Symbols, or Sacraments?

Christ at the Well of Sychar

“Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 4:14

Nearly every Christian communion baptizes and celebrates a supper of bread and wine. The dispute this page takes up is not whether these things should be done but what happens when they are done. The Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments are instruments — that in baptism God actually washes sin away, that in absolution He actually forgives, that grace is truly given through the sign. A large part of Protestantism teaches that the signs are exactly that: ordinances, acts of obedience, testimonies to a grace given elsewhere and otherwise, through faith alone.

The question underneath is old and simple: does God use matter to give grace, or does matter at most remind us of grace? This page argues the principle, and the two sacraments where the dispute is sharpest for most Protestants — baptism, including the baptism of infants, and confession. The Eucharist, where the same dispute reaches its height, has its own page, as do the orders of ministry that the sacramental system presupposes.

The Protestant panel below states the objections at full strength, including the one history hands them: the indulgence scandal that lit the Reformation. The Catholic panel answers from the texts, and from a principle older than the dispute.

I invite your engagement with me on these questions. You may leave comments below, but please be sure to read our policy on commenting before doing so.

Protestant View

Jump to the Catholic View ↓

It should be said first that Protestantism is not of one mind here, and the strongest form of the objection is not held by all. Luther kept baptismal regeneration and infant baptism; the Reformed confessions call the sacraments true means of grace. The view answered on this page — the signs as symbols only — descends from Zwingli and is today most clearly confessed among Baptists and evangelicals. But the objections beneath it are shared far more widely, and they are serious.

The ordinances are acts of obedience, not means of grace. The Baptist Faith and Message states the position exactly: “Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.”1 An act of obedience symbolizing — not a channel conferring. Grace comes by faith alone, directly from God to the soul; the rites picture it, profess it, and obey it. They do not deliver it.

A rite that confers grace threatens the Gospel itself. If we are justified by faith apart from works, then salvation cannot hang on a ceremony — something done with hands, water, and words. A sacrament that “works” is a work. And the Catholic phrase for how it works, ex opere operato, “by the work worked,” says the quiet part aloud: the deed itself effects the result. That is the grammar of magic, not of grace — the belief that the right ceremony, correctly performed, obligates heaven. Faith is trusting a Person; ritual efficacy is operating a mechanism, and the prophets had a word for trusting mechanisms. Christ Himself seems to say as much: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) — spirit, not ceremony.

The New Testament pattern is believer’s baptism. Every baptism the New Testament narrates is the baptism of someone who first believed. “Repent, and be baptized” (Acts 2:38) — repentance first, and an infant can do neither. Baptism is the answer of a conscience awake (1 Pet. 3:21), and an infant’s conscience is not yet awake. Nowhere does Scripture record the baptism of a baby; the practice entered with the state church, when membership in Christ and membership in society collapsed into one thing, and a christening became a birth certificate.2

Confession is made to God, not to a man. David said it: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned” (Ps. 51:4). If sin is against God only, God only can forgive it, and God only need hear it. “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5) — one, not one plus a confessor. The requirement to enumerate sins to a priest in a box puts a human gatekeeper on a door Christ opened, burdens tender consciences, and hands to fallible men a power the Scriptures give to God alone.

All believers are priests. “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). The New Testament knows one high priest, Christ, whose sacrifice is finished and unrepeatable (Heb. 7:27), and one priestly people. It never once calls a Christian minister a priest. A separate caste of sacrificing priests, standing between the believer and God and controlling his access to grace through their rites, is precisely what the Epistle to the Hebrews says has been abolished.3

And history shows where the system leads. By the sixteenth century the machinery of sacramental grace had become a machinery of revenue: masses said for fees, and indulgences preached across Germany by Tetzel as if forgiveness had a price list. The Reformation did not begin over an abstraction. It began over the sale of grace — and a system in which grace is administered by an institution will always be tempted to charge for admission.4

The objection, at bottom, is a defense of the Gospel’s directness. God saves by grace, through faith, in Christ — not through plumbing. The signs are precious as signs. The moment they become machinery, the believer’s eyes are moved from the Savior to the system that dispenses Him.

