I think I've formulated a new apologetics argument that should prove fun and (hopefully) fruitful when talking with Protestants. Basically, the way Protestants view the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist is similar to how Paul describes the reason for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. The result of this line of thinking would not only force Protestants to make Baptism indistinguishable from Eucharist, but also to 'raise' Head Coverings up to the level of a new Sacrament in itself. Let's see where this goes.
In the Protestant mind, one of the chief errors of Catholicism is the Catholic claim that Sacraments cause an actual change within a person who uses the Sacraments properly. Protestants will say things like "there is no way just pouring water actually washes away sin," which is understandable because it's partly correct. But what is ironic about this is that most Protestants would believe that the Bible actually imparts saving effects upon a person, even though the Bible is 'only' paper and ink. What Protestants miss is that Baptism is not 'only' water anymore than the Bible is 'only' paper and ink. There is something else at work, namely the Holy Spirit! So if the Bible can actually impart spiritual benefit upon the properly disposed person who reads it, similarly Baptism and Eucharist should (logically) be capable of doing the same.
While Luther (and to some extent Calvin) could be fine with Baptism actually causing saving effects upon a person, the next generation of Protestants saw a few glaring problems/contradictions with this. As with all heresies, theological errors are much easier to get started while the truth-error balance is still in flux, before the actual logical and theological consistency gets worked out. Once the heresy has become accepted, then the actual coherence and proof texts can be sought, and any 'modifications' made. Generally speaking, the Protestant trend has been to reduce Baptism to merely an outward testimony of an inner reality which has already occurred. Protestants believe this for three main reasons: (1) to say water actually causes change is seen by Protestants as Catholic superstition (despite the fact Protestants treat the Bible in a 'superstitious' manner by that same logic); (2) to say Baptism saves is not easily reconcilable with the claim faith alone saves (which erroneously categorizes Baptism as a "work" [of the Mosaic Law] just like circumcision); and (3) to say Baptism saves conflicts with the notion that justification is a legal evaluation of a person's past, not a matter of a present inward transformation (despite the fact the Bible describes forgiveness of sins in terms of inward change). With this background in mind, we can get inside the mind of a Protestant and thus can proceed to the main argument.
My argument is that the Protestant view of Baptism and Eucharist as being merely outward testimonies of what Jesus has already done for them runs into two problems. The first problem is, if Baptism outwardly proclaims Jesus' blood has already washed away their sins, then how is Eucharist much different given that it also outwardly proclaims Jesus' blood has already washed away their sins? I'm sure Protestants can use all sorts of flowery language on how Baptism and Eucharist emphasize different parts of Jesus' saving work, but in the end both are really outwardly testifying to basically the same things. (What could they possibly do to answer this, maybe drive an artificial wedge between Jesus' blood justifying versus it sanctifying?)
The second problem is, why wouldn't other similar commandments in Scripture be able to fill the same role as Baptism and Eucharist, for example Head Coverings. Right in the middle of Paul's discussion on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 10-11, Paul speaks of the issue of Head Coverings in some pretty strong language:
Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is the same as having her head shaved. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (1 Cor 10:1-15, trimmed for length only)
Now it is clear that HCs don't cause any actual change in the woman, so what we see is that HCs are acting more as outward testimony of what is already inwardly true. It is clear that HCs do tie into salvation as well, given Paul's reference to "because of the Angels" (either meaning Angels are truly present during Liturgy or else this is a euphemism for the Priest as God's messenger), as well as the context of Liturgy, and the subordination of Jesus to the will of the Father, mystically similar to how a wife is supposed to be subordinate to her husband in some real sense. Given this, it only makes sense for Protestants to classify HCs as a genuine 3rd Sacrament, fulfilling the same Protestant qualifications as Baptism and Eucharist.
These two problems are both plainly absurd and thus testify to the falsity of the Protestant view of Sacraments. Not only has no Protestant denomination ever held that HCs are Sacraments, it would be silly because then Liturgy would be an outward sign (Head Covering) taking place during another outward sign (Eucharist). Combined with the one time (even optional) use of Baptism, the infrequency of the Eucharist in Protestant liturgy, and the neglect of Head Coverings, we see the Sacraments have little place in the Protestant life...which explains why they've elevated a man with a secular doctorate degree as the central focus of their liturgy, where this priest dispenses their own super-sacrament in the form of a glorified Bible study, being "fed by the Word" (in this case the words of the minister's heart).
6 comments:
Hey Nick,
Intriguing argument. But I think its problem at root is that it can only get going by presupposing the truth of a Roman Catholic theory of the sacraments--which is precisely the question not to beg here.
I'll grant your use of the word "sacraments" in this arguments for the sake of convenience. Many Protestant traditions use the word as well, albeit with a different underlying theory. I shy away from the term because it seems to me that it is more likely to confuse matters than clarify them given the various underlying theories. That said, I agree that the head-covering could be viewed as in some sense "sacramental" (loosely speaking). Clearly it is symbolic. It pictures a complimentarian view of the sexes with functional subordination of women to their husbands.
I also agree that the Eucharist and Baptism overlap in their symbolism. But why that should be a a problem at all, much less a uniquely Protestant one, simply escapes me. Both picture the death of Christ. In the Eucharist we proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Baptism likewise pictures our death to sin and rising to new life. The two are closely related, but they are not the same thing. There is "one" baptism. But we permitted to celebrate the Lord's supper "as often" as we desire.
I haven't given much thought as to why one is a unique experience and the other is repeatable (from a Protestant perspective), but I would surmise that it probably has to do with the distinction between justification and sanctification--something which Rome denies because it lacks the proper categories for doing a properly Biblical theology. But from a Roman Catholic perspective, it is clear why one is repeatable: You have a deficient view of the atonement that simply cannot be reconciled with the book of Hebrews. On the one hand, you believe in universal objective atonement which makes everyone savable, but which actually saves no one. (No where is this concept taught in scripture.). On the other hand, you have sacramental re-presentation of the atonement which is offered over and over again, but which also perfects no one. Contrast that to the once-and-for-all atonement that Christ made that perfects whomever it is offered for and does so eternally. I mean, Rome's view of the atonement (when integrated with its doctrine of the mass-as-sacrifice) is pretty much the exact **opposite** of what the Bible teaches.
continued...
resumed...
Baptism, on the other hand, pictures (but does not cause) our incorporation into Christ, which includes our justification and regeneration. Life-long partaking of the Lord's supper pictures (but does not cause) our sanctification which is necessarily tied to our remembrance of his death on our behalf. We cannot grow in holiness without understanding our sin and what He did to take it away.
In any event, that the two ordinances/sacraments would share overlapping concepts is hardly a surprise. Nor is it surprising that customs, such as head-coverings, would do the same. The question here is whether or not head-coverings were intended in the first place to be a universal practice for all time and all cultures. I'll leave it to you to make that case. For now I'm persuaded that there is certainly nothing wrong with wearing them. But Biblically, I see no mandate for this beyond the time/place in which they were in style, and would tend to suspect that those who require them today are most likely guilty of legalism, which is exactly the opposite of the freedom of the Gospel.
Much the same can be said of Romanism. So much of the rules surrounding the sacraments do lend themselves to legalism, especially in the more traditional and conservative strains of Romanism. I've seen it first hand. It reminds me of Paul's letter to the Colossians where he says, "don't handle, don't eat, don't touch" (Col. 2:21) in order to mock a popular slogan of the legalists of his day. There's a lot of that same legalism in traditional Romanism. I was once asked by a lay female to remove a vacuum cleaner that had been left in the Chancel. I was in the back of the church praying. I didn't understand the request, so I asked her why she was asking me. She looked at me like I was some kind of moron. Because only men can go in that part of the church. That was her answer. Just then, a maid went into the Chancel and retrieved the vacuum cleaner she had left just before mass started.
Apparently female worshippers can't go into some sections of the church. But female maids can when it is for the purposes of vacuuming and dusting. Obviously this was an extreme case of scruples on the part of the young lady who, if she were to be consistent, would probably have done well to avoid approaching a male stranger--as no doubt that too would have been a violation of the cultural norms way back when. (But seldom is any legalist consistent in their legalism....)
In any event, if you would be free of such legalism, you need to repent and believe the Gospel, which is exactly opposite of what your brand of Romanism offers the world.
Hello Michael,
Here are my thoughts:
(1) I don't think my argument presupposes the Catholic view of the Sacraments, but rather it shows the Catholic view makes better sense than the redundant Protestant view.
(2) Your claim that the head covering teaching of Paul was limited to the Apostolic era is a weak claim exegetically, and really ad hoc, leaving you unable to oppose people who would throw out other things on the same line of thinking.
(3) My argument against the Protestant view is that there is sufficient overlap between the Protestant sacraments that >>if they are both merely symbols<< of what Christ has done for you, then the Eucharist is essentially redundant. This would explain why the Eucharist is only celebrated quarterly in most of Protestantism.
(4) In the Catholic view, there is no redundancy, because Baptism is akin to the initial birth and new life, i.e. a one time thing, while the Eucharist holds a feeding-growing function, i.e. a continuous thing.
(5) The Catholic view of Eucharist as a Sacrifice is not really the subject of this post, but 1 Cor 10:18-21 clearly puts it in the context of sacrifice (comparing it to both Jewish and Pagan Sacrifices). Why would Paul say "table of the Lord" and "table of demons" if he didn't mean sacrifice in each case?
(6) Your claim that Catholics confuse Justification and Sanctification seems silly to me, given that the Reformed hold that Regeneration happens even before faith (and causes faith). In Regeneration for the reformed view, the individual is radically transformed within, given a new heart, new mind, etc. How is this not sanctification? How is this not the equivalent of what Catholics say happens at justification (but which you put before Justification)? Stuff to ponder.
