Chapter 3: Word and Sacraments
1. In how many senses can one speak of grace?
In three senses:
a)As an attribute of God. Then in a broader sense grace is unmerited favor and in a more specific sense, that favor toward sinners. This grace has no means by which it is induced or brought about. It chooses and creates its own means. The entire plan of salvation, not excluding the Mediator, is a fruit of this grace.
b)As an objective gift in Christ. In Him as the exalted Mediator is found the basis of all manifestations of favor granted to the sinner. From His fullness we have all received grace for grace [John 1:16]. The means by which this grace was obtained and brought about are found in the satisfaction of the Savior.
c)As a subjective action in us. Everything that happens in us or to us as the outworking of the attribute of God and the gift of grace in Christ is called grace in the specific sense of the word. And this third grace is in view when we speak of the means of grace. There are certain instruments by which God wills for us to come to know and to apply His favor residing in Christ. These are means connected with the communication of grace. Grace is hereby taken in its widest sense, so that it is not limited to effectual, seeking, or regenerating grace, but includes everything that happens subjectively in or below our consciousness.
2. What follows when we understand the word “grace” in the expression “means of grace” in this way?
A certain indefiniteness that makes it difficult for us at a first glance to delineate sharply the concept of the means of grace. Everything that God uses as a means in order to show me any unmerited favor and by which He acts for my good then becomes a means of grace. There is common grace and special grace. But what serves for receiving and granting the former must also count as a means of grace. What occurs in the sphere of God’s providence cannot be excluded. Through the particular circumstances of life, God can act on me, and it is grace from Him when He does this. However, one senses that we cannot let the expression depend on this indefinite sense. The concept, taken so generally, would lose its theological significance for us.
3. In what way can one place some limits on this generalization?
a)By showing that many of these things that one would like to call means of grace, in the widest sense, are not such in an independent way and by virtue of their own content, but only through the connection into which they are brought with instrumentalities that are the proper means of grace. One or another experience that I have in my life can certainly be used by God to strengthen the life of grace in me, but it could not do this by itself. It does this only because it brings me anew into contact with the Word of God and has as its consequence a new application of that Word to my life. It is therefore not a means of grace in the proper sense.
b)By saying that not every connection with preparatory grace or with common grace makes something a means of grace, but only the specific connection with the regenerating, effectual, converting, justifying, sanctifying grace of God. Said more succinctly: its connection with the beginning and the continuation of special grace. If something is not connected with that in one way or another, it may not be called a means of grace.
c)By saying that something must be linked with the gracious working of God not just incidentally on a single occasion but that it must be the regular, ordained means that accompanies that working. The means of grace are constant, not exceptional.
If we accept these three conditions, then it appears that they only apply to the Word of God and the sacraments. These two are the only means of grace in the narrower sense.
4. Is the concept “means of grace” (media gratiae), so understood, valued equally by all?
No, varying value is attributed to it. There are those who deny all ordered working of grace, who compare it to the blowing of the wind, in which man can discover neither a law nor a norm. Grace is then tied to nothing—neither to the church nor to office, neither to Word nor to sacrament. It comes and it goes, just as God wills it (mystics).
Others go less far but will not acknowledge an organic connection between inward grace and outward means. The former works, according to them, not unrestrained and arbitrarily but nonetheless completely controlled by its own secret law, as life that spreads and proliferates in a certain sphere (the Ethical theologians).
Still others will have grace bound completely to the means, and then in different ways. In the first place, one can identify it with the natural significance of the means. The Word of God then works, for example, through its reasonable, moral content, convincing and admonishing (Rationalists). One can also let it flow into the outward means in a supernatural way, so that they actually cease being natural means but change into something higher, so that, for example, in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper bread and wine become flesh and blood, or the water of baptism washes away sin ex opere operato, “through the worked work” (Roman Catholics). Finally, one can bind grace completely to its means in a secret manner, so that it does remain distinguished from these means but still occurs nowhere separated from them (Lutherans).
The Reformed doctrine of the means of grace may never be confused with any of these views.
5. Where does the difference between us and the Ethical theologians lie?
In this: that the order and regularity that God follows in the working of grace is not a mystical inward one, set for it by a life process, but an objective, outward one, determined by the ministry of God’s covenant according to Scripture.
6. Where does the difference between us and the mystics lie?
In this: that we do not acknowledge any working of God’s grace other than in the orbit where the Word of God from Scripture is present. God works sovereignly, but not in a disorderly or arbitrary manner. In general, He has circumscribed the working of grace by the means of grace.
7. Where does the difference between us and the Rationalists lie?
In this: that according to us grace makes use of the means, and is served by them, but is not identical with the means. When under the preaching of God’s Word sinners are regenerated, then it is still something other than the convicting moral power of the Word that causes the change in them from death to life. The working of grace as the action of God and the means of grace are things that accompany each other organically, but nevertheless in no sense coincide.
8. What is the difference between Rome and us on this point?
a)When we say that the means of grace are ordained by God in order to keep us in union with Christ in an objective way, and so to cause grace to flow to us from Him objectively, then it is immediately apparent of how great importance it is not to place something else in back of the means of grace that intervenes between them and Christ. Rome does exactly that. Behind the means of grace, between these and Christ, stands the Catholic Church. That is why it always speaks of “the means of grace of the Holy Church.” Grace is deposited in it; therefore it has the means of grace at its disposal.
b)From this first difference flows a second. One can easily see that the Word of God does not lend itself easily to the Roman Catholic concept of a means of grace. A means of grace, as Rome conceives it, must be, strictly speaking, a thing, a work, an action, not a thought, a word that brings God’s thoughts to our souls. Only the sacraments really fit in this system. They are means of grace as Rome requires them to be. The Word has something general, something unofficial, something extra-ecclesiastical about it that Rome does not know what to do with. The result of this is that for Rome it must recede into the background. For Rome the Word is not honored half as much as it is for the church of the Reformation. If the latter is the church of the Word, Rome is the church of the sacrament. Not as if Rome in theory would deny the value and the significance of the Word, but in practice it comes down to that denial. The worship of a Roman Catholic constantly gravitates to the sacrament.
c)This is not all. The Word thus forced into the background cannot remain what it is and ought to be for Rome. It is externalized. The gospel is changed into a law. Faith, as was seen earlier, becomes historical faith instead of saving faith. And Word and faith, both, no longer bring real grace; they belong to the preparatory stage. Grace in the specific sense first begins where a person receives his first sacrament from the hands of the Church. However much happened to him previously, he cannot have received grace before or apart from the sacrament; he has remained without grace. With us, precisely the reverse occurs. The Word is the beginning, middle, and end. If necessary, we can think of Word as a means of grace without sacrament, but it is impossible to think of sacrament as a means of grace without Word. The sacraments depend on Scripture, and the truth of Scripture speaks in and through them.