Endnotes
  1. The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), Article VII, quoted exactly; the spelling “Saviour” is the document’s own. The Lord’s Supper is defined in the same article as “a symbolic act of obedience.” ↩
  2. The historical claim — that infant baptism arose with establishment rather than from the apostles — is the standard Baptist account, summarized here rather than quoted from any one author. ↩
  3. 1 Peter 2:9; Hebrews 7:23–27, RSV. The observation that the New Testament never applies hiereus, the sacrificial word for priest, to an individual Christian minister is stated here as the objection makes it. ↩
  4. On Tetzel and the indulgence trade of 1517, the account is common historical ground. ↩

Catholic View

The Catechism defines the disputed term in one sentence: “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.” Signs — the memorialist is right that they signify. Efficacious — they effect what they signify, which is where the dispute lives. The opponent on this page is the memorialist — the Baptist, Zwinglian, and non-denominational view. Lutherans confess baptismal regeneration and the real presence, the Reformed call the sacraments means of grace, Anglicans and Methodists keep sacramental theologies of their own; on most of what follows they stand nearer Rome than to the memorialist. The question beneath the vocabulary is whether God uses matter to give grace, and the whole shape of biblical religion answers it: a good creation, a covenant cut in flesh, healing through Jordan water and clay and spittle, and at last salvation through a body. A religion too spiritual for matter is not purified Christianity; it is the old Gnostic instinct in newer clothes.1

What the New Testament Says Baptism Does

Ask not what baptism might symbolize but what the text says it effects. “Baptism… now saves you” — Peter’s own words, immediately guarded from magic: “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). “Be baptized every one of you… for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16). Saved “by the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). “Born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). The memorialist must read four strong verbs as four figures of speech for something happening elsewhere. The sacramental reading takes them as descriptions. Nothing in that competes with faith: the sacrament is faith’s object in action — God doing, visibly and at a nameable moment, what faith trusts Him to do.2

Are Catholics Born Again?

The question deserves a direct answer, because it is usually asked as though it were a trap: yes. Every baptized Catholic has been born again, in the only sense the phrase carries in Scripture. When Jesus tells Nicodemus that “unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3), Nicodemus asks how a man can be born a second time, and Jesus answers by specifying the birth He means: “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5) — one birth of water-and-Spirit together, not a physical birth followed by a spiritual one. The context is baptism on every side. Jesus has just come from His own baptism, where the water and the descending Spirit met (Matt. 3:16); and the evangelist’s very next scene has Jesus baptizing — “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22). Paul closes the circle by calling baptism “the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5): rebirth, water, and Spirit in a single verse.

The early Church knew no other reading — Justin within living memory of the apostles describing converts regenerated in water, Irenaeus, Cyprian and Augustine citing the verse as a matter of course, and Luther’s Small Catechism still teaching that baptism “works the forgiveness of sins” (the testimony is set out in the essay). The born-again-at-the-altar-call theology that asks the question is the newcomer in the room. So the question may be returned with charity: are you born again the way the Bible describes the new birth — of water and the Spirit?3

The Baptism of Infants

The concession first: every baptism the New Testament narrates is a convert’s, as it is on any mission field, Catholic ones included. The question is what happened to the converts’ children, and there the evidence runs the other way. Baptism was administered by household (Acts 16:33; Lydia; Stephanas) — the way the covenant had always run. Paul calls baptism “the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11–12), and circumcision was given to infants on the eighth day by God’s command; if the new sign fulfills the old, those who would narrow it to adults must explain why the new covenant is at this one point meaner than the old. Peter speaks the covenant idiom at Pentecost: “the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:39). And the early record treats the practice as received, not invented — Origen calls it a tradition from the apostles; Cyprian’s council debated not whether infants should be baptized but whether they must wait eight days. Ott’s grading is flat: valid and licit, de fide. For infants who die unbaptized, the Catechism draws the boundary in a sentence worth memorizing: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments” (CCC 1257).4

Confession: David Answers His Own Psalm

“Against thee, thee only, have I sinned” is quoted against the confessional — but David spoke those words after Nathan confronted him face to face, and it was Nathan who pronounced God’s pardon: “The Lord also has put away your sin.” Sin against God only; absolution through a man sent by God. The New Testament makes the pattern an office. “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you… If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23). Forgiving or retaining requires hearing; a commission to do what God was already doing without them would be a commission to do nothing. Paul calls it “the ministry of reconciliation” entrusted to ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:18–20); James sends the sick man to the elders and says “confess your sins” (Jas. 5:14–16). The priest is not a second mediator; he is the ambassador the one Mediator sent. And the Catholic who hears “I absolve you” spoken aloud walks out knowing he is forgiven, rather than hoping he has felt sorry enough.5

