Salvation and the Sacraments

[svdbygrace]

Are the two (2) great Sacraments (Holy Baptism, and Eucharist [Holy Communion]) a requirement for salvation? Choose your answer above.

[Aymn27]

I said yes - Jesus is very clear that unless you "eat his body and drink his blood" you will not have life in you. I would like to qualify that by saying - I only believe that though, if a person is properly disposed to the truth and rejects it - if they do not know, then no - and how can they know unless we teach them??

[PaladinValer]

Absolutely.

No Baptism, no Salvation. Jesus told us to get Baptized to be saved, so we must.

And without the Eucharist, we have no Life in us.

[gitlance]

All you have to do is read the BCP for that. Heck, even the Articles affirm that.

[gtsecc]

The answer is in the BCP.
Maybe Cranmer is not in hell with Calvin after all. ;)

[Fish and Bread]

So all non-Christians go to hell? Come on, guys. The sacraments are important, but let's keep in mind that we're talking about a merciful loving God here, and not all people have the opportunity to hear the Gospel.

John

[svdbygrace]

The answer is in the BCP.
Maybe Cranmer is not in hell with Calvin after all. ;)

:clap:

[DarthDigger]

I say yes for baptism.

[PaladinValer]

So all non-Christians go to hell? Come on, guys. The sacraments are important, but let's keep in mind that we're talking about a merciful loving God here, and not all people have the opportunity to hear the Gospel.

John

That isn't at all what the Catholic, historic, Apostolic faith says at all. I would highly suggest you learn what it is before assuming.

Romans 1 is a good depiction how non-Christians are Judged; out of their own limited understanding.

[Fish and Bread]

That isn't at all what the Catholic, historic, Apostolic faith says at all. I would highly suggest you learn what it is before assuming.

Romans 1 is a good depiction how non-Christians are Judged; out of their own limited understanding.

So, your conclusion is that the Catholic, historic, Apostolic faith doesn't say that the sacraments are a requirement for salvation. Isn't that what I said as well? I don't understand what the debate is then. But you should have voted no in the poll if you believe that there are people in heaven or will be people in heaven who haven't received the sacraments. :)

John

[PaladinValer]

No, Fish and Bread.

Learn what the historic, Catholic faith believes first before assuming please.

That is all.

[Fish and Bread]

No, Fish and Bread.

Learn what the historic, Catholic faith believes first before assuming please.

That is all.

The original question didn't mention the historic, Catholic faith (Or whatever.). It simply asked whether we thought the sacraments were requirements for salvation. You said yes, I in reply said no and gave my reasons. You took that as me making assumption about the historic catholic faith, even though I didn't address it at all until I replied to that message. I am making the assumption that if you say that the sacraments are objectively necessary for salvation, then you believe that those who don't receive them can't be saved by definition, because that is the way the English language works. :)

That is why I don't believe that the sacraments are objectively necessary for salvation in all cases, though they clearly are things we as Christians should be partaking in which are strongly related to salvation.

John

[gitlance]

So all non-Christians go to hell? Come on, guys. The sacraments are important, but let's keep in mind that we're talking about a merciful loving God here, and not all people have the opportunity to hear the Gospel.

John

Mercy and love = justice. To say that because God loves somebody means he would never allow someone to go to hell is making God's grace cheap and Christ's awful Passion unnecessary.

[Fish and Bread]

Mercy and love = justice. To say that because God loves somebody means he would never allow someone to go to hell is making God's grace cheap and Christ's awful Passion unnecessary.

I didn't say God would never allow anyone to go to hell, I just said that I sincerely doubt that he condemns everyone who is a non-Christian or a Christian without access to the sacraments to hell automatically. :)

John

[gitlance]

So, your conclusion is that the Catholic, historic, Apostolic faith doesn't say that the sacraments are a requirement for salvation. Isn't that what I said as well? I don't understand what the debate is then. But you should have voted no in the poll if you believe that there are people in heaven or will be people in heaven who haven't received the sacraments. :)

John

You do realize that the historic faith teaches that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb which we shall partake of in heaven is indeed the Eucharist?

You know, I can see how someone might not want to make a requirement for salvation based off something Ignatius said, but we are talking Jesus and His own words here.

