|
 Last
month we devoted two pages to the “priesthood of believers”
but the importance of this principle to restoration history can
scarcely be appreciated unless we truly understand the relation
of priest to sacrament. Consider this digest of material from a
R.C. approved catechism. “Q. What are sacraments? A. Sensible
signs instituted for our sanctification. Q. Why? A. To communicate
His graces to us. Q. What are the elements
of the sacraments? A. Three in number: the matter, the form, and
the minister. Q. Who are the ministers? A. Bishops and
priests.” (Catechism of Perseverance, by F. B. Jamison; 1850;
my emphasis.)
On
the basis that God confers His grace through visible signs,
placed only in “the church,” and “administered” by “church
officials” “the church” becomes something more than
God’s people. It becomes a depository of truth and saving
grace, dispensing or withholding at its discretion. We say the
church is essential — meaning one must obey the Lord, resulting
in our becoming a member of His body the church, and our service
therein. The church does not save. Christ is the savior, and the
church is the saved. But the Catholic concept
gives the church power to forgive sins. On page 247, above
Catechism: “A. The remission of sins is the power given to the
church to forgive sins. This power is found only in the church.
.“ and cites Matt. 16:19.
The
R.C. church has seven sacraments by which, they say, men can
have communion with God. Protestants generally recognize two
sacraments; baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But because most
reformers
|
|
never got away from the “sacramental”
idea, they held to some form of “official” administrators,
perpetuating the sacerdotal system. We are told that only
certain ones can baptize, and “the church” must validate the
Lord’s Supper. Then succession is not in the seed alone (Lu.
8:11), but we must prove an unbroken line of preachers,
churches, or whatever. There could be no restoration, for the
entrenched and corrupt “church” would judge itself, by its
own standards (2 Cor. 10:12..f ). In theory the reformers
rejected the sacerdotal system, raising the Word of God as the
chief means of grace, and for this contribution to our thinking
we should be grateful. But in practice, neither they nor we seem
completely content with the individual’s (priest’s) role as
Bible student, who must answer to his own conscience before God.
(It is as though we can not trust God to produce acceptable
followers in His own way.)
“Sacrament”
denotes “sacred” “set apart.” Certain teachings are put
in a separate class and God’s grace is ours through these. But
that leaves the rest of God’s teaching as “common” or
ordinary. Efforts to list the doctrines that make for fellowship
have this fallacy — though we do not call them “sacraments.”
It is obviously true that certain commandments have assigned
reasons or purposes (as baptism “for remission of sins”) but
we are not at liberty to “judge the law” (Jas. 2:10-12),
making one part more important than another. Our attitude toward
the whole law of liberty indicates our attitude toward God, and
the extent of our “restoration.”
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