A Kingdom of Priests — With Priests

“A royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9) is a quotation, and the quotation decides the argument. The words are God’s to Israel at Sinai: “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6) — said of a nation that had a ministerial priesthood, established by the same God in the same covenant. The universal and the ordained priesthood coexisted for fifteen centuries in the very text Peter cites; his words cannot abolish in the new covenant what they described alongside priests in the old. The left panel’s observation about vocabulary is correct and welcome: the New Testament applies “priesthood” to all the baptized and calls its ministers presbyteroi, elders — the word that became “priest” in English. Both priesthoods are Catholic teaching (CCC 784–786, quoting Lumen Gentium); the dispute is only whether Christ also set some apart, and the case that He did — the Twelve, the elders appointed city by city, the laying on of hands — is made on the apostolic succession page.6

Ex Opere Operato Is Not Magic

The phrase means that the sacrament’s validity does not depend on the holiness of the minister — that Christ, not the priest, is the true actor. It was forged in the Donatist crisis, against the claim that baptisms conferred by failed clergy were void: when Peter baptizes, Christ baptizes; when Judas baptizes, Christ baptizes. The alternative is pastoral terror — no Christian could trust his baptism without first auditing the soul of the man who performed it. What the recipient brings still matters, and the Church says so as plainly as any Reformer: the sacraments “bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions” (CCC 1131). The memorialist’s instinct against mechanical religion guards something true — the Church condemns superstition too. But the line between sacrament and magic is the line between receiving from God on His terms and obligating a power on ours, and it is the sacramental view that keeps God the actor from first to last.7

That answers the magic charge; the works charge deserves its own answer, because it is really the sola fide dispute in sacramental dress. “A sacrament that works is a work” assumes the sacrament is something the believer performs to earn standing. It is the reverse: a sacrament received is something done to the believer, not by him. The infant at the font contributes nothing; the penitent in the confessional brings only his sins; the communicant opens his mouth. If salvation by works means man achieving his own rescue, nothing could be further from it than an act whose whole grammar is receiving. The objection lands on the wrong end of the transaction — and the underlying question, whether the faith that saves can remain alone, is argued at Is Sola Fide True?

Worship in Spirit and Truth

The verse most often set against everything above is John 4:24: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” — read as Christ’s own verdict against ritual, ceremony, and sacrament. The reading collapses on its context. The Samaritan woman had asked a question of geography — this mountain or Jerusalem (John 4:20) — and Christ’s answer abolishes the where, not the how: “the hour is coming, and now is” when true worship will be tied to no mountain, because the true temple is His own body (John 2:19–21). Nor is “spirit” in John’s Gospel a synonym for the merely interior. In the same conversation Christ offers the woman living water (John 4:10), and when the image returns at the feast, John glosses it himself: “this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive” (John 7:39). Worship in spirit is worship in the Holy Spirit; worship in truth is worship in Him who is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). And the speaker is the same Christ who, on the night before He died, took bread and said “Do this” (Luke 22:19) — instituting the most concrete act of worship the Church possesses. A verse cannot be a verdict against ritual when the Lord who spoke it instituted one.

Indulgences: the Abuse Was Real

Tetzel’s trade was a genuine scandal, and the Council of Trent said so — abolishing the indulgence-sellers and condemning “all base gain for securing indulgences.” A Catholic who pretends otherwise forfeits the argument. But an abuse defines nothing. An indulgence is the remission of the temporal consequences of sins already forgiven; it presupposes forgiveness, has never been forgiveness, and has never legitimately been for sale. Its doctrine stands with purgatory and the communion of saints, argued on their own pages.8

What Is at Stake

Where may a Christian look for assurance? The memorialist locates grace in an interior transaction and leaves the signs outside it; the believer is thrown back on the quality of his own sincerity for confidence it occurred. The sacramental Christian is given something outside himself — a date on which he was baptized, absolution spoken aloud, bread placed in his hands. Grace located where Christ located it can be found again in the dark. That is not superstition but the mercy of a God who knows what we are made of — who has always stooped to matter, because matter is what He made us from, and what His Son became.

This is the concise case. The full essay adds the survey of Reformation positions in their own words, the patristic record on infant baptism, the treatment of scrupulosity and the confessional, why there are seven sacraments and not two, and complete documentation. It is available as a Word document at the end of this page.

Endnotes
  1. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1131, quoted exactly from the Vatican’s text. ↩
  2. 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Titus 3:5; John 3:5, RSV. ↩
  3. John 3:1–22; Titus 3:5; Matthew 3:16, RSV. Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, quoted in the Ante-Nicene Fathers translation and checked against the library’s copies; Irenaeus, Fragment 34; Cyprian, Letter 71(72):1; Augustine, Letter 98:2, summarized. Luther, Small Catechism, Part IV, on baptism. The Catholic Answers tract “Are Catholics Born Again?” (imprimatur 2004), which assembles this evidence, is held in the site’s reference library. ↩
  4. Acts 16:33; Colossians 2:11–12; Acts 2:39, RSV. Origen, Commentary on Romans 5.9; Cyprian, Letter 64 (the council of 253). Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “The Baptism of young children is valid and licit. (De fide.)” CCC 1257; cf. the International Theological Commission, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised (2007). ↩
  5. Psalm 51:4 with 2 Samuel 12:13; John 20:21–23; 2 Corinthians 5:18–20; James 5:14–16, RSV. ↩
  6. 1 Peter 2:9, quoting Exodus 19:6. CCC 784–786 and 1546–1547, quoting Lumen Gentium 10: the two priesthoods “differ essentially and not only in degree” while ordered to one another. ↩
  7. Ott: “The Sacraments work ex opere operato. (De fide.)” Augustine’s principle summarizes In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus 6.7. CCC 1127–1128, 1131. ↩
  8. Council of Trent, Decree Concerning Indulgences (Session XXV, 1563); CCC 1471–1479. ↩

Summary

The dispute is not whether to baptize or break bread but what happens when we do. One side — the Baptist, Zwinglian, and non-denominational family; Lutherans and the Reformed hold otherwise — holds the signs to be ordinances — acts of obedience symbolizing a grace given elsewhere, through faith alone. The Church holds them to be “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ… by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). The question underneath is whether God uses matter to give grace, and the Bible’s whole shape — creation, circumcision, Jordan water, clay and spittle, Incarnation — answers yes.

The baptism texts say what they say. “Baptism… now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21); “for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38); “wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16); “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5); “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). The symbolic reading must take every verb as a figure for something happening elsewhere. The sacramental reading takes them as descriptions.

Infants belong in the covenant. Baptism ran by household (Acts 16:33), Paul calls it “the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11–12) — a sign infants received at eight days by God’s command — and Peter preached that “the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:39). The early Church treated the practice as received from the apostles. And for infants who die unbaptized: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments” (CCC 1257).

David answers his own psalm. “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned” was spoken to Nathan, who pronounced God’s pardon. Christ made the pattern an office: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven” (John 20:23) — a commission that requires hearing. The priest is not a second mediator but the ambassador the one Mediator sent (2 Cor. 5:18–20).

A kingdom of priests had priests. 1 Peter 2:9 quotes Exodus 19:6 — words spoken to an Israel that possessed a ministerial priesthood from the same God in the same covenant. The universal priesthood of the baptized is Catholic doctrine (CCC 784–786); it abolishes nothing.

Ex opere operato protects the believer, not the institution. It means Christ is the actor, so the sacrament’s worth does not hang on the minister’s soul. What the recipient brings still matters: the sacraments “bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.” The alternative — grace resting on an interior transaction alone — throws the believer back on the quality of his own sincerity for assurance.

“Spirit and truth” is not a verdict against ritual. John 4:24 answers the Samaritan woman’s question of where — this mountain or Jerusalem — not of how: worship in spirit is worship in the Holy Spirit, and the Lord who spoke the verse instituted, the night before He died, the most concrete act of worship the Church possesses.

The abuses were real, and Trent condemned them. The indulgence trade was a scandal; the Council abolished the sellers and the “base gain.” An indulgence presupposes forgiveness; it was never forgiveness, and never legitimately for sale.

What is at stake is assurance. The sacramental Christian is given something outside himself: a date of baptism, absolution heard aloud, bread placed in his hands. Grace located where Christ located it can be found again in the dark.

For a more complete essay on this topic, download Symbols, or Sacraments? (.docx) or (.pdf)

Next: Who Can Forgive Sins?