John 6.

[gitlance]

I didn't say God would never allow anyone to go to hell, I just said that I sincerely doubt that he condemns everyone who is a non-Christian or a Christian without access to the sacraments to hell automatically. :)

John

Well, no, probably not automatically! But if God has established the Sacraments as necessary to salvation, those of us who have this knowledge must accept it and use it.

Some Anglicans (yes, and not just Anglo-Catholics) will argue that Confession is a dominical sacrament necessary to salvation. I will let you make up your own mind on that.

[TomUK]

But surely our understanding of the sacraments can't be limited simply to their physical act? Perhaps this is me reducing the sacraments to some sort of philosophical concept, but the fact that we are required to eat the body of Christ doesn't mean that we can only kneel at the altar; equally any coherent understanding of baptism must extend beyond the mere act of sprinkling. The sacraments are required for salvation but we must be careful not to reduce those most holy mysteries to our pathetic levels of understanding.

[gitlance]

But surely our understanding of the sacraments can't be limited simply to their physical act? Perhaps this is me reducing the sacraments to some sort of philosophical concept, but the fact that we are required to eat the body of Christ doesn't mean that we can only kneel at the altar; equally any coherent understanding of baptism must extend beyond the mere act of sprinkling. The sacraments are required for salvation but we must be careful not to reduce those most holy mysteries to our pathetic levels of understanding.

Kneeling or standing has nothing to do with doctrine. That is discipline and piety. And my parish, we have three stations for Communion: the High Altar where people kneel, and two side chapels where people file up like in the Roman Church and take it standing.

Neither one of those disciplines affect the Real Presence of Christ.

[Fish and Bread]

You do realize that the historic faith teaches that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb which we shall partake of in heaven is indeed the Eucharist?

I actually think there's a bit of a scriptural basis for that as well, actually. I am not sure how it relates to the present issue, though. Just because everyone who has salvation in heaven partakes of the Eucharist, that doesn't mean that it's an entrance requirement to have partaken in it on earth.

You know, I can see how someone might not want to make a requirement for salvation based off something Ignatius said, but we are talking Jesus and His own words here.

Do the Apostolic churches teach what you describe? Roman Catholicism makes allowances that some non-Christians and Protestants may one day taste heaven. I'm not sure about the Eastern Orthodox (But I think they leave the possibility open), and the Anglican view depends on which Anglican one asks, but the Polish National Catholic Church actually go well beyond Roman Catholicism in their liberalism on this issue! So we have a lot of the churches you'd describe as apostolic which endorse the idea that God may save some who don't partake of the Eucharist here on either.

John

[Fish and Bread]

Well, no, probably not automatically! But if God has established the Sacraments as necessary to salvation, those of us who have this knowledge must accept it and use it.

So you're saying that it's only necessary for those with knowledge that it's necessary. That's different from claiming that it's a universal necessity. :) The poll question doesn't clarify, so I'm assuming it means universally necessary, which is why I voted no.

John

[gitlance]

Now John, don't misread me! I do indeed believe that there will probably be plenty of people in heaven who never had the sacraments... that is why the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the Eucharist -- it is still a requirement, and perhaps those who had no chance to receive on earth will be given the chance in heaven.

In addition, I believe there will be some who have impeccable orthodoxy and wind up in hell because they did not live a life worthy of Christ.

[TomUK]

Kneeling or standing has nothing to do with doctrine. That is discipline and piety. And my parish, we have three stations for Communion: the High Altar where people kneel, and two side chapels where people file up like in the Roman Church and take it standing.

Neither one of those disciplines affect the Real Presence of Christ.

Of course; i was merely answering your question that i believe one must receive both sacraments for salvation. However i don't believe that we necessarily need to go through the physical expression of either sacrament in order to receive the grace it imparts.

[gitlance]

So you're saying that it's only necessary for those with knowledge that it's necessary. That's different from claiming that it's a universal necessity. :) The poll question doesn't clarify, so I'm assuming it means universally necessary, which is why I voted no.

John

No, I'm saying that it would be to our peril if those of us with the proper knowledge of the sacraments were to neglect them!

Of course, we do know what the Scriptures also say:

Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children."