9. What is the difference between the Lutherans and us?
Initially, Luther stood where Calvin stood. Later, in reaction to a fanatical trend, he took a step back toward Rome and taught something about the Word similar to what Rome taught about the sacraments. The Holy Spirit has become incarnate—flesh, as it were—in Scripture. Since Scripture has come into existence, the power of the Holy Spirit resides only in Scripture. Even when that Word of Scripture is not spoken, not preached, not read, it still has the power of the Spirit in it. As the power of procreation is in a seed, the power of sight in the eye, so the power of conversion is in the Word. In the controversy with Rathmann (1612–1628), who challenged these conceptions, the Lutheran view was developed in all pointedness. Rathmann said that it meant dishonor for Christ and the Holy Spirit to so interpose something between Him and man. It may not be denied that in this he was right. The theologians on the other side went so far as to maintain that the Word is God, a “piece of God” (verbum Dei esse aliquid Dei), “an outflow of God.” We have to do here with a divinization of Scripture, a communication of divine attributes to Scripture, as it were. It began to be asked whether Scripture could still be called a creature.
Connected with this great significance ascribed by the Lutherans to the Word as Word is the fact that they had a separate locus in their dogmatics for “the Word of God,” that is, not only at the beginning, where the Word of God must be discussed as the source of knowledge of theology, but immediately before the doctrine of the sacraments. The Reformed, of course, also discussed the Word of God at the beginning, but generally did not have a separate treatment of the Word insofar as it is a means of grace. From the doctrine of the church they generally went on to the doctrine of the sacraments. This was something of a lacuna. One may not overlook, however, that the two parts of which God’s Word consists, law and gospel, also had to be discussed elsewhere. The law, then, is the requirement within the covenant of works, and the gospel has its place within the covenant of grace. It appeared therefore less necessary to dedicate a special discussion to the unity of these two as the Word of God. Lutheran dogmatics was not covenant theology, as was Reformed dogmatics. Hence the difference.
See the Heidelberg Catechism, answer 65: “From the Holy Spirit, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and strengthens it by the use of the sacraments” (cf. also the Belgic Confession, article 33).
10. What is distinctive about the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace?
a)That effectual grace only works where the means of grace are present.
b)At least at one point it works directly, without any means being used—namely, in regeneration.
c)Even when it works mediately, it is not bound up entirely with the means but accompanies them and causes the soul to be receptive to them, so that there is a concurrence of two factors, each of which does its particular work; and they belong with each other.
d)The Word of God is never separated from the sacrament—not only because the sacrament is a word, conveyed in an image and intended for the eye, but also because a spoken word always accompanies the sacrament.
e)All knowledge given to the person granted grace is taken from the Word of God. There is certainly an immediate working of grace, but not an immediate communication of knowledge.
11. In how many senses can the expression “the word of God” be understood?
a)The Word of God can mean the Logos, the personal Word (John 1:1).
b)The word of God can be every word of power spoken by God. At the creation God spoke such a word, and subsequently He has so spoken repeatedly. This word of God is thus something other than Scripture. Mention is made of such words of power in Scripture, but not all of them are recorded for us. Some wish to see that the word of God is spoken of in this sense when regeneration is attributed to it (e.g., Jas 1:18). With this, they say, the Word of Scripture is not meant but the word of God’s power that proceeds out of His mouth and effects re-creation. See, however, what was noted regarding these texts in treating the doctrine of regeneration.
c)All revelations that God has given to man and in which He communicates His counsel can be called the word of God. Those revelations are contained in Scripture, and to the extent this is the case one can say: God’s word is in Scripture. But this may never lead to a denial of the other affirmation, that:
d)Scripture as a whole is the Word of God. In a plain and clear manner one must give an account of the basis on which Scripture is called this. It is called this in its entirety for two reasons:
1.Because it is inspired by God. It makes no difference what is communicated in it, whether the words of men, of angels, of Satan, or of God Himself. God Himself vouches for each of those words as if it were His own account to us. If the Evil One is presented as speaking, then it is certainly his words that form the content of the discourse, but it is God who recounts these words to us as spoken by Satan. The account is God’s word to us.
2.Because the various parts of this inspired Scripture have been so ordered and arranged that the whole, however manifold and diverse it may be, forms one discourse of God to us. The one part functions with the others such that it becomes the whole: all that God wishes to convey to our minds in order to bring us to understand His entire counsel for salvation. The account of the fall thus forms an integral part of the Word of God, not only because it is an inspired account, for the truth of which God vouches word for word, but also because it makes up a part of what God wills to bring to our understanding in connection with law and gospel.
12. In what sense is God’s Word a means of grace?
In the sense in which we use it of the whole of Scripture. It is then usually differentiated into two parts, namely, law and gospel.
13. In how many ways is the law contained in the Word of God used as a means of grace?
One usually speaks of a threefold use of the law:
a)A usus politicus and civilis: a civil use. The law serves to prevent a profuse outbreak of sin. It is a restraint on sin, an aid to promote civil righteousness.
b)A usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus: a convicting use, by which it serves as a disciplinarian, convicts man of his sin and inability so that he might go to Christ, who has fulfilled the law.
c)A usus didacticus, normativus: a didactic, normative use for the believer. For him the law becomes a rule of life, according to which he orders his life out of true thankfulness. This is the so-called tertius usus legis, “the third use of the law,” about which conflict arose in the Lutheran church between Agricola and his opponents.
Reformed dogmatics laid the emphasis, above all, on this third use of the law. The law is not treated so intentionally as promoting repentance, as happens with the Lutherans. Our [Heidelberg] Catechism treats the law in its teaching on gratitude, and so do many dogmaticians who treat the Decalogue under sanctification. Only in the second and the third use can the law be seen as a means of grace. In the first use it only accompanies common grace, not special grace.
14. What is nature of the relationship between law and gospel?
We saw earlier that there is a sharp division, indeed an antithesis made in Scripture, especially by Paul, between the law and the promise. Proceeding from this, many theologians say that everything in Scripture that relates to demands and commandments belongs to the law; everything that relates to unconditional promises belongs to the gospel. So, if “believe,” “repent,” etc. is spoken of, then because it is in the form of a demand, it must be reckoned as belonging to the law. The result of this would be that much that we usually reckon as belonging to the gospel must be removed from it.
