institutes, I.xi.13)
The Reformers taught that by God’s own appointment the same grace which is brought to us in the preaching of the Word of God, that is Christ and the benefits of the new covenant, is also brought to us in the sacraments. In the sacraments we get the same grace of salvation but, as someone said, we get it better. In the Word Christ is presented directly to the understanding; in the sacraments Christ is also presented to the senses and via them to the understanding.
Without the Word the sacraments are unintelligible. That is why the sacraments are only properly administered when they are administered publicly within a congregation and in the context of the preaching of the gospel. Calvin wrote on the Lord’s supper: “The right administering of the Sacrament cannot stand apart from the Word. For whatever benefit may come to us from the supper requires the Word: whether we are to be confirmed in faith, or exercised in confession, or aroused to duty, there is need of preaching. Therefore, nothing more preposterous could happen in the supper than for it to be turned into a silent action, as has happened under the pope’s tyranny. For they wanted to have the whole force of the consecration depend upon the intention of the priest, as if it did not matter at all to the people, to whom the mystery ought most of all to have been explained.” (Institutes, IV.xvii.39) The Reformers would no more have approved of the modern practice, seen for instance in the Church of Scotland, of ‘house communions’ (i.e. a minister and perhaps an elder holding a short communion service with a housebound person) then they did of the Romish practice of ‘reserving the sacrament’ (i.e. reserving part of the consecrated bread of the eucharist for the communion of the sick).
We have seen the two parts of a sacrament. What constitutes it a sacrament is that by the institution and appointment of Christ there is a union between the two parts. It is over the nature of this union that the argument raged between Rome and the Reformers and disputes occurred among the Reformers themselves.
That there is a union between the sign and the thing signified in the sacrament is clear from the Bible. We find ‘sacramental language’ used in Scripture. Sometimes the name of the sign is given to the thing signified. Consider Titus 3:5: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Here the name of the sign of washing or baptism is given to the thing it signifies, i.e. regeneration. Sometimes the reverse occurs: the name of the thing signified is given to the sign. Think of Matthew 26:26-28: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Here the names of the things signified, i.e. the body and the blood of Christ, are given to the signs of bread and wine in the Lord’s supper.
What is the nature of this union between the sacramental sign and what it signifies? How shall we describe it? We may consider four different viewpoints:
Roman Catholicism
The sacraments are mechanisms of grace
Rome teaches that there is a physical union between the sign and the thing it signifies. Because of the divine institution the grace signified by the sacrament is contained in the sacrament itself, so that this grace is always conferred, ex opere operato, “by the work performed.” The relation is like that between a substance and its properties, as fire for instance has the property of burning or heat. So when the priest pronounces the appropriate words of consecration, the physical elements in the sacraments are invested with the grace they signify. The sacraments effect the thing they signify in an automatic way. It is a mechanical, even a magical, view.
Roman Catholicism holds that, when infants are baptised, they are ‘born again’. This teaching is often referred to as ‘baptismal regeneration’. Her claim regarding the mass goes even further. She says that in the mass the bread and wine are miraculously changed into the body and blood of the Lord. This is the doctrine known as ‘transubstantiation’. It is the basis for the extraordinary claim made for the mass, that it is a repetition of Christ’s self-offering at Calvary, but now in an unbloody manner. In A Catechism of Christian Doctrine published by the Catholic Truth Society in 1985 we read:
“278. Is the Holy Mass one and the same Sacrifice with that of the Cross?
The Holy Mass is one and the same Sacrifice with that of the Cross, inasmuch as Christ, who offered himself, a bleeding victim, on the Cross to his heavenly Father, continues to offer himself in an unbloody manner on the altar, through the ministry of his priests.”
Among the Reformers we have the following three viewpoints, representing the three branches of the Reformation:
Luther
The sacraments are messages of grace
Luther taught that there is a local union between the sign and the thing it signifies. The sign and the thing signified are held to be present in the same space or locality, so that all who receive the sacraments receive the full sacrament when they receive the sign. Applied to the Lord’s supper this teaching is known as ‘consubstantiation’. Yet Luther’s view and that of the Lutheran churches is to be distinguished from that of Rome for the following reasons given by A.A. Hodge in his Outlines of Theology:
“1. They reject the popish doctrine that the sacraments effect grace ex opere operato.