[Fish and Bread]

The understandings gitlance and Tom have expressed are contrary to the obvious meaning of the poll. I think the average person stumbling through and looking at the poll results without clarification would assume we're a bunch of sacramental fundamentalists. :) I suppose my biggest concern is that when we have polls without clarification where we seem to as a group be voting "yes" to a question that can be read as condemning a lot of people to hell, we're providing a poor witness.

John

[marciebaby]

Was the thief on the cross baptized? Did he partake the Eurcharist?

[gitlance]

The understandings gitlance and Tom have expressed are contrary to the obvious meaning of the poll. I think the average person stumbling through and looking at the poll results without clarification would assume we're a bunch of sacramental fundamentalists. :)

John

The poll asked the question of whether or not the sacraments are necessary. Tom and I have both replied with our beliefs in the matter. You can't ask about the Sacraments and then take them out of an historic Catholic framework.

[gitlance]

Was the thief on the cross baptized? Did he partake the Eurcharist?

Your point?

1. He's not been judged yet anyway, so I do not know whether or not he will be in heaven.

2. Fallacy of ignorance. Just because the Scriptures don't say that he received baptism or Eucharist does not mean that he didn't. John's baptism was rather popular in that day.

[TomUK]

The understandings gitlance and Tom have expressed are contrary to the obvious meaning of the poll. I think the average person stumbling through and looking at the poll results without clarification would assume we're a bunch of sacramental fundamentalists. :) I suppose my biggest concern is that when we have polls without clarification where we seem to as a group be voting "yes" to a question that can be read as condemning a lot of people to hell, we're providing a poor witness.

John

I agree with you totally, which is why i haven't voted yet. My answer of 'yes' would be a significantly different to person x than it would to person y. Therefore i felt it would be simpler just to leave it.

[Fish and Bread]

The poll asked the question of whether or not the sacraments are necessary. Tom and I have both replied with our beliefs in the matter. You can't ask about the Sacraments and then take them out of an historic Catholic framework.

Are non-Catholics (Usuing your definition of the term Catholic) still subject to either salvation or damnation at the Last Judgement? If so, then I think a general question about salvation (Without any clarification that we're only talking about Catholics) carries with it the implication that we may well be talking about people in general.

John

[gitlance]

Are non-Catholics (Usuing your definition of the term Catholic) still subject to either salvation or damnation at the Last Judgement? If so, then I think a general question about salvation (Without any clarification that we're only talking about Catholics) carries with it the implication that we may well be talking about people in general.

John

All men are subject to judgment. And all men will be judged in accordance with the Catholic faith.

[Fish and Bread]

All men are subject to judgment. And all men will be judged in accordance with the Catholic faith.

Earlier, you said "No, I'm saying that it would be to our peril if those of us with the proper knowledge of the sacraments were to neglect them!" as a denial that you believed all Protestant and non-Christians would be in hell. Then it was said that this poll was only referring to the Catholic faith. Now, you're saying that everyone is judged in accordance to the Catholic faith. So, piecing that together, the Catholic faith must have one standard for people with knowledge and one for people without knowledge, and applies to everyone, so a poll about the Catholic faith by default would apply to everyone. Therefore, can you see why this would lead some to believe that a yes vote implicitly condemns Protestants and non-Christians to hell? Based on the beliefs, you've expressed, it seems as though you'd be in the "other" category in the poll, since you believe the that the answer is both yes and no depending on the category of the persons involved.

John

[gitlance]

Earlier, you said "No, I'm saying that it would be to our peril if those of us with the proper knowledge of the sacraments were to neglect them!" as a denial that you believed all Protestant and non-Christians would be in hell. Then it was said that this poll was only referring to the Catholic faith. Now, you're saying that everyone is judged in accordance to the Catholic faith. So, piecing that together, the Catholic faith must have one standard for people with knowledge and one for people without knowledge, and applies to everyone, so a poll about the Catholic faith by default would apply to everyone. Therefore, can you see why this would lead some to believe that a yes vote implicitly condemns Protestants and non-Christians to hell? Based on the beliefs, you've expressed, it seems as though you'd be in the "other" category in the poll, since you believe the that the answer is both yes and no depending on the category of the persons involved.

