Should We Use the Word "Sacrament"?

Type of Doctrine: Tertiary

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord."

-1 Corinthians 11:26-27 ESV

Why Does It Matter?

Many Protestants have used the word "ordinance" instead of "sacrament" to distance themselves from sacramental theology (from Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Others argue that the word "sacrament" can and should be used for various reasons. Who is correct? This article will explore whether we should use the word "sacrament".

Whether one prefers the word "ordinance" or "sacrament" is typically considered a tertiary issue. People can usually disagree on this issue and remain within the same church. However, I suppose the implications of one's theology of the sacraments could easily lead into a secondary issue which would affect the church one attends.

What Is It?

The word "sacrament" is often used to refer to the practices given by God for the church.

Protestants recognize two sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper)—pointing to Matthew 26:26-29 and Matthew 28:18-20. Both have a sign as well: (1) bread and wine and (2) water.

On the other hand, Catholics argue for seven (baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, marriage, holy orders, and extreme unction). Baptism and the Eucharist are argued on the basis of similar texts as Protestants (though their theology differs). Confirmation is not listed in Scripture. Penance appears to be a misunderstanding of Matthew 4:17. Moreover, marriage is created as a good gift by God, but Scripture never shows Jesus referring to marriage as a church practice. Holy orders has to do with consecrating men to the priesthood and includes taking vows of celibacy and poverty—it has no biblical support (one could argue it is even against Scripture). Extreme unction is also called last rites; some argue that it has biblical warrant (James 5:13-17) and a sign (oil), but that Jesus never prescribed the practice for the church.[1]

There is a branch of theology, called "sacramental theology", which attempts to study and explain how God communicates his grace to us through his sacraments. This developed within Catholic theology. When Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church, some retained the word "sacrament" even though they defined the sacraments much differently. Others sought to distance themselves from sacramental theology by using the term "ordinance" instead. This new terminology was meant to point out that baptism and the Lord's Supper were ordained by Christ. Catholics believe that the sacraments are signs that have power to impart divine grace leading to salvation. The Reformers, conversely, referred to the sacraments as a means of grace (but not the exclusive means).[2]

However, in church history the word sacrament simply meant mystery. Gregg Allison explains, "Historically, the word 'sacrament' (Latin: sacramentum) was associated with the Greek term μυστήριον (mustērion), or mystery; thus, these sacraments were mysteries of the Christian faith."[3]

Indeed, mystery seems to be a good word to describe what we find in 1 Corinthians 11.

"23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come."

-1 Corinthians 11:23-34 ESV

There is quite a bit of mystery in the Lord's Supper in this passage. First, there is the question concerning what is actually taking place at the table. Some say the presence of the Lord is conveyed through the power of the Holy Spirit while others claim that the Lord's Supper is merely a symbol. (For more on the views on the Lord's Supper, click here. To take a deep dive on the views on baptism, click here.)

Moreover, there seems to be serious physical implications if one takes the Lord's Supper improperly. Regardless of one's view on the Lord's Supper, every theological perspective must wrestle with this text:

"27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

-1 Corinthians 11:27-30

The fact that one can partake of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner and get sick, or even die, is astonishing! Surely, this must indicate that there is some mystery in the Lord's Supper.

Thus, to summarize, the word "sacrament" originally meant mystery, but it developed into sacramental theology. Catholics believe that power is inherently found within the sacraments while Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit, Word of God, and faith are necessary as well.[4]

Should we use the word "sacrament"? I personally do. My belief is that Scripture and the early Church Fathers indicate that something mysterious is going on at the Lord's Supper (i.e., real presence; I personally hold to Calvin's view). Since the word was initially used in place of the Greek word for mystery, I don't have any issues using the term. At the same time, I reject the more extensive erroneous views of sacramental theology. Nevertheless, this is likely a tertiary issue. Other well-meaning Christians may disagree, and that's okay. Let's do so charitably.

One final observation: If this subject weren't already fascinating enough, it gets even more intriguing when one researches early Protestants. Some of the groups that are unlikely to use the term "sacrament" today actually did in the past. For one example, my former seminary professor, Michael A. G. Haykin argues that Baptists are sacramental. In his book, he argues that sacrament should be recovered in the Baptist tradition (see his book titled, Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands: Recovering Sacrament in the Baptist Tradition).[5]

Haykin demonstrates that Baptist thought has shifted significantly on this point. The following is from the flap on the front cover: " . . . Haykin argues that many Baptists, such as Charles Spurgeon and other Particular Baptists, stood closer to Reformed sacramental thought than most Baptists today. More than mere memorials, baptism and Communion have spiritual implications that were celebrated by Baptists of the past in sermons and hymns. Haykin calls for a renewal of sacramental life in churches today: Baptists can and should be sacramental."[6]

Remarkably, as Haykin points out, there have also been other forces at play (e.g., the altar call) which have brought about massive implications on church worship services and, at times, have even displaced the sacraments. Haykin writes,

"The fading of the importance of the Lord's Supper in Baptist life during the twentieth century is due not only to the Zwinglian emphasis on an absent Jesus at the Table, but also the employment of the altar call as a place of recommitment to Christ. The richness of baptism in early Baptist thought has also been diminished by making the altar call an event where the believer publicly decides for Christ. Of course, Baptists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries invited unbelievers to believe in Christ, but they did not utilize the altar call to do so . . . For these men and women, baptism was the place where Christians publicly made the 'good confession' (1 Timothy 6:12-13 CSB) and the Lord's Supper the place where that confession was renewed on a regular basis."[7]

Yes, let us recover the sacraments. Will it begin by recovering the term "sacrament"?

End Notes:

[1] See footnote found in Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 321.

[2] Ibid. 322-323.

[3] Ibid., 322.

[4] Ibid., 323.

[5] Michael A. G. Haykin, Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands: Recovering Sacrament in the Baptist Tradition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2022).

[6] Ibid., front cover flap.

[7] Ibid., 123-124.