This issue is connected with another, namely, the question whether the covenant of grace is conditional or unconditional. Due to the error of the Remonstrants, who had made a second law of the gospel, and faith a second keeping of the law (“evangelical obedience”), many of the older theologians were extremely averse to the term “conditional covenant.” Witsius says: “When God presents the formulation of the covenant of grace, then the words that belong to its substance are solely promises … (Jer 31 and 32). For this reason our teachers, who after the clever contrivances of the Socinians and Remonstrants learned to speak very carefully, indeed rightly stressed that the gospel, strictly speaking, consists of pure promises of grace and glory.” And in another place, “The covenant of grace or the gospel, strictly so termed, … really prescribes nothing as an obligation, demands nothing, commands nothing, not even ‘believe, trust, hope in the Lord,’ nor any more such obligations. Rather, it tells, proclaims, and signifies to us what God promises in Christ, what He wills to do and will do. All prescriptions of obligation belong to the law—as in a similar manner, after others, the esteemed Voetius most certainly inculcated. And that is to be maintained in all respects, if we, with all the Reformed, wish steadfastly to defend the perfection of the law, comprehending within its scope all the virtues, all the obligations of holiness.”
Thus, the view of the one party. In opposition were those who pointed out, for one thing, that the law had its promises, that the gospel presents its demands, and that it was completely impossible to realize such a sharp division.
Practically, it seems to us, the question comes down to this: When someone is brought into the covenant of grace by personal assent to the covenant relationship that exists between God and the believer, is he then completely passive or does he in fact recognize as well that accepting this covenant is an obligation that rests on him, a requirement that can be rightly put to him? If the former must be maintained, then the separation will be made, then nothing of the law enters into the gospel; it is accompanied solely by promises and not by requirements. If, on the other hand, the latter is true, then it will not be possible to make the separation, since a promise comes to us that at the same time lays hold of us as an obligation and immediately assumes the form of a command.
The answer will have to be as follows:
a)Law can be taken in more than one sense. It can indicate a natural obligation toward God that is incumbent on us and must always be incumbent on us. It can also indicate a specific obligation, determined by a pact, to which certain consequences are linked if it is kept or transgressed. The latter, for example, was the case with the law in the covenant of works. In Scripture, then, the antithesis between law and gospel is meant such that the law as the condition of the covenant of works and the gospel exclude each other. Thus, if in Scripture the law as such occurs, then that is not gospel. When Christ said, “You know the laws,” etc. [Mark 10:19], He did not speak as preacher of the gospel but as exponent of the law; likewise Moses when he said, “The one who does them shall live by them” [Lev 18:5].
b)The matter is different if we understand the law as the natural obligation that man as creature has toward God. It is completely impossible to think of man being in a state in which he would be ex lex,“outside the law.” That would be antinomianism. That is not the case after his conversion and in his sanctification. It is also not the case in his accepting the covenant of grace. The law of God lays claim to the entire life of man and to every act in it. It also lays claim to the relationship in which man is faced with the gospel. The natural relationship of man to God entails that when the Lord comes to him with a covenant of grace, he is obligated to accept it. Now if one wishes to label that law and maintain that there is law in the gospel, then that should be allowed—only if it is clearly understood how here there is no thought of the law as an instrument of the covenant of works. Of itself the law cannot yield the covenant of grace, for it knows of no grace. As to its content, the covenant of grace is not in the law. But formally the law lays claim to the covenant of grace; that is, after the covenant of grace has come to us from God’s free determination, it falls under the general terms by which the law establishes norms for our life. Theologians call this the serving of the law within the covenant of grace, a term that should not be confused with the service that the same law has with respect to the covenant of grace insofar as it is a disciplinarian to Christ. For this entire question, see Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants 3.1.8 and following.
When someone meets the demand of God to believe, to be converted, etc., then that is not a fulfilling of a condition upon which he can demand the benefits of the covenant; rather, the path is simply followed along which access to the benefits of the covenant is opened.
15. May the difference between law and gospel be interchanged with that between the Old and the New Testament?
No, for the gospel is just as properly in the Old Testament as in the New Testament, the law just as properly in the New Testament as the Old. One need only think of the Sermon on the Mount, where the demands of the law are held high and the comfort of the gospel nevertheless follows closely upon them. And the gospel runs like a stream through the entire Old Testament.
16. What is there along with the Word as a means of grace?
The sacraments. Here we are faced with this question: why the sacraments along with the Word? This cannot be by accident. But while all agree with this and seek a rationale, the explanations of the fact turn out to vary greatly:
a)The Roman Catholics, of course, say that the sacrament is the beginning and end, and needs no explanation. It is the normal, indispensable instrument of a church that is the mediatrix of grace and has in its possession the treasures of salvation. Here it is much more necessary to ask why a Word along with the sacrament than the reverse.
b)There are those who say: because in the sacrament a special, specific grace is dispensed to us distinct from the grace effected by means of the Word. For two kinds of grace there are also, accordingly, two means of grace. Since Gerhard, the Lutherans have spoken of the materia coelestis, the “heavenly matter” in the Lord’s Supper.
c)Amounting to approximately the same thing is a distinction made by recent Lutherans. In the sacraments, they say, God works directly by physical means on the nature of man, on his so-called psycho-physical essence (whatever that may be), without the agency of his intellect and will. In this way the sacraments transplant us into Christ. They are church-forming instruments. The Word, on the other hand, works upon the self-conscious personality, upon the intellect, thus gradually. One easily sees that this is a pantheistic idea that at the same time goes back to the Roman Catholic conception. It is completely untrue that Word and sacrament are distinguished in this way, as if the latter addresses itself only to the unconscious and the former only to the consciousness. The sacrament has meaning for conscious life because it is always a sign and seal, the meaning of which God wants us to understand. And, conversely, the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit, who changes and renews our nature, also works with and through the Word. But that nature is not a psycho-physical nature, not a third entity elevated above matter and spirit. Word and sacrament are both intended for our spiritual nature. They are spiritual things, and as such they pertain not only to the grace of renewal (regeneration, etc.), but also to the grace of forgiveness (justification, etc.).
d)Still others say: The Word apportions grace in a multiplicity of thoughts and passages, and how richly and fully they will come to us in the ministry of the Word so much depends on the capability of the minister. Further, the Word goes out to all the hearers of the Word without distinction. In that, it is lacking in personal application or there is a personal application that is not suited for everyone.
On the other hand, there is the sacrament, which (1) concentrates grace; and (2) applies it specifically. In the sacraments, the heart of the gospel is summarized in a single sign, or in a pair of signs, and in a simple action. Here we have the whole Christ. And flowing from this of itself is the second result: now that the believer is thus brought into union with the whole, personal Christ, he can take from His fullness what, according to time and circumstances, meets his needs.
This conception, too, is mistaken, although it may not be denied that there is some truth to it. As far as the first point above is concerned, in preaching the whole counsel of God must be proclaimed and also be focused in such a way that what is essential is distinguished from what is secondary, what is absolutely indispensable from what belongs to well-being. It is true, however, that this happens in the sacraments in a particularly striking way. Only, one thing must not be forgotten: it is only through the Word that the sacrament has this focusing power. As far as the second point is concerned, it is not clear why the sacrament would work in a more specialized way than the Word. It is true that the sacraments are administered to us personally, while the Word does not speak directly to us as individuals. But by the Holy Spirit we can be brought to the point where we apply the proclaimed Word personally. And in the same way the Holy Spirit must move us to the believing use of the seals of the covenant. The one is not more personal than the other.