John

I believe that the Catholic faith is the most complete revelation of God revealed to humanity. But, judging from world conditions, obviously not everybody is exposed to the faith, and some are brought up with misconceptions of the faith. I believe God will judge those based on what Catholic truth they did hold (such as belief in God, the Trinity, Christ, etc). However, I believe the peril is for someone to gain knowledge of Catholic truth and then reject it. An atheist, for example, would be in peril -- he/she has rejected the Catholic truth that there is one God. But a person who knows the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ but refuses to accept that would also be in peril, for they are denying the Catholic faith.

Does this clarify my point a bit? Words are so difficult to convey thoughts sometimes!!

[Fish and Bread]

I believe that the Catholic faith is the most complete revelation of God revealed to humanity. But, judging from world conditions, obviously not everybody is exposed to the faith, and some are brought up with misconceptions of the faith. I believe God will judge those based on what Catholic truth they did hold (such as belief in God, the Trinity, Christ, etc). However, I believe the peril is for someone to gain knowledge of Catholic truth and then reject it. An atheist, for example, would be in peril -- he/she has rejected the Catholic truth that there is one God. But a person who knows the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ but refuses to accept that would also be in peril, for they are denying the Catholic faith.

Does this clarify my point a bit? Words are so difficult to convey thoughts sometimes!!

I think I understand what you're getting at. :)

JOhn

[trooper]

I think the big idea is "what did we do with the knowledge that God gave us". SO, if you know the truth of the Catholic faith and rejected it.. big trouble. If you live in deepest darkest ____ and didn't know but worked with what you had, then maybe you're ok. I am pretty sure that RC teaches this.

I am more concerned about how I will be judged for having shared (or not) the truth of the Gospel (since I know it) than how someone who doesn't have that truth will be judged. In other words, I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling!

[Bulldog]

2. Fallacy of ignorance. Just because the Scriptures don't say that he received baptism or Eucharist does not mean that he didn't. John's baptism was rather popular in that day.

Are you asserting that he did? It is an argument from silence to say that based on scripture's silence the theif could not have bene baptised; it is not, however, fallacious to say "I won't assume that he did until you prove so."

(just for the record, I attend an Anglican church)

[Simon_Templar]

I would have liked to put "Yes and No" but the closest option to that was maybe so thats what I put.

my explanation is this. God Judges men by the light they are given. He does not expect people to have taken part in things they could not possibly have known about. Paul's comments in Roman's chapter 1 indicate that it is possible for even the un-evangelized to be saved because nature itself reveals God's truth, and God reveals himself to all men.

There are writings among the early Fathers that recognize this and state that even the unevangelized can be saved. Since they are unevangelized, it goes without saying that they likely haven't been baptized, or recieved eucharist.

NOW.. it is entirely possible that, as gitlance.. I think.. said they may receive those things in heaven.. thus making them still requirements.. but as far as we are concerned here on earth... people can be counted among the righteous dead without having the benefit of baptizm or eucharist, during their earthly lives.


Now.. that is a special circumstance in which God makes allowance for the fact that people had, or have not recieved the gospel. It is a different story when your talking about people who have recieved the gospel, have been given the full light of truth, and still have refused baptism or eucharist. Thankfully there are only a few fringe groups that do. I personaly have only ever met one person who was from a group that refused baptism, and I've never met any group that refused eucharist. (though I don't doubt that such exists).

Basicly, then I believe that God will not require those things of people if, for some valid reason, it was impossible for them to have partaken, and I include in that, God may, in his mercy make allowance for ignorance... BUT if your banking on those things to cover willfulness.. you have a serious problem.

[DarthDigger]

Fish + bread - I like your new clothes for your character!

DD

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

Was the thief on the cross baptized? Did he partake the Eurcharist?

:thumbsup:

[SirTimothy]

1. He's not been judged yet anyway, so I do not know whether or not he will be in heaven.

"Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise"

Timothy

[gitlance]

"Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise"

Timothy

Where did Jesus go after death? The Realm of the Dead. Is the Realm of the Dead heaven? No.

"He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered death, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again."

