The Bible as 'sacrament'?

The early Anabaptists and General Baptists referred to them as sacraments. Sacrament also means a "sacred commitment and was used in making oaths" though many such as myself have no problem calling them a means of grace if understood in the traditional Protestant sense (Calvinist and Arminians) that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are a pledge from God of what Christ has done for us.

This is basically what John Calvin stated,
An outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith;

The 1611 General Baptist Confession states in a similar fashion,

That the outward baptism and supper do not confer and convey grace and regeneration to the participants or communicants; but as the word preached, they serve only to support and stir up the repentance and faith of the communicants till Christ come, till the day dawn, and the day-star arise in their hearts

That the sacraments have the same use that the word hath; that they are a visible word, and that they teach to the eye of them that understand as the word teacheth the ears of them that have ears to hear (Prov. xx. 12), and therefore as the word appertaineth not to infants, no more do the sacraments.

That the preaching of the word, and ministry of the sacraments, representeth the ministry of Christ in the spirit; who teacheth, baptizeth, and feedeth the regenerate, by the Holy Spirit inwardly and invisibly


The well known Dutch Anabaptist Menno Simons
These are the sacraments that Jesus Christ established: First the holy baptism of believers in which we bury our sinful flesh, take on a new life, seal and confess our faith, testify to the new birth and a good conscience to rise and follow Christ. Second, the holy meal in which is represented the Lord's death. Jesus dies in love. In the nighttime meal we learn to die to sin and to love according to the Word of God


Anabaptist preacher Dirk Philips wrote,

Whenever the Gospel is believed and the sacraments of the Lord are received with true faith, the Holy Spirit enters the heart. Then, if we meditate upon the mystery hidden in the sacraments, the Spirit renews daily the lost image of God. He gives knowledge and increases faith, hope, love, patience, and all the divine virtues

Baptism brings you into the fellowship of a local church with all it's privileges and helps us progress in our sanctification and so is a way in which God blesses us with His grace.


In the Lord's Supper we commune with Jesus Christ spiritually by faith and thus again are blessed by God's grace that he left us these 2 sacraments. They are not a means of grace in the Roman Catholic sense (I believe that is what the 1611 Baptist confession is stating) but they are not empty symbols in the Zwinglian sense either. That is evident in the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689.

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

I am not sure what your question means. The Word of God has never ceased to exist but has always been preached. The Word of God is a means of Grace though not a Sacrament/Ordinance.

Reformed Theologian Louis Berkhof stated concerning the Word of God,

The Word as a means of grace consists of two parts, namely, the law and the gospel. The law as a means of grace first of all serves the purpose of bringing men under conviction of sin, Rom. 3:20, making him conscious of his inability to meet the demands of the law, and becoming his tutor to lead him to Christ, Gal. 3:24. In the second place it is also the rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation. The gospel is a clear representation of the way of salvation revealed in Jesus Christ. It exhorts the sinner to come to Christ in faith and repentance, and promises those who truly repent and believe all the blessings of salvation in the present and in the future. It is the power of God unto salvation for every one that believeth.

 

I think that is probably an overstatement. I don't think that they believe the Bible is their relationship with God. And I disagree with them severely and would consider them false teachers ... but they do not believe that the Bible is our relationship with God, at least none that I know about.

There is no contradiction at all. Christ saves us by grace through faith. The message is a vital part of that salvation for "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ" (or about Christ; Rom 10:17). "The word of the cross (message about the cross) is foolish to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God unto salvation." But the Bible does not save. The point of inerrancy is simply that if you don't believe in an inerrant Bible, then you have a de facto defective view of God. A saved person does not trust God simply on some issues; he trusts God on all issues.

Christ is the revelation of God; so is the Scripture. The Bible is God-breathed. That is a term of revelation and "God" is the source of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that God only revealed himself in one way.

If you are learning about God, all of those things (preaching, worship, dialogue, etc) are based on the Bible, which means you are not coming to know God without the Bible.

 

1John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

We can't keep His commandments if we don't know what they are. We cannot know the Lord without His word. We may know of Him, we may see the effects of His work, but we cannot truly know Him. A person may be eternally saved and not know the Lord, but those who are not known of Him will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Matthew 7
21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

1Co 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

You can be saved by hearing Jesus preached. I suppose that would be an encounter with God, whatever you want to call it. Believing the gospel is not the same as having fellowship with Christ. So if you are arguing that you can be saved without the bible, your partially right. But what is preached to them must have come from the bible, what private revelation could one have to preach that would bring someone to eternal salvation?