The true view is this: God has so created man that he obtains the knowledge of things in a higher sense by two of his senses. These two are sight and hearing. Through these two capacities, the higher attributes and ideas resident in things come to our knowledge. Speech, word answer to faith; form, image, to sight. This distinction is already felt very early. Augustine already said that the sacrament is a visible Word, a picture as it were of the Word (pictura verbi), having the same meaning as the Word. See also the Belgic Confession, article 33: “visible signs and seals”; “better to present to our external senses.”
While now, on the one hand, the normal state of man brings with it this dual nature of his capacity of perception, there is also, on the other hand, something involved that is connected with the sinful state of man. Some say: the Word is spiritual, the sacraments involve the senses, hence the distinction. But the Word, too, involves the senses, for it must come to us through sound; there is no direct speech to our soul. It is true, however, that the Word is closer to the realm of spiritual things than the image. It is less tangible and involving the senses than the latter. Mysticism, for example, virtually drifts between sound and thought. Man feels that difference especially in his sinful state. His weakness makes him long for something more tangible than the fleeting sound of words. And it is to be so understood when “our ignorance and weakness” [Belgic Confession, article 33] are named as the motivation for God to ordain the sacraments.
17. Will it do to associate Word and sacraments coordinately, or is there certain subordination between them?
Strictly speaking, there is not coordination. The Word is resident in the sacrament. The Word is accompanied with the sacrament. If one takes away the Word, there is nothing left of the sacrament. If one takes away the sacrament, because of that the Word is still not lost. If we do not take children into consideration, there is no salvation without the Word of God. But we cannot assert the same thing of the sacraments. All this shows how there is some difference between them.
18. Show in what respects Word and sacraments agree and in what respects they differ from each other.
They agree:
a)In the author, God, who is the one who institutes both.
b)In the content, Christ, who is brought to us in both Word and sacrament. This is a point to which attention must be given. In the Word Christ is wholly present, and in the sacrament Christ is wholly present—as in 1 Corinthians 1:30 He is called our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and complete redemption; the Christ, who is the same yesterday, and today, and forever [Heb 13:8].
c)In the manner in which the content or the object is received. For both Word and sacrament this is faith. Without faith we cannot share in the thing signified by the sacraments. But also without faith we have no enjoyment of Christ, who is presented in the Word.
They differ:
a)In their necessity. The Word is absolutely necessary; the sacraments are not absolutely necessary. Expressed otherwise: the necessity of the latter does not lie on the side of God but on the side of man.
b)In their purpose. The Word serves to produce faith; the sacraments serve to strengthen faith.
c)In their extent. The Word of God is brought and comes to everyone we are able to reach with it. The sacrament is a seal of the covenant and comes only to those who belong to the covenant.
19. In how many ways can we proceed in treating the doctrine of the sacraments?
One can begin with the general concept of a sacrament, that is, apart from the bifurcation into baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and seek on the basis of Scripture to establish what a sacrament is and what belongs to a sacrament.
Conversely, one can treat baptism and the Lord’s Supper separately and then see what is common to both, in order to bring this to a focus in the concept of a sacrament.
The first method of treatment is somewhat problematic. First, Scripture never speaks expressly about the concept of a sacrament in general. So one must deduce from some general data what a sacrament in a scriptural sense is. By doing that, one can easily err. This historically is the error of the Roman Catholic Church. Starting from a general concept of sacrament, established a priori, it has proceeded to falsify the individual sacraments. For us, too, a danger exists in this approach. Whatever is said here should accordingly be seen as something tentative; it is factually derived from teaching regarding baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and so must be tested by this teaching in order to see whether it is in fact appropriate in every respect.
20. Does the word “sacrament” occur in Scripture?
No, it is from a Latin word, sacramentum. Originally it meant an amount of money that people deposited with each other in a civil lawsuit. When two people, for example, had a dispute about a piece of land, one might say to the other, “Since you wrongly lay claim to this property, I challenge you with a sacrament of 500 asses [copper coins].” This money would then be paid to the priest by both parties. The winner received his money back, the convicted person had to give up his amount, and it was then used for a religious purpose. At a later time, one did not ask for money but only for a guarantee that it would be paid. Opinions diverge about the purpose that one had with this demand for a monetary deposit. Most judge that it was to prevent rashly initiating a lawsuit. Others say that the matter had a religious origin. Both persons had to swear an oath (sacramentum) that their statements corresponded to the truth. If the oath of the loser proved to be false, an appeasement for the gods was necessary. And the deposit would then originally have served for that.
Whatever the case may be, the thing in question could only be called a sacramentum because it was related in one way or another to the gods. The lawsuit itself was also called a sacramentum because it had a religious meaning. The transition from the pagan to the Christian use appears to have been located in two things in particular:
a)In its military meaning. A sacramentum is the military oath by which the soldier solemnly binds himself to obedience to his commanders. Tertullian alludes to this military oath when he writes, “We are called to military service of the living God in our answer to the words of the sacrament (at baptism).”
b)In its more specifically religious meaning. Sacramentum was the Latin translation of the Greek word mustērion (mystērion), “mystery.” Thus the Vulgate speaks of the “sacrament of godliness” (1 Tim 3:16); “the sacrament of the seven stars” (Rev 1:20); “the sacrament of the woman and the beast” (17:7). In Latin translations older than the Vulgate, it occurred in many other places where mysterium is found in the Vulgate (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 13:2). Now under “sacrament” it was indeed possible to understand every mystery, but it was also quite obvious to see the term referring to certain kinds of mysteries that had a certain resemblance to Christian signs and actions. First, there was a similarity in form between the pagan mysteries (washings, etc.). Further, there was a kind of secret character in both. This led to a slowly more limited use of the term. Tertullian speaks of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Cyprian of “each of both sacraments,” referring to baptism and confirmation; again, others speak of the sacrament of marriage (Eph 5:32). One sees how this loose use of language can contribute to leading Rome down a false dogmatic path. When baptism and confirmation and marriage are all called sacraments, then it was no longer easy to keep the difference clear and alive in the consciousness of the people.
21. Is the word to be rejected because it is not scriptural?
No, for it shares this character with many other terms that we nevertheless cannot do without. Time and time again there have been those who have expressed objection to its use, but in spite of all criticism the word has remained.