2. They maintain that their grace-conferring efficacy resides in the sacraments intrinsically.
3. That as an objective fact it is communicated to every recipient, whether he have faith or not.
4. But it takes effect only in those who have true faith to receive it. As the healing virtue resided in Christ whether the woman touched or not (Matt. ix. 20), yet it would not have availed her unless she had believed and touched.
5. They hold that this efficacy resides not in the sign or ceremony, but in the Word which accompanies the sign and constitutes it a sacrament. The efficacy is not due to the mere moral power of the truth, nor to the faith of the recipient, but it is supernatural, residing in the power of the Holy Ghost.”
This emphasis on the Word is constant in Luther and that is why we term his view “messages of grace.” In his Small Catechism Luther has the following series of questions and answers on ‘The Sacrament of Holy Baptism’:
“I. What is Baptism?
Ans. Baptism is not simply water, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command, and connected with God’s Word.
What is that Word of God?
Ans. It is that which our Lord Jesus Christ spoke, as it is recorded in the last chapter of Matthew, verse 19: ‘Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’
II. What gifts or benefits does Baptism confer?
Ans. It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and confers everlasting salvation on all who believe, as the Word and promise of God declare.
What are such words and promises of God?
Ans. Those which our Lord Jesus Christ spoke, as they are recorded in the last chapter of Mark, verse 16: ‘He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’
III. How can water produce such great effects?
Ans. It is not the water indeed that produces these effects, but the Word of God which accompanies and is connected with the water, and our faith, which relies on the Word of God connected with the water. For the water, without the Word of God, is simply water and no baptism. But when connected with the Word of God, it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and a ‘washing of regeneration’ in the Holy Ghost; as St. Paul says to Titus, in the third chapter, verses 5-8: ‘According to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.’ ”
Yet, we might well ask, what sort of grace is it that Luther sees in the sacraments? It is hardly saving grace if in so many cases it fails to achieve the regeneration and sanctification of those who receive baptism and the Lord’s supper. It will not do to say that it fails because some do not believe. That is to make our salvation dependent upon our faith and that is Arminianism. The grace of God is irresistible, as seen in verses of Scripture which speak of our effectual calling: “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace” (Gal.1:15); “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1Pet.2:9); “But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you” (1Pet.5:10).
Zwingli
The sacraments are memorials of grace
Zwingli taught that there is a mental union or association between the sign and the thing it signifies. This is at the opposite end of the spectrum to Rome. There is some doubt as to Zwingli’s exact views, and probably history has been unkind to him. However, in his conflict with Calvin he was perceived to hold, according to A.A. Hodge in his Outlines of Theology, that: “...the sign simply represents by appropriate symbols, and symbolical actions, the grace to which it is related. Thus the sacraments are only effective means of the objective presentation of the truth symbolised.”
This view was adopted by the Arminians and is found among many evangelicals today. The sacraments are seen as perpetual memorials of Christ’s work of redemption, and especially as the means by which believers should profess themselves to be Christ’s disciples in the sight of the church and the world. The idea of grace being communicated by the sacraments seems to have been lost. They have only a moral power over the conscience.
Calvin
The sacraments are means of grace
Calvin taught that there is a spiritual union between the sign and the thing it signifies. Where the sacrament is received in faith, the grace of God accompanies it. The external sign becomes a means employed by the Holy Spirit in the communication of divine grace.
There is an outward sign which signifies the grace. The sacraments are seals to God’s promise of salvation, to authenticate it to believers. As seals they do actually convey the grace they signify to those for whom that grace is intended by God.
Calvin wrote: “Let it be regarded as a settled principle that the sacraments have the same office as the Word of God: to offer and set forth Christ to us, and in him the treasures of heavenly grace.” (Institutes, IV.xiv.17) In this sense we do believe in the real presence of Christ in the sacraments; that Christ is present by His Spirit, just as He is is in the preaching of the gospel, to bless the souls of His people.
The English Puritan William Ames wrote in The Marrow of Theology: “The spiritual nourishment in this sacrament does not require that the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ, or that Christ be corporally present with them. It is required only that they be changed in their application and use, and that Christ be spiritually present with those who receive them in faith.”
The Westminster Confession states in Chapter 27:
“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.
III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power m them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.”