Romans 10
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If, by encountering God, you are talking about some kind of experiential knowledge outside of revelation in the Bible, I suppose that is possible as well. But you still have the responsibility to test that knowledge by scripture. Anything that contradicts the word is not of God.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

Any encounter with God that is not based on the truth of the Bible is not an encounter with God. Any times you are learning about God or fellowshipping with God or enountering God, it is on the basis of his word, whether it is open in front of you, whether it is being read or taught publicly or in a small group, or whether tid-bits of it are coming ot your mind in prayer and worship. There is no encounter with God that comes apart from his word.

Take your own list example.

private study, -- of God's word.
hearing a sermon, -- from God's word (if it is not from God's word, then it isn't an encounter with God).
fellowship with Christian friends, -- If this is an encounter with God, then Scripture is involved somehow.

reading the words and studying the lives of Christians from previous ages, -- seeing the fruits of Scripture in their lives. But all history, even Christian history, is not an encounter with God. It may be just history.

prayer, worship etc. -- both based on his word if they are true prayer and worship.

The fact remains that we do not know any propositional truth about God apart from his word. It is his word that reveals him to us.

Your statement about people being martyred before the Scripture was finished and about Jesus walking around completely misses the point. They were having encounters with God (to use your term) through propositional revelation. That is the point of the word. Back then, the written word was coming in stages, and they were still in the time of revelation. Christ himself pre-authenticated the NT word when he spoke to his disciples about their future writing, so in fact, he did give us instruction to rely on the written word.

 

So what has been revealed through private testimony or experience about the Lord that is not found in the word? Bring forth the matter so we may test it. I had an experience with the Holy Spirit that deeply affected me and changed my life, but I didn't learn anything new about the Lord. Rather I learned some things about myself and how I had disbelieved those things which I already knew from the word. Cessation of sign gifts happened, its not really debateable. If the 'gifts' that are being manifested in churches today are truly the gifts of the Spirit, they are a recent revival. I don't believe that the tongues you see today has anything in common with the tongues in the bible, thats another debate.

Our testimony may be a tool for witnessing to others about Jesus Christ, but it ought to be used to lead others to the word. We should not allow it to supercede the written word of God. We would be cursed if we were to say that we had a revelation from God that overruled scripture.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

If you believe that God has continued to reveal Himself outside of His word, you should be very careful what you are preaching. I have seen God answer prayers. He is indeed active in the Church today. But He has already given us everything we need to know in the bible.

 

No, actually it works for all who believe what God has said about his word.

Not at all. Testimony is great, but testimony only confirms what the word already says. Experience is valid only when it conforms to the revealed truth of God's word.

Apples and oranges. God did not see fit to preserve those encounters because they apparenlty were not necessary for life and godliness. This comes down to believing his word. If Christ were still on earth, then you would have a valid point, but he is not ... so your point is invalid, based on what Scripture itself says.

 

Matt, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Christ is necessary for life and godliness, but when you quote the verse accurately, it is the knowledge of Christ that is necessary ... and that comes only through the word of God. If you do not know the word, then you do not have what is necessary.

As for the issue of whose interpretation is right, the answer is simple: That one that is right. Profound, I know ... But think about it. The fact that you believe in teh continuation of miraculous gifts does not make it so. Your belief is not hte standard of truth (nor is mine). The Scripture clearly teaches cessationism ... which makes that not a good discussion for this topic. Admittedly, cessationism is not a core doctrine of the faith on which Christianity rises or falls, but that is not to say that there is legitimate debate about it. Having said that, on the core doctrines of Scripture, the Bible is more than clear. There are no real issues of debate on those subjects. People give this argument way too much credit. It is really an invalid argument.

Secondly, you not only can criticize the JWs, you must criticize then because they teach contrary to the truth of Scripture. It it not a matter of interpretation.

 

The Scripture ... That is exactly that point. You are not permitted to say anything at all from Scripture. You must say what Scripture says.

Again, the Scriptures. We are not the authority. Scripture is. The fact that people use it wrongly (and in so doing take the Lord's name in vain) does not mean that the right interpretation cannot be found and held.

 

Yes it does Matt. We have been through this before and shown the very clear case from SCritpure that sign gifts have ceased because their purpose has ceased. Again, the issue is not belief; it is truth. Truth is true regardless of whether one accepts it or not. It cannot be relegated to merely a place of personal acceptance.

 

You can say it, but the problem is that you don't have the authority of hte Bible behind it and I think that is hte problem with the relativistic view you are taking. You are putting truth in the realm of understanding ... as if something is true only if I understand or agree with it. That simply will not pass muster. We do not have the option of simply disregarding the teaching of the Bible because we decide a different interpretation is right. The Bible is the authority and we must submit our theology and practice to that, not the other way around.