Do Baptists have Sacraments?

[Aaron]

Hello Tom,

I would be among those Baptists that employ the word sacrament to speak of the Lord's Supper and Baptism. To be sure, some people may think that the word itself involves some sort of "saving efficacy" as you put it, but that is not what the word means or why the church employed it in the past. The word comes from "mystery" and if I recall it precisely means an outward sign (or symbol if you like) of an inward grace.

I prefer the word because I think it is a better description of Baptist views than "ordinance." I don't quibble with those who avoid the word sacrament, but I do think Baptists have a knack for purposely avoiding things because they may look too "Catholic." Unfortunately, they can avoid meditating on some marvelous things like partaking of the Lord's Supper and Baptism and how the experience of performing these acts give the person some grace by participating in them (feeling the water bury them as a token of dying with Christ; crunching on the bread that represents His body and feeling the wine that represents His blood go down the throat to nourish him; meditating on what these things represent). I'm not arguing for a Tridentine "ex opere operato," but I am saying that Baptists of all people should enjoy how the experience of performing actions themselves should lead to mysterious and grace-filled experiences. After all, we only allow believers to partake of them.

I could perhaps clarify what I'm saying by appealing to the sacrament of the Word. I don't think Baptists have ever abandoned this sacrament. Sure, Baptists usually avoid the word sacrament, but they listen to the preaching the Word and read it and by doing so can experience nothing other than mysterious and grace-filled experiences. God speaks to them in the Word and presents things to them in the Word that He would not have otherwise without their attentive listening, reading, and meditating. People in the Christian tradition included the Word as a sacrament for precisely this reason. Baptists today still use the Word in this way, but avoid the terminology. The Reformed tradition, for one, will even speak of the Lord's Table as the "visible Word."

Well I've probably written too much, but that is my point of view.

Excellent! :thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

Chasing a rabbit here--uh, tater. Ed, since you're a Kentuckian, you know about Tater Day in Benton, KY in the spring. Big community event. But somehow, it would not quite be the same to call it Potato Day. Same with the ordinances--somehow calling them sacraments just doesn't seem the same.

Actually, I didn't know about Tater Day, but I do know a bit about the Banana Festival, and, of course, the Fancy Farm Picnic in the same neck of the woods.

Ed

 

[swaimj]

I read Brandon C. Jones’ comments several days ago and have re-read them several times. I appreciated your post and found it thought-provoking. I must confess I am still not comfortable, as a Baptist, with us using the word “sacrament”. Let me interact with some quotes from you as I explain why.

To be sure, some people may think that the word itself involves some sort of "saving efficacy" as you put it, but that is not what the word means or why the church employed it in the past.

The church in the past has not had a uniform meaning for the word and that is part of the problem with using it. Use of the word can and does become a point of confusion. From about the fourth century on, the word HAS been connected with “saving efficacy”. I have no doubt that this is a corruption of the original intent of the word, but it is a corruption that became dominant and arguably connects the word “sacrament” with saving efficacy through sacerdotalism. So, I have trouble using the word because of the historical misuse of it. That's too bad in a way, but ultimately, word meaning is based upon usage.

The word comes from "mystery" and if I recall it precisely means an outward sign (or symbol if you like) of an inward grace.

I do not believe that, for instance, the bread of which we partake in communion is merely an outward sign of an inward grace. To say this is to grossly understate the meaning of the bread. The bread is a finite, comprehensible symbol of infinite, incomprehensible grace. Because grace is infinite and incomprehennsible, the bread does not contain grace. It does not give grace, nor could it. God’s grace is far too infinite to be actually contained in the bread and the grace we need is far too great to be contained in the bread.

...partaking of the Lord's Supper and Baptism and how the experience of performing these acts give the person some grace by participating in them

I find the order in this statement to be troubling. The order, if I understand what you are saying is, we partake of the bread, then we receive grace. In actuality, we have already received grace at salvation. The means of receiving grace is faith. The grace we have already received now motivates us to fellowship with Christ in celebrating his death and resurrection and in anticipating his return. Your paradigm seems to be: do the obedient act of eating the bread and receive grace. I believe the proper paradigm is: You who have received grace through faith, joyfully enter into the fellowship meal.

So for me, "sacrament" does not seem to be a fitting word to describe the elements in the Lord's table.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Hello Swaimj,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I just have three comments. Your response to my second statement that you quote surely misses the point. The outward sign is not the elements (bread and wine) but the action itself--the experience. I will say, though, that God uses that experience to give grace and if grace cannot come to finite men, than what good is it for? I know of no reason to say that grace cannot come to someone unless it is somehow comprehensible. Nonetheless, we agree that grace is not contained in bread as it is not contained in the paper that composes your Bible. No, God uses the experience of these sacraments as means of grace.