22. Who is the first to have begun giving a definition of the concept of sacrament?
Augustine. He said, “A sacrament is the visible form of an invisible grace”; sometimes as well, “A sacrament is a sign of a holy thing.” Both of these definitions sound too indefinite. Although by them Augustine is thinking mostly of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, he nevertheless still uses the word with other meanings. (Some say that the first definition first occurs with the Scholastics.) For present-day Roman Catholic theology, these definitions no longer apply. In the sacraments of penance and of marriage, for example, the visible thing is lacking. Moreover, it is not said that the sacraments communicate grace. The Catechism of Trent meets both objections by saying: “A sacrament is a thing that is perceived by the senses and has the capacity not only to portray grace but also to effect it.”
23. How do Reformed theologians define the concept of sacrament in general?
From Calvin come two definitions (Institutes 4.14.1): “An outward sign by which the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of His goodwill toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and by which we in turn attest our commitment to Him, both in the presence of Himself and His angels and before men.” The other: “A testimony of divine grace toward us confirmed by an outward sign and sealed from our side with a reciprocal attestation of our commitment toward Him.”
We may say: “Holy, visible signs and seals instituted by God, by which the grace of God in Christ is signified and sealed to the participants in the covenant of grace, and they, in turn, attest their faith and obedience toward God.”
24. With reference to this latter definition, what should be noted further?
a)The outward material of the sacrament, the visible sign and seal—for example, water in baptism and bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper—and what is done with them.
b)The inward, invisible material of the sacrament, the spiritual benefit that is signified and sealed by the outward material.
c)The connection or relationship between these two, how that is conceived of by others and how it is to be conceived of by us.
d)The characteristic modes of speech that flow from this definition.
e)What belongs to the essence of a sacrament, and in connection with that, the question concerning the number of sacraments.
25. What is understood by the outward material of the sacrament?
The external material (materia externa et sensibilis) is that side of the sacrament that is perceived by the senses, specifically what reaches our sight and our hearing. Now it all depends how one defines a sacrament, whether or not one will be able to speak of outward along with inward material, visible along with invisible material. If one describes a sacrament as is done in the two definitions above of Calvin and in the other added to them, then a sacrament is the outward material plus an action. It then makes no sense to speak of an inward material of the sacraments. There are, however, many among the theologians who take a sacrament in a broader sense. It is then the thing that signifies plus the thing signified. So, for example, Turretin. And then one can appropriately distinguish between the twofold materials of the sacrament.
The difference ultimately comes down to a difference in words. If one but knows what one means by a sacrament and always remembers that, there is no objection to either view. But if one forgets this, misunderstanding can easily arise. If one proceeds from the broader concept and poses the question whether the unbelieving partaker receives the sacrament, then he will naturally have to answer no. He has already said himself: a sacrament is the thing that signifies plus the thing signified. The unbeliever does not receive the latter. But one would be equally mistaken if from this one wanted to draw the conclusion that no objective signs and seals of God’s covenant of grace remain when subjective faith is absent. He intends only to say that it is not a sacrament in the full sense of the word.
26. Do only the inert elements belong to this outward material, or does still more belong to it?
More belongs to it. The outward material is twofold:
a)The elements themselves: water, bread, and wine. These have not been chosen at random, but by their particular nature are suited to serve as elements. In general one can say that they have a certain relationship of resemblance to Christ, who is the invisible matter of the sacrament. Their natural use corresponds to the use that is made of Christ spiritually. As we will see, their being a sign is based on this natural resemblance. That they are seals, on the other hand, is based on the institution of God. For the sealing, God could just as well have chosen other elements, but not for their significance, simply because other elements did not possess the suitability to depict.
b)The action done with these elements. This action is essential to the material. Water as such is not a sacrament. It must be water that is sprinkled. Bread and wine as such are not sacraments. The bread must be broken, the wine poured out, and both must be used by those who sit at the table. That is the reason that even the definition of the sacrament speaks about an “action” instead of a sign. But the word “sign” is broad enough to also include the action. The sign is not only what one sees; it is also what one sees happen.
27. Does Scripture itself take the lead in calling the sacraments signs?
Yes, it speaks of them as “signs of the covenant” (Gen 9:12–13; 17:11; Exod 12:13; oth habberith).
28. How is a sacrament further designated?
It is not only called a sign but also a “seal.” This, too, is scriptural. In Romans 4:11 the apostle says of Abraham that he received the sign of circumcision as a “seal” of the righteousness of faith (kai sēmeion elaben peritomēs sphragida tēs dikaiosynēs tēs pisteōs). A seal is thereby distinguished from a sign in that it confirms and not only portrays something (for this usage of the seal, cf. texts such as Rev 7:2; John 6:27; 2 Tim 2:19; 1 Cor 9:2; Rev 5:1, 9:4; 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30).
29. Does this sealing character of the sacraments mean only that they apply a promise of God to our consciousness theoretically and also confirm it for our consciousness?
That too belongs to it, but not only that. The sacraments are no nuda signa, “bare signs,” no signa theoretica, “theoretical signs.” They are also signa practica, “practical signs.” When they are used in faith, the user actually receives, by the working of the Holy Spirit, the grace that they portray and seal. The sacraments are means of grace. The Zwinglians and Remonstrants deny that, making them into bare symbols, whether of the grace of God or the confession of man. As other symbols work by the association of ideas and by means of imagery, so too do these symbols. That is not the biblical and Reformed teaching, as will appear in treating baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
See the declaration of our [Belgic] Confession (article 33): “For they are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means of which God works in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.” There is a materia interna, an internal material of the sacrament. But it has already been pointed out above that this is not otherwise with the Word. On the other hand, however, this does not do away with the fact that it is essential and must be distinguished from the moral influence that the truth has on every receptive person. With the Word, too, the latter is only incidental. God has associated the working of His Spirit with the Word so that something much higher comes about. It is the same with the sacraments.
30. In what does the form of the sacrament (forma sacramenti) consist?
This lies in the relationship of the outward material to the inward, of the thing that signifies to the thing signified. In this relationship or connection, surely, lies the essence of the sacrament, what makes it a sacrament, for the expression forma is meant in this sense. And then the answer to the question about this form is that it is not physical or natural, through bodily contact, as if grace flowed into us by contact with the outward sign. Also it is not local, as if grace accompanied the sign, bound to it within the same space, as if it were. But it resides relatively and sacramentally in three things, namely, in signifying, in sealing, and dispensing (exhibitio).
The first negation is directed against Rome, the second against the Lutheran confession. One can express the difference between these two no better than by saying: Rome materializes grace, Luther localizes it. That is, the Roman Catholics maintain: this bread and this wine are the body and blood of Christ, the entire Christ. Luther says: within the same space is the entire Christ—in, with, and under the bread and wine. In both the Reformed find an unscriptural and unspiritual outlook. Grace does not allow itself be changed into matter, but neither does it allow itself be drawn within the confines of space.
We say, therefore: where the sacrament is used in faith (this applies at least for adults), there at the same time the grace is sealed. But where is not taken in a localized sense. Luther spoke in a localizing way: where, etc. Rome says even more than that. And while we make faith a condition for the presence of the working of grace, the Lutherans make it only the prerequisite in relation to the recipient for the working of grace that blesses. If there is no faith, grace works therefore in a localized connection with the sacrament as well. It is in fact so, too, with the Word. Preached or not preached, believed or not believed, the Word has supernatural, mystical power as something that is inherent. Rome, finally, even makes the working of grace that blesses independent of faith, and must certainly do this since it has identified grace and sacrament.
According to the Lutherans, there is a vis inhaerens [“inherent power”] of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit works “in the sacrament.” According to the Reformed, there is a virtus Spiritus Sancti extrinsecus accedens, a “power of the Holy Spirit added from outside.”
It has already been said above that on this point a difference prevails among the Lutherans before and after Gerhard (1582–1637). Before Gerhard grace was in the sacrament through the Word; after him one spoke of a heavenly matter that was distinguished from the Word. One then attributed power to the Word in order to unite the earthly matter with the heavenly matter. It was an acting cause for joining these two into one sacrament.
31. What results from this union or relationship between the sign and the thing signified?
The so-called sacramental phraseology, or “way of speaking,” which one can compare to some degree with expressions resulting from the personal union of the two natures in the Mediator. Because by the institution of Christ the sign and the thing signified have come into a certain relationship to each other, what belongs to one can be attributed to the other.
a)The thing signified is designated by the name of the sign. So Christ is called our Passover (1 Cor 5:7); true faith, circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:29; cf. 1 Cor 11:24).
b)The sign is designated by the name of the thing signified. So circumcision is called “the covenant” (Gen 17:10), and as a result things are attributed to the sign that belong to the thing signified (Acts 22:16: “Let yourself be baptized and wash away your sins”), as if outward washing in water can wash away sins, while surely only inward grace, which is thereby signified and sealed, is able to do this.
32. What is the nature of the relationship between the word spoken with the sacraments and the sacraments themselves?
a)The word that accompanies the sacraments belongs essentially to them and is a part of the sacramental action; it may not be omitted. Sprinkling at baptism, without the baptismal formula, is not permissible. And the same is true at the Lord’s Supper. This applies at least for the sacraments that have been ordained for us by the institution of Christ, although it cannot be proven for those in the Old Testament, something that is perhaps bound up with the overall character of the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace. This was surely not a speaking but an acting and symbolizing dispensation (cf., however, Exod 12:27).
b)The word of institution as it was originally spoken by Christ is the basis of the sacrament as sacrament. This is the sole guarantee by which we are assured that God wills to have His grace joined with these means. For the sealing part, this link, as we have seen, is undoubtedly a positive link. Naturally there is nothing in the sacrament that can cause us to rely on the thing signified when we see or use the sign. But because Christ has so instituted it and so willed it, it is so. Augustine already said: Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit Sacramentum. “The word is added to the element, and thereby it becomes a sacrament.”
c)This institution of Christ has two parts:
1.A word of command. By that the sacrament becomes necessary for believers, with a necessity of command. Christ says, “Go therefore and baptize,” and, “Do this in remembrance of me.” And this command has been transmitted to us by the agency of the apostles. “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (1 Cor 11:23). And the apostles had to teach all whom they would make disciples to observe all that Christ had commanded them.
2.A word of promise. Christ says: If you do according to this my institution and obey my command in faith, then the grace signified and sealed in the sacrament will surely be given. “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” [Mark 16:16]. “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” [Luke 22:20].
d)Both of these words of institution—the command and the promise—are repeated in carrying out the sacrament. Thus it is Christ who makes use of His servants in order to continually speak the same words that He once spoke at the time of institution.
But while all agree so far, here at once the difference begins. The Roman Catholics clearly maintain that this sacramental word is a consecrating and effective word that, spoken by the priest, really changes the elements. It infuses grace into them. That is why that word does not need to be spoken loudly; the priest can whisper them to himself, and the mystical working of transubstantiation, etc., will still follow. The Reformed, on the contrary, maintain that it is a verbum praedicatum, a “preached word,” that as such must be spoken out loud so that the gathered congregation may hear it. The purpose of the preached word is not to change the elements substantially but to set them apart for a holy use. Before the pronouncement of the words, it is nothing but ordinary bread; afterward it is still ordinary bread, but ordinary bread that became a sacramental sign and seal. The sacramental word is a part of the sacramental sign. The sacramental sign serves to depict the invisible thing. An image must be seen, a sign must be observed. Therefore the words, too, insofar as they are part of the sacrament, must be perceptible, spoken with an audible voice. Christ himself, at the institution of the sacraments, spoke to His disciples so that they could understand it (1 Cor 11:28). Even, for example, at infant baptism where the recipient of the sacrament cannot understand the spoken words, they may nevertheless not be omitted.
33. How far does the import of the word extend with the sacrament?
It can only hold for the use of the sacraments. As soon as this use is over, the signs, too, have lost their sacramental design and are no longer distinguished from ordinary elements. After the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, someone who uses the elements that are left over does not receive the sacrament in them. For Rome this, too, is otherwise. Grace remains materialized in the elements, and therefore they are carefully stored so that they may be kept from being profaned. The Lutherans, reasoning consistently, would have to arrive at such a conclusion.
34. According to Rome, is more needed than the word spoken according to the institution of Christ?
Yes, the intention, the aim of the ministrant to do what the church intends with the sacrament, must also be present. If this is lacking, then a real sacrament does not occur. Accordingly, here the sacrament is bound to a person, and then to something in the person over which he alone has control and that no mortal in the world can verify other than himself. Not all Roman Catholics agree regarding the character or the degree of this intention. Some speak of a habitual intention, others of an actual intention, and still others of a virtual intention (see Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:515). Now a great difficulty arises here for Roman Catholics themselves. They are accustomed not even to rebaptize children who, for example, have been baptized in Calvinistic churches. But when this baptism in a Reformed church was administered, the minister certainly did not have the intention to do what the (Catholic) Church intended to have done by baptism. Thus it turns out that Rome, contrary to its own teaching, must acknowledge a sacrament in which the intention was lacking.
We teach, on the contrary, that the validity of a sacrament is not to be judged subjectively but objectively, and that if it is administered in a congregation of God, and the proper intention is missing, it nevertheless retains its validity by virtue of the institution of Christ. It is no different with the Word. In Philippians 1:16–18, Paul says that Christ can be preached in all kinds of ways—in pretense, with evil intentions, out of envy and rivalry—but that still a preaching of Christ remains in which he rejoices. It is no different with the sacrament. This, too, is not tied to the sin of man but depends entirely on the faithfulness and the powerful working of God.
Naturally, in saying this it is not being denied that the absence of the proper intention is sinful for the ministrant himself, but that this does not impair the sacrament. And conversely, the objective requirements for the validity of the sacrament must always be kept in view. The administration of the sacraments belongs to the ministry of the Word, and the ministry of the Word belongs to the gathering of believers in an organized church.
According to Rome, in the sacrament of ordination the priest receives a character indelibile, “an indelible stamp,” as a result of which he always retains the capacity to impart sacramental grace and to let it flow through him. Having once become a priest, for his entire life thereafter he can physically distribute grace where and when he wills. This position, together with the preceding one that everything depends on his intention, shows to what absurd consequences the Roman Catholic system leads.
35.What must be taught regarding the necessity of the sacraments?
According to Rome, with the sacraments there is a necessity of means (necessitas medii). They are the only means that God intends to use in order to communicate His grace. Excluding the sacraments excludes grace. The unbaptized children of believing parents do not go to heaven but to the limbus infantium, where they do not endure positive punishments but still lack salvation. Lutheran dogma, too, makes the sacrament of baptism necessary, at least for children, with a necessity of means (not for adults, for their regeneration precedes baptism, which seals it). Still, Lutherans do make a distinction and say that only “contempt” for baptism (not the deprivation of baptism in itself) is already the cause of being lost.
For Rome, not all sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation. But they are the only means to receive that specific grace that is connected to them by the Church. If someone wishes to be a priest, then this is only possible through the sacrament of ordination. Baptism is absolutely indispensable.
According to the Reformed, the sacraments are necessary with a necessity of command. Contempt for them and neglect of their use is a sin, for they are not human ordinances but institutions of Christ. But they are not absolutely necessary for salvation. Not the outward sign but the inward grace that is signified is indispensable. “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Only the Word is absolutely necessary for salvation—that is, for adults, hearing the Word, and for children, being born under the ministry of the covenant by the Word.
36. Is there a difference between the sacraments of the old and the new covenants?
Rome maintains that there is. As the Old Testament priests were not priests in a proper sense but only priests as types, so also the sacraments of the old era were only typical sacraments. The full reality of the sacraments depended on the sacrifice of Christ, so for this reason believers who died before that sacrifice remained in the abode of the fathers [limbus partum] until Christ freed them from it and brought them into full glory.
We say from our side that there is a sameness of substance between the sacraments of the old era and those of the new, with differences in circumstances. The author is the same, the thing signified is the same, the organ of application is the same, the sacramental word has the same double content, although the wording differs, and the purpose is the same.
The difference lies:
a)In the fact that in Israel the sacraments, besides their significance for the covenant of grace, also had a national aspect, from which a difference in practice arose between them and the New Testament sacraments on a few points. For us, one comes to the table of the Lord only after one has learned to discern the body of Christ. In Israel the children also ate the Passover. This was because the Passover together with its covenantal significance had national significance. The same is true for circumcision. Baptism in the New Testament is administered to both sexes of the children of believers. In the Old Testament, circumcision was only for infant boys. Indeed, in the national life of Israel only the men counted and represented the women, and this also had to come to light outwardly.
b)In the Old Testament there were different symbolic representations of the truth, which, even if they could not be called full sacraments, still came close, more or less, to being sacraments. To these belonged the sacrifices, the purifications, etc. In the New Testament there are just two sacraments, and one may not add any others to them, not even in a secondary sense.
c)The Old Testament sacraments portray a Christ who was to come and they sealed benefits of salvation that still had to be obtained, although certainly those benefits were already granted to believers at that time by virtue of the suretyship of Christ, which is eternally valid. The New Testament sacraments signify and seal the benefits of salvation that have already been obtained.
d)At the same time, resulting from this there is a greater degree of grace attached to the sacraments of the new covenant than to those of the old era. Sealing can now come with greater power where the fullness of the Spirit has been obtained, for the Spirit Himself is the seal.
37. Show that there is no difference, as Roman Catholics think that there is, between the sacraments of the old and the new covenants.
a)In 1 Corinthians 10:1–4, Paul ascribes to the Old Testament church our baptism and our Lord’s Supper, so far as the thing signified is concerned. The fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, ate the same spiritual food, drank the same spiritual drink, etc. Now if these spiritual benefits of salvation were present, then they certainly must have been signified and sealed by the usual sacraments. The purpose of the apostle is to warn the Corinthians that they must not allow themselves to be misled by the possession of their great privileges to think that God cannot reject them. The Israelites in the wilderness also possessed those privileges, and yet God was not pleased with most of them.
b)Concerning circumcision, Paul showed intentionally how for Abraham it was a sign and a seal of the righteousness of faith (Gen 17:7; Rom 4:11; cf. also Heb 11:16).
c)The names of the sacraments of both dispensations are interchanged with each other. Circumcision and the Passover are ascribed to us (1 Cor 5:7; Col 2:11), and, conversely, as seen above, baptism and the Lord’s Supper to Old Testament believers.
All this does not detract from the fact that the sacraments of the old covenant had their typological side. In the old covenant, everything had two aspects (Heb 10:1; Col 2:17). But they were types of Christ, and not of our sacraments. The shadow is a type of the body, not of the sign of the body. The latter are called antitypes by Peter (1 Pet 3:21, antitypa). But this intends only to say that they are counterparts of the Old Testament sacraments insofar as they, in a sacramental manner of speaking, represent the thing signified. Not baptism itself but what is signified and sealed by baptism is really the antitype, and then insofar as baptism portrays this, baptism itself.
38.Do all recognize the same number of sacraments?
No, Scripture knows only two in the new era. The Roman Catholic Church, in part under the influence of a vague definition of terms, began quite early to multiply the number. After much wavering, bishop Otto of Bamberg (1124) fixed the number at seven, and the Council of Florence sanctioned this in 1439. The Greek [Orthodox] Church, as well, has its seven mysteries. There was a time when the Lutherans, too, displayed a tendency to admit a third sacrament along with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, namely, poenitentia, “penance.” However, it has never gone that far. The Protestant churches all accept that there are only two sacraments, and reject the other five that Rome wishes to place beside these two.
The five sacraments that Rome adds to ours are (1) confirmation, (2) penance, (3) ordination or consecration of priests (ordo), (4) marriage (matrimonium), (5) the last rites, anointing with oil (extrema unctio).
39. In what does the sacrament of confirmation consist for Rome?
It is an anointing or spreading of the anointing oil on the forehead of a baptized person in the form of a cross, done by the bishop with the words: “I mark you with the sign of the cross and confirm you with the anointing oil of salvation in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The result of this anointing is the increasing of sanctifying grace and the impressing of an indelible stamp.
