Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Who do you say Christ is? (and other questions) Message-ID: Date: 17 Sep 89 19:31:28 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of No Money, Albuquerque, New Mexico Lines: 64 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Here's my two cents on Protestant interpretation of sacraments. I am a Presbyterian, so my views are essentially those of Calvin, and to a lesser extent, Luther and Zwingli. I like most of what Dan said, so I'll fill in what I see as the gaps in his statements. An important distinction between the Protestant and Catholic views of the sacraments is their necessity. According to Catholic doctrine, the act of the sacrament causes the dispensation of grace. In fact, to miss Mass for an entire year is viewed as a sin. In Calvinst doctrine, the sacraments are sacred acts (and, as such, must be instituted by God, for man cannot decide what will be sacred to God) which involve a material and a spritual component. In the case of baptism, water is the material component, and the spiritual component is the claiming of the baptized for God. But one can be fully accepted by Christ without baptism; it is a sign and a dedication which is not essential to grace. The Lord's Supper is viewed somewhat differently by different Protestant denominations. The first view, that of Luther, is that the material component, the bread and FOTV (fruit of the vine *), while not corporally Christ's body and blood, are directly inhabited by his spirit. The second view, that of Calvin, is that the bread and the FOTV are the tools we use to represent that during the act of communion, God enters into our souls, but his spirit is not directly present in the elements. The third view, that of Zwingli, is that the elements are merely symbols for Christ's love and sacrifice, and that communion is the symbolic remembrance of his death, but carries no spiritual meaning directly tied to the act of communion. Most Lutherans still hold to the view of Luther, as do, as far as I know, most other non-Calvinistic high churches such as the Episcopalian and Anglican. Most Presbyterians hold to either Calvin's or Zwingli's views, the official position of the church being that of Calvin. But the real difference between the way all Protestants seem to view the sacraments and the way Catholic doctrine does, is that to Protestants (remember "grace by faith alone"?) the sacraments are signs, or spiritual events, or something else, but never necessary for grace. On the other hand, to Catholics, they are essential, in concept, to grace. Hence the debates in the middle ages over issues like validity of the sacraments when performed by an unrepentant sinning priest, or what the status of unbaptized infants is. Protestants still have the same question about infants, but don't regard the baptism as the sole deciding factor for salvation. (*) I use "fruit of the vine" since, out of respect for people who can't use wine, a large number of congregations now use grape juice in communion. -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee! [ You say that " during the act of communion, God enters into our souls, but his spirit is not directly present in the elements." This statement suggests that Calvin did not accept the presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament. Calvin is normally understood as having said that we do really commune with with Christ's body and blood, although this communion is mediated through the Holy Spirit. Thus the body and blood are not physically present but are spiritually present to us. --clh]