"He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison..." 1 Peter 3:18-19

http://img315.imageshack.us/img315/7308/realmofthedead2kp.jpg

(I had to shrink the above image. If anyone wants the original large copy, PM me.)

[SirTimothy]

Where did Jesus go after death? The Realm of the Dead. Is the Realm of the Dead heaven? No.

Are you saying that Jesus lied when he said those words then? Or are you saying that it's a mistranslation...

Timothy

[gitlance]

Are you saying that Jesus lied when he said those words then? Or are you saying that it's a mistranslation...

Timothy

I'm saying that Jesus did exactly what he said he was gonna do.

Tonight, you will be with me in paradise. When Jesus died that afternoon, he descended to the place of departed spirits, and preached to those in paradise. The thief is not in heaven, nor did Jesus say that he would be. Nobody is in heaven currently with the exception (that we know of) of the Blessed Mother, Enoch, and Elijah.

[Fish and Bread]

Fish + bread - I like your new clothes for your character!

DD

Thanks! :)

John

[Yahweh Nissi]

Now.. that is a special circumstance in which God makes allowance for the fact that people had, or have not recieved the gospel. It is a different story when your talking about people who have recieved the gospel, have been given the full light of truth, and still have refused baptism or eucharist. Thankfully there are only a few fringe groups that do. I personaly have only ever met one person who was from a group that refused baptism, and I've never met any group that refused eucharist. (though I don't doubt that such exists).

The Salvation Army practices neither - but they are not actively against them and members are perfectly welcome to receive them elsewhere without prejudice. (This is a general statement of SA position as I understand it; there may well be some individual churches that practice one or the other, and some that do tell members not to go elsewhere to take them.)

[Simon_Templar]

The Salvation Army practices neither - but they are not actively against them and members are perfectly welcome to receive them elsewhere without prejudice. (This is a general statement of SA position as I understand it; there may well be some individual churches that practice one or the other, and some that do tell members not to go elsewhere to take them.)

I guess I have never encountered an actuall salvation army church, in my part of the world they exist only as a charitable organization, not an actual church... At least that I'm aware of... perhaps I just assumed that though.


On the "this day you will be with me in Paradise." statement.

Paul later, when speaking of the man who was caught up to "third heaven" (accepted to have been Paul himself) He refers to third heaven as "paradise".

Furthermore, I am convinced that Paul is making this refrence in the context of the hebrew conception of 7 heavens. Upon examining the 3rd heaven of hebrew conception one finds that it is "paradise" One section of it is a huge garden (in the ancient languages, both hebrew and greek the word "paradise" meant "garden".)
Further, 3rd heaven also contains a section of terrible torment reserved for the souls of the unrighteous.

Thus what Jesus is talking about, I am confident, is the same place that Paul was caught up to. It is a place where the souls of the righteous wait in glory in a garden paradise, and where the souls of the wicked wait in torment. (which is also how the place of the dead was described in the parable told by Jesus).
All of this is 3rd heaven. (IMO)

[svdbygrace]

I didn't say God would never allow anyone to go to hell, I just said that I sincerely doubt that he condemns everyone who is a non-Christian or a Christian without access to the sacraments to hell automatically. :)

John

John 3:16-18

[Fish and Bread]

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already". If we take that literally, yes, all non-Christians go to hell. On the other hand, I think it's worth considering that there's a lot we don't understand about God and a lot of bits of the bible that are not quite literal, or somewhat subtle in meaning. There are other possible interpretations of this verse (For example, one alternate interpretation could be that it takes an active disbelief to be condemned and there are some other possible alternate interpretations as well).

To me, the thing that really tells me, "Hey, there's more to it than that." is going back to look at the verse that procedes this one. Saint John says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.", but we know that there are demons who believe in Jesus, that's in the scripture (And it's doubtful that demons are saved). We know that every knee will bow (Presumably that means they believe in the person that they're bowing to!) before the name of Jesus Christ, but it sounds as though as least some people probably wind up in hell based on the rest of the scripture. And we also know that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven (per Jesus). So, if we're not supposed to take John 3:16 quite at face value, why take John 3:18 at face value, especially considering they're more or less part of the same thought on the part of St. John! There's more too it than I think any of us realize. :)

John