40. What must be observed against this?
That the essential requirements of a sacrament are lacking here: institution by Christ, the element, the rite, the word of promise—everything is unscriptural. Confirmation has to be elevated at the expense of baptism, as if it were not sufficient to seal to us the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Appeal is made to the laying on of hands that followed upon baptism in the apostolic age (Acts 8:16–17; 19:6). In the first instance, baptism and the laying on of hands do not even coincide in time. This is generally seen as something extraordinary that only took place in the apostolic church. The Holy Spirit stands for “extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.” It does not mean the Holy Spirit as indwelling in believers, thus in a personal sense. In order to receive the Spirit as indwelling Spirit, no laying on of hands was necessary. Hence, too, the expression: the Spirit falls on them (epipiptein), something that completely befits this extraordinary situation, but not what is ordinary (Acts 8:9–19; 10:41, 46). In Acts 19:1–2 it is also meant in this sense. That is why Simon Magus desired the laying on of hands of the apostles (Acts 8:19).
Protestants have replaced the Roman Catholic confirmation with a confirmation of their own. However, they make no claim that it is a divine institution; it is something purely human that may not be elevated at the expense of baptism. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper belong to each other as sacraments; the so-called profession [of faith] or confirmation indicates only the time when the right to the Lord’s Supper, constantly held forth, becomes actual, is in force. It may not be denied that, by a more-or-less watered down conception of baptism, profession has so risen in value for many that the heart of the matter is now sought entirely in it. One senses that faith belongs at the Lord’s Supper and, since faith does not come into consideration in infant baptism, profession compensates for this lack.
By noting this, it is not being claimed that profession need merely be a profession of the mouth. In it the heart must certainly be speaking too. But one may not proceed from the presupposition that only now is it to be ascertained who are truly members of the church—as if one had been dealing with unbaptized persons who came out of paganism.
41. What is the sacrament of penance, and what end does it serve?
Penance serves to obtain forgiveness for those sins committed after baptism. The material of the sacrament of penance consists of three parts: abasement of the heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction of works. The form is absolution granted by the priest, which should be seen as a judicial act.
Against this: In penance the sacramental sign is completely lacking. Only in an extremely forced manner can one claim that the three parts constitute a sign. They are not visible, only in part audible. Abasement of the heart is something within the sinner himself, and cannot help form a sacrament. The same can be said of the satisfaction of works. Absolution is not a judicial act, for God has reserved to Himself to forgive sins judicially. In this the church has only a ministering role.
There is and may be a confession of sins by believers to each other (cf. Jas 5:16). When someone feels burdened by the consciousness of trespasses not known to anyone else, then it can be a relief to share them with a brother. A deep sense of sin always awakens a longing for truth, and to be known to be as bad as one really is can be more satisfying than to have an undeserved good name. But such a confession of private sin must always remain something voluntary, whether expressed before an ordinary brother or before a minister. The person himself must judge if he needs to do this. There even exists the danger that the comfort and the exoneration of men may replace the absolution that only God can give (cf. Calvin, Institutes 3.4.12).
Rome binds the forgiveness of sins to the confessional, the confession with the mouth. This is one of the many means by which it unsettles the conscience. Instead of holding forth the omniscience of God as a basis of comfort, forgiveness is made dependent on the limitedness and fallibility of human consciousness. The distinction between mortal sins and venial sins is not always easy. No one can be completely sure that he has completely searched out his sinful heart and that nothing has evaded his notice (Psa 19:12).
42. What is the sacrament of extreme unction?
This is anointing a dying person with oil by Rome with the aim of removing the remnants of sin that baptism and penance have left in the believer, and with the subsidiary aim of sometimes restoring the sick person to health. The material is oil. The form is the formula: “Through this holy anointing and His most holy mercy, may God forgive you whatever sins you have committed by sight, hearing,” etc. The oil, consecrated by the bishop, is spread on different parts of the body. This sacrament can be repeated.
In fact, in two passages in the New Testament something is found that resembles such a sacrament. The first is Mark 6:13: “And they cast out many demons and anointed many who were sick with oil and healed them.” This is said of the Twelve, who were sent out two by two with a special authority to perform miracles (v. 7). The second is James 5:14–15: “If anyone among you is sick, let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” As far as the first passage is concerned, this was a gift of healing; that is:
a)an extraordinary, miraculous gift only given to the apostles;
b)a gift that they exercised on all kinds of sick people, and not, like a sacrament, only on certain people;
c)exercised not only on those whose lives were in danger;
d)not exercised with the intention of taking away sins.
As far as the second passage is concerned, here too something is described that differs considerably from the Roman Catholic ceremony. The apostle does not make a distinction between fatal diseases and other diseases, and directs the anointing to apply exclusively to the healing of the body. The forgiveness of sins is connected to the prayer of faith, which has great power. Perhaps there is also an allusion to particular sins, for which sickness was a special chastisement, so that the healing in fact would be linked with restoration to God’s favor (1 Cor 11:30).
43. What is the sacrament of ordination?
This consists in the rites customary at the ordination of Roman Catholic office-bearers. Rome has three ordines majores, “higher orders,” four ordines minores, “lower orders.” To the first group belong: sub-deacons, deacons, and presbyters; to the second: ostiarii, sectores, exorcists, and acolytes. Only the bishop can consecrate for the ordines majores. This consecration of priests is one of the three sacraments that leave an indelible stamp. The other two are baptism and confirmation.
With this sacrament there is no outward, visible sign, unless one sees it in the laying on of hands. This, however, is no more than a symbolic practice. It is not an element but an action, and in a true sacrament both—element and action—are always united. There is no institution by Christ. What an odd sacrament that must be, moreover, in which material and form differ according to the seven different ranks of clergy for which it opens access.
44. Can one call marriage a sacrament?
Rome can do this on the basis of a dualistic view of human life. What is natural is as such unholy, unconsecrated, but the Church can take it and consecrate it so that it becomes holy. The Church also does this with marriage. It views marriage as a means for propagation of the Church and has a special grace accompany it, insofar as it is concluded ecclesiastically. The marriage of Roman Catholics is thus something other in the eyes of the Church than the marriage of people who are outside the saving activity of the Church. Otherwise one would say that marriage common to all is not in the least suited to serve as a sacrament. According to Rome, marriage is indissoluble without a dispensation from the Pope.
For this sacrament, the outward sign is again completely lacking. Some say that this is found in the words of assent of both contracting parties. Others say that the persons themselves form the sign. Both views are absurd. The material of the sacrament and the persons who receive it cannot be the same.
The most noteworthy thing is that Rome denies this sacrament to priests. The two sacraments of ordination and marriage thus exclude each other. One would expect that marriage, thus sanctified and elevated above the natural sphere, would be holy enough to be used by priests. But Rome does not deem it so.
We do not view marriage in the first place as something ecclesiastical. It rests on the basis of creation (Gen 1 and 2). But from that it does not follow that marriage is unholy. There is no specific grace needed to consecrate it. Of itself the kingdom of God also permeates marriage, so that it again answers to its natural ideal. Besides that, it also has an ecclesiastical side because it is connected with God’s covenant.