What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 4)

By Robin G. Jordan

In this eighth article in the series “The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look,” we continue our examination questions and answers in the section, Concerning the Sacraments, in Part II of Being a Christian: An Anglican Catechism. We will be taking a look at questions 116 - 119 and the answers to these four questions.

116. Are there other sacraments?

Other rites and institutions commonly called sacraments include confirmation, absolution, ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick. These are sometimes called the sacraments of the Church.

In the answer to question 116 the authors of the new ACNA catechism make the claim that “confirmation, absolution, ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick” are sacraments. In Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles W. H. Griffith Thomas points out that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, The Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, and the Thirty-Nine Articles recognize only two sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper. He goes on to write:

The Article speaks of five ordinances “commonly called Sacraments” which, however, “are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel”. These are said to have grown partly from corruptions of Apostolic ideas, and are partly states of life approved of in Scripture, but, nevertheless, are not to be called Sacraments. The word “allowed” means “approved” (probati), and not merely the modern idea of “permitted”. This clause was inserted in 1563, and was perhaps suggested by the Wurtemburg Confession.

The question is often raised whether it is permissible to speak of these ordinances in any sense as Sacraments. Sometimes a distinction is made between the two as “Sacraments of the Gospel” and these five as “Sacraments of the Church”. It is also urged that as the Article speaks of these five as “commonly called Sacraments” we may also use this term of them, even though they are not Sacraments of “like nature with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper”. Further, it is said that the Article is obscure because Confirmation is not a state of life, and if it is a “corrupt following of the Apostles” it ought not to be retained.

Let us consider, first, the phrase “commonly called,” which was used in 1563 as descriptive of the then usual name of these rites. The natural interpretation would seem to be that the phrase was employed for the purpose of correcting the error, and it is certainly noteworthy that wherever a similar phrase is found it indicates a current usage, and at the same time a recognition of inaccuracy. Thus, the Apostles’ Creed is “commonly called” so, and the Athanasian Confession is “commonly called”. Then, too, the Nativity of our Lord was “commonly called Christmas Day,” and Article XXXI describes certain statements about sacrifices and Masses, in which it was “commonly said,” etc. The natural and obvious meaning of such usage seems to be a discouragement of the application of the term “Sacraments” to these ordinances.

Then, too, as the five are admitted to be unlike in nature to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the question at once arises whether they can be included in the sacramental definition involving (1) appointment by Christ, (2) an outward sign, and (3) an inward grace. As already noticed, if we once depart from this definition it is impossible to limit the idea of the Sacraments to seven.

In regard to the alleged obscurity of the Article, the explanation of the phrase “corrupt following of the Apostles” obviously applies to Penance, Orders, and Extreme Unction, because none of these are Scriptural and all are characterized by error. Matrimony is also rightly described as “a state of life allowed in the Scriptures”.

The only question is as to Confirmation, and it is more than possible that in its mediaeval meaning it is to be included in those which come from “the corrupt following of the Apostles,” because the English Confirmation is entirely different from the Roman. The two Confirmations have little or nothing in common, except the name. In the Roman Church the rite is intended to be administered to infants after Baptism, although the custom today in certain countries defers Confirmation until the age of seven. But in any case the candidates are not required to make any response on their own behalf.

On the other hand, it is a vital point in the English Confirmation that the candidates should ratify and confirm their baptismal vows and unite in prayer for the Holy Spirit. So that it is quite accurate to speak of the Roman Catholic Confirmation as “a corrupt following of the Apostles,” and Anglican Confirmation as “a state of life allowed in the Scriptures”.

Of course, strictly, Confirmation is a Service rather than “a state of life,” but this is hardly worth mentioning in view of the inclusion of all these five Services in the Article, and is only referred to at all because of the way in which the Article is misused today. It is an interesting point in support of this view that at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, “the Puritans complained that this phrase in the Articles involves a contradiction with the teaching of the Prayer Book, and that their complaint was dismissed as a mere cavil.” [Cardwell, History of Conferences, p. 182; quoted in Gibson, ut supra, p. 604.]

In the Preface to the 1977 edition of Principles of Theology, J. I Packer, referring to W. H. Griffith Thomas, makes this observation: “to him, as to no other, it was given magisterially and definitively to spell out, on the basis of others’ minute researches and debates, what the Articles actually affirm, both in principle and in detail; what biblical warrants there is for making such affirmations; and what their implications are in relation to various forms of Catholic tradition and (less fully) of shallow rationalism.”

In Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs, Packer himself writes:

It was a medieval mistake to classify as sacraments five more rites (confirmation, penance, marriage, ordination, and extreme unction). In addition to their not being seals of a covenant relationship with God, they “have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God” (Thirty-Nine Articles XXV).

It is worthy of note that confirmation, absolution, ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick are referred to as “sacraments of the Church” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

117. How do these differ from the sacraments of the Gospel?

They are not commanded by Christ as necessary for salvation, but arise from the practice of the apostles and the early Church, or are states of life blessed by God from creation. God clearly uses them as means of grace.

The answer to question 117 takes the position of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are absolutely necessary for salvation, which is not the position of the 1662 Prayer Book Catechism. The 1662 Prayer Book Catechism takes the position that these two sacraments are “generally necessary to salvation.” In other words, the two sacraments are necessary for salvation in most cases but not in all cases. John the Baptist and the penitent thief are two notable examples of individuals who were saved without receiving the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

The answer to question 117 goes on to claim that confirmation, absolution, ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick developed from “the practice of the apostles and the early Church or represent “states of life blessed by God from creation.” In support of the first part of this claim the new ACNA catechism makes an appeal to church tradition and to Scripture interpreted by church tradition. With the first part of this claim the answer to question 117 takes a position that further conflicts with the position of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (Article 25).

It is the position of the Thirty-Nine Articles these “other rites and institutions” as the new ACNA catechism describes them are in part a corruption of apostolic practice, based upon a false understanding of that practice. They are in part “states of life allowed in the Scriptures.”

It must be noted that the second part of the claim in the answer to question 117, that is, they are “states of life blessed by God since creation” does not correspond to what is stated in Article 25, that is, they “are states of life allowed in the Scriptures.” It says something entirely different.

The answer to question 117 also claims that God “clearly uses” these “other rites and institutions”as “means of grace.” In making this claim, the answer to question 117 is not appealing to Scripture or tradition but to experience. At the same time it makes this claim for only the seven sacraments of the medieval Catholic Church and the modern-day Roman Catholic Church.

God uses prayer, fasting, reading the Bible, fellowship with other Christians, and doing good works as means of grace, enlivening, strengthening, and confirming faith. The new ACNA catechism, however, does not insist that these means of grace are sacraments.

118. What is confirmation?

After making a mature commitment to my baptismal covenant with God, I receive the laying on of the bishop’s hands with prayer. (Acts 8:14-17; 19:6)

The new ACNA catechism answers question 118 with a description of the rite of confirmation. The language used in the answer is reminiscent of that in An Outline of the Faith , or Catechism, in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

Q. What is Confirmation?

A. Confirmation is the rