Replies

When people claim that the sacraments are means of grace, and then deny that the sacraments are in any way salvific, it is hard for me to see how they are not contradicting themselves. And if it is not in any way salvific, then *why* do it? As Flannery O'Connor once said, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it."

-A8

When people claim that the sacraments are means of grace, and then deny that the sacraments are in any way salvific, it is hard for me to see how they are not contradicting themselves.

Well, as you know the subject of grace itself can be as complex as one wishes to make it. In the broad sense, I think "grace" can be considered any aid from God. I think it is correct to say that God graced me by giving me my wife. I'm not saying I think that's how it is presented in the WCF, I probably wouldn't have chosen those words. However, I am reasonably certain that the consensus Reformed view is that baptism carries no salvific effects. I suspect there is an easy explanation for the language of the WCF, and I'm just not seeing it right now.

And if it is not in any way salvific, then *why* do it?

We baptize because it is commanded by God. It is a public obedience to Him. Covenant baptism has additional benefits.

As Flannery O'Connor once said, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it."

Now you have to admit that's the epitome of irony coming from a Catholic! :)

When people claim that the sacraments are means of grace, and then deny that the sacraments are in any way salvific, it is hard for me to see how they are not contradicting themselves. And if it is not in any way salvific, then *why* do it? As Flannery O'Connor once said, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it."

Symbols are absolutely necessary but they have no power. The power is in the thing that is symbolized. The Old Testament sacrifices were symbols. They could not save anyone “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins”.(Heb 10:4). Perhaps hell is also a symbol.