(7) Your claim that Baptism pictures Justification while Eucharist pictures Sanctification is highly problematic. The Eucharist very much pictures Justification, probably more than Baptism. The Eucharist is about body given up for sins, blood shed for sins, sacrifice, atonement, etc., far less "Sanctification" and far more "Justification" in the Eucharist imagery.
Nick
Great article! Thanks
Nick,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I forgot to check the follow-up email box…
You said: >>(1) I don't think my argument presupposes the Catholic view of the Sacraments, but rather it shows the Catholic view makes better sense than the redundant Protestant view.<<
But it does. You keep begging the question over and over again. First establish why redundancy is a bad thing. Then show how your side avoids the same imagined problem since, I'm sure you would agree, both Baptism and the Lord's Supper picture the death of the Lords (cf, 1 Cor. 11:26; Rom 6:4; Col 2:12).
You said>>(2) Your claim that the head covering teaching of Paul was limited to the Apostolic era is a weak claim exegetically….<<
How so, exactly? All I see here is bare assertion on your part. Like I said, I'll leave it to you to argue why women must continue to cover their heads (as a universal imperative). If this were truly the case, then why wouldn't Rome require it of all Catholic women at mass?
You said>>3) My argument against the Protestant view is that there is sufficient overlap between the Protestant sacraments that >>if they are both merely symbols<< of what Christ has done for you, then the Eucharist is essentially redundant. This would explain why the Eucharist is only celebrated quarterly in most of Protestantism. <<
Quarterly would be four times a year. Most Protestant churches celebrate the Lord's supper monthly, not quarterly. But the more important point is that you have no Biblical warrant for prescribing any frequency other than "how often." Paul was fine with leaving that decision up to the local church. Rome simply doesn't have the authority to usurp that of an Apostle.
You said>>(4) In the Catholic view, there is no redundancy, because Baptism is akin to the initial birth and new life, i.e. a one time thing, while the Eucharist holds a feeding-growing function, i.e. a continuous thing.<<
See comments above. In the Bible, both Baptism and the Lord's supper have overlapping symbolism. The same can be said of preaching. If the Bible has no problem with it, why do you?
continued….
…Resumed.
You said>>(5) The Catholic view of Eucharist as a Sacrifice is not really the subject of this post, but 1 Cor 10:18-21 clearly puts it in the context of sacrifice (comparing it to both Jewish and Pagan Sacrifices). Why would Paul say "table of the Lord" and "table of demons" if he didn't mean sacrifice in each case? <<
I've answered you on this point before. Here's the link to my blog article on precisely this point: http://fallibility.blogspot.com/2013/05/does-1-corinthians-1016-21-prove-roman.html Or if you don't want to read it, just know that it isn't enough to establish that the idea of "sacrifice" lies near to these texts; rather you must show that the precise sense of "sacrifice" matches what Rome teaches on the subject. Specifically, you have the burden of showing that an unbloody, repeatable, propitiatory sacrifice that can never perfect those for whom it is offered, no matter how many times they go to mass, and that only an ordained priest can offer it, and that the sacrifice is in fact immolated on the table/altar is exactly what the Apostle had in mind when he contrasted the table of the Lord to the table of demons--else you're entire argument, which clearly rests on an inference from silence, is at best circumstantial. Good luck with that. :-)
You said>>(6) Your claim that Catholics confuse Justification and Sanctification seems silly to me, given that the Reformed hold that Regeneration happens even before faith (and causes faith). In Regeneration for the reformed view, the individual is radically transformed within, given a new heart, new mind, etc. How is this not sanctification? How is this not the equivalent of what Catholics say happens at justification (but which you put before Justification)? Stuff to ponder. <<
Regeneration is not sanctification. The former is God's making a spiritually dead person alive in Christ. I'd refer you to Ephesians 2 for that. Sanctification is a process of growing into Christ. In Romanism, justification is both a completed action and an ongoing process. So even you have to distinguish between the initial aspects of justification and ongoing justification. The problem is that Rome believes that sinners can, "convert themselves to their own justification," so long as God is helping them with quickening and assisting grace. In other words, God helps those who help themselves. You do realize that is the antitheses of Ephesians 1-2 where man-dead-in-sin is unable to do so and that God doesn't simply "help and assist," but rather saves us us outright according to good pleasure of his will. "Repent and believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:15).
You said>>(7) Your claim that Baptism pictures Justification while Eucharist pictures Sanctification is highly problematic. The Eucharist very much pictures Justification, probably more than Baptism. The Eucharist is about body given up for sins, blood shed for sins, sacrifice, atonement, etc., far less "Sanctification" and far more "Justification" in the Eucharist imagery.<<
I did not say that Baptism pictures *only* justification and that the Eucharist pictures *only* Sanctificaiton. You're drawing a sharp dichotomy where, if you read me in context, I intended none and even went on to say that both share overlapping concepts.
All this because of head coverings?
Post a Comment