My third quote in your post shows how the experience itself is a means of grace not the elements. The order is that you are saved and as a saved person you can experience all that the Lord's Supper is supposed to be. My paradigm is that grace through faith allows one to receive more grace and one of these means of more grace is the Lord's table. I find it troubling that posters here equate grace with salvation and imply that there is no more for the Christian life after that. I don't think this is justified or helpful. Salvation is salvation and grace is grace: why conflate the two?

I don't think we differ much on stressing that being saved (receiving the grace of salvation) allows for one to join in the fellowship of the meal, but I'm willing to attach grace to the experience of enjoying that meal while others do not. My paradigm stresses neither obedience (that's the realm of ordinance talk) nor any notion of "do this and receive grace" (I already mentioned that I am not arguing for a Tridentine view), but rather it goes back a step to asking why we are to do this? Why does God meet us here?

Blessings,
BJ

 

[swaimj]

Believe me, Brandon, I am very sympathetic to what you are saying. Can participation in the Lord’s supper be an emotional and spiritual experience? Yes! Often it has been for me and I hope others are experiencing such as well. My hope is that the Lord’s supper in Baptist churches is no mere ritual. However, is it a sacrament that gives one grace? Let me interact with some of what you said again:

The outward sign is not the elements (bread and wine) but the action itself--the experience.

I appreciate your distinction between grace being in the element and grace being in the action itself. Still, can human actions prompt grace? I say “no”. Grace comes first and human actions are the response.

I will say, though, that God uses that experience to give grace and if grace cannot come to finite men, than what good is it for? I know of no reason to say that grace cannot come to someone unless it is somehow comprehensible.

I have not argued that grace cannot come to men. What I do argue is that grace comes to men through one conduit and one only—faith. Faith is the only channel by which to receive grace.

Nonetheless, we agree that grace is not contained in bread as it is not contained in the paper that composes your Bible. No, God uses the experience of these sacraments as means of grace.

Sorry, but this is where I disagree. We cannot earn nor prompt grace by eating or drinking a substance. This is the heart of my disagreement with you.

My paradigm is that grace through faith allows one to receive more grace and one of these means of more grace is the Lord's table.

There is no doubt that grace is a continuing need in the Christian life. To receive the needed grace, one must continually live by faith. All the grace that one needs for life and godliness was provided in the cross and one must continually live by faith, thereby receiving grace. No additional grace is created or accessed by eating the elements in the Lord’s table.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Hello again Swaimj,

Your post was helpful in clarifying our differences. We've most likely reached an impasse, but that's ok.

I can't fathom your understanding of faith and grace and you can't fathom mine.

Somehow you have the impression that my thoughts on sacraments do not involve faith. It may be my fault. Let me be clear, I believe that God has promised to meet us in the sacraments by faith. I believe that God has "ordained" (hey I'm not too scared of that word) these human actions as a means of experiencing his grace through faith, so there is no earning or prompting on the human side of things anymore than faith in Christ earns or prompts salvation.

Why did God command us to do them in the first place? For ritual's sake? Why do you disagree when I say we receive grace (faith being the only conduit of course) in the experiences? Is this grace in the sacraments unrelated to the cross and resurrection? I guess it boils down to what one means by "grace." I don't understand why people think or assume that grace and faith are not involved in the sacraments.

As a Baptist, I assume that you believe (have faith) that God will speak to you in the experience of His Word whether it be preached or read. I also believe that God will speak to me in the experiences of the sacraments. I also believe that God will speak to me in other experiences, but he has commanded that we participate in the sacraments. (Perhaps the ordinance people are onto something?). This divine speaking, when it bolsters faith and draws us to our Saviour is nothing less than grace.

You say that one must continually live by faith, and I agree and say that God graciously gave us the sacraments to help us continually live by faith. We should observe them often as such. We are commanded to do other things to help us continually live by faith including meeting together and listening to the Word. These experiences are means of grace available to us as well if we approach them with faith in God's promise.

If it's not a ritual for you as you say, then what is it but obedience without reflection? If there is reflection that takes you to Christ and bolsters your faith, then why stop short of calling that grace? Do you have another concept in mind to describe the experience?

 

[swaimj]

Brandon said:

I guess it boils down to what one means by "grace." I don't understand why people think or assume that grace and faith are not involved in the sacraments.

Yes. At this point I have the feeling we are simply talking past each other. What is the definition of grace that you employ when you say that the sacrament is a means of grace?