A Discussion of Sacramentalism

A letter to my brother in which I discuss the 

biblical examples of sacramentalism

Gary Hoge

Dear Brother,

I’ve been thinking about the discussions we've had about baptism and other things, and it occurred to me that I may have jumped the gun a bit by trying to go right to the Bible without first addressing the presuppositions and biases that you seem to have. The first thing I perceive from you is an a priori rejection of the very idea of sacramentalism. Is that true? I know that many Protestants do reject the idea that God would use ordinary matter (water, oil, the laying-on of hands, etc.) to convey grace to individuals. They believe that God only conveys grace intangibly, i.e., “spiritually.” Any exterior ritual is seen as merely symbolic, and the symbol is disconnected chronologically from the spiritual grace it symbolizes. Sacramentalism, on the other hand, is the belief that the outward rituals symbolize in the physical realm that which God accomplishes simultaneously in the spiritual realm. Thus, the washing with water in baptism symbolizes the spiritual cleansing that God accomplishes at that very moment. These symbols are not magic, of course, and they do not “work” if the recipient lacks the proper disposition. For example, if an adult who does not have faith and repentance were baptized, he would receive nothing but a bath.

Of course, there’s really no point in discussing these things if you are not open to the possibility that sacramentalism may be true, so I’d like to encourage you to keep an open mind, and to evaluate the evidence without rejecting the idea out of hand. I’m not asking you to accept that sacramentalism is true, but only that it could be true. To help you do that, I’d like to show here that the concept of God using matter to convey grace is itself Scriptural, and that there is therefore no reason to automatically reject the very idea, and to insist as a matter of principle that God does not use visible means of imparting grace.

Since you claim Scripture as your only authority, it seems to me that you should at least allow for the possibility of sacramentalism, for the simple reason that the Bible is chock-full of examples of God using matter to convey grace. For example, in the Old Testament a dead man was resurrected when he touched Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21), and Naaman the Syrian was healed of leprosy when he washed seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5:14). In the former case, God used the inanimate bones of Elisha to impart the grace of resurrection to the dead man (unless you believe that Elisha's bones were inherently magical, which I, for one, do not), and in the latter case, he used the waters of the Jordan River to impart the grace of healing to Naaman. There are many other examples of the sacramental principle in the Old Testament, but these two should suffice.

When we move to the New Testament, we find that things are no different. For example, Jesus spit on the ground, made mud, and wiped it on the eyes of the man born blind (John 9:6). Then he told the man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam. Later, the man said, “I went and washed, and then I could see” (John 9:11). Of course, it’s obvious that the water was not the primary cause of the man’s healing. The primary cause was the power of God, and the secondary cause was the man’s faith. But it’s equally obvious that the water was the instrumental cause of his healing. The man already had as much faith as he was going to get as he groped his way to Siloam, but he was not healed until he washed in the water. In other examples, the hem of Jesus’s garment conveyed healing to a woman who touched it (Luke 8:44), and at Gennessaret “the people brought all their sick to [Jesus] and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed” (Matt. 14:36). Likewise, Peter’s shadow healed the sick upon whom it fell (Acts 5:15), and the apostles “anointed many sick people with oil and healed them” (Mark 6:13). Even handkerchiefs and aprons that Paul had touched were used to heal the sick and to drive out evil spirits (Acts 19:12). How can you explain that from a non-sacramental point of view?

In Samaria many people were converted by the preaching of Philip, and he baptized them. But the Holy Spirit did not come upon any of the baptized believers until Peter and John arrived from Jerusalem and laid their hands on them (Acts 8:14-17). Why did they have to wait for Peter and John? Why couldn’t Philip do it? He was able to baptize the people (as indeed anyone can), and he even healed the sick and drove out evil spirits. So why couldn’t he impart the Holy Spirit through the laying-on of his hands? The answer is simple: Philip was not an apostle (Acts 6:5) or a bishop (the bishops are the linear successors of the apostles), and so he was not authorized and empowered by God to do that. Neither was Simon the sorcerer, who attempted to buy this power from Peter and John (Acts 8:18-19). However, Timothy, who was not an apostle, but was a bishop, could do it (1 Tim. 5:22), and Timothy himself received the Holy Spirit through the laying-on of the apostle Paul’s hands (2 Tim. 1:6). (Here you catch a glimpse, not only of the sacramental nature of the laying-on of hands, but also of the visible, hierarchical structure of the Church).

Obviously, there are many examples in the Bible of God using matter to convey grace. Even the Spirit himself was usually given only through the laying-on of hands. True, there are a few times that God conveyed His grace directly (and I don’t deny that God still does so today), but they are the exceptions. Most of the time, God seems to prefer to work through visible means, and indeed when we reject sacramentalism we deny God the use of His own creation. Thus, it seems to me that sacramentalism per se is a thoroughly Biblical concept.

If you think about it, the sacramental principle was demonstrated most spectacularly in the Incarnation (in which the Word became flesh) and in the Atonement (in which the actual, shed blood of Christ conveyed to us the grace of redemption). Protestants put a lot of faith in the “power of the blood,” and rightly so. But this was not some “spiritual” blood, it was real blood, red, and dripping. And “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). Do you realize that the shed blood of Jesus is the instrumental cause of our salvation? If that is not sacramentalism, then I don't know what is. It seems, then, that there should be no objection in principle to the idea that God would use ordinary matter (e.g., water) to convey grace (e.g., regeneration). The only question should be one of fact: does God do this, or does He not?

Can we agree on that much? Putting aside for the moment the specific question of regenerational baptism, can we at least agree that there should be no a priori philosophical objection to sacramentalism per se, and that the basic idea of God using matter to convey grace is taught in Scripture?

Love,

Gary