3) The Number of the Sacraments
Having considered the nature of the sacraments we are now able to look at their number. While we regard baptism and the Lord’s supper alone among God’s ordinances as having the nature of sacraments Rome and the so-called ‘Orthodox’ churches have enlarged the number of sacraments from two to seven. Rome even claims Scriptural ground for them. The seven claimed sacraments, with the verses alleged to support them are: baptism; confirmation (Acts 8:17, 14:22; 19:6; Heb.6:2); the Lord’s supper; penance (Jam.5:16); holy orders (1Tim.4:14; 2Tim.1:6); marriage (Eph.5:32); extreme unction (often referred to as the ‘last rites’) (Mark 6:13; Jam.5:14).
Rome claims that in the case of these extra five sacraments the sacrament conveys not only the general grace of sanctification but also a special sacramental grace, different in each case. But can these extra five really claim to be sacraments? A true sacrament must satisfy certain biblical requirements. It must:
(a) be commanded by Christ;
(b) be a sign and symbol of God’s grace in Christ;
(c) be perpetual, i.e., to be observed in the church until Christ returns;
(d) be a seal intended to strengthen the faith of those who receive it.
The five additional ‘sacraments’ of Rome, rejected by the Reformers, obviously do not qualify as true sacraments of Christ’s church for the following reasons:
a) confirmation, penance and extreme unction are not divine institutions at all, having no genuine basis in Scripture;
b) holy orders and marriage, although divine institutions, fail on other counts. Ordination to the gospel ministry, although instituted directly by Christ, does not represent Christ and the benefits of the new covenant; it does not represent our Lord’s work of salvation. Marriage, although a divine institution, and although a type of Christ and His church, was instituted in paradise before the fall and is found in every culture, and so cannot be said to represent Christ and the benefits of the new covenant.
In the Westminster Confession we are taught in Chapter 27:
“IV. There be 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.
V. The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.”
4) The Necessity of the Sacraments
Finally we must look at the question of the necessity of the sacraments. Are the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper necessary for salvation? The answer is, No, they are not necessary for the being of a Christian, but Yes, they are necessary for the well-being of a Christian. No, they are not necessary for justification and reconciliation with God, but Yes, they are necessary for and sanctification and growth in grace.
As ever there are two extremes to be avoided in our understanding of this truth. Firstly there is the position that we cannot be saved without the sacraments. This is the stance of the Church of Rome. In the Catechism of 1985 referred to earlier we read:
“261. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?
Baptism is necessary for salvation, because Christ has said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’.”
Earlier questions and answers indicate how Rome arrives at this view:
“256. What is Baptism?
Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and members of the Church.
257. Does Baptism also forgive actual sins?
Baptism also forgives actual sins, with all punishment due to them, when it is received in proper dispositions by those who have been guilty of actual sin.”
With baptism given this unscriptural place the result is an unscriptural practice:
“258. Who is the ordinary minister of Baptism?
The ordinary minister of Baptism is a priest; but any one may baptize in case of necessity, when a priest cannot be had.”
Rome says that in an ‘emergency’, for example when a baby is dying, baptism may be administered by a layman, such as a hospital nurse, even by syringing water into the womb.
Secondly there is the position that we do not need the sacraments. This is the stance of groups such as the Society of Friends or ‘Quakers’ and the Salvation Army. It is suggested that baptism and the Lord’s supper were given by Christ to the New Testament church as helpful during its infancy but not required thereafter. But Scripture says: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” (1Cor.11:26)
The proper balance is maintained in the Reformed faith. The Westminster Confession in Chapter 28, Of Baptism, states:
“V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptised are undoubtedly regenerated.”
While a person who has not had opportunity to enjoy the sacraments, like the thief on the cross, may indeed be saved through faith in Jesus Christ yet if he refuses and rejects the sacraments we must question whether the faith he claims to have is genuine, saving faith.
We are thankful for the sacraments which the Lord in His wisdom and love has left in His church. Let us value our baptism as the sacrament of our union with Christ, performed once to signify and seal to us our regeneration by the Spirit, the remission of our sins and our pledge to walk with Christ. Let us also value the Lord’s supper as the sacrament of our communion with Christ, celebrated often to signify and seal to us our Saviour’s death for our sins, the provision to us of all needed grace and our engagement to be the Lord’s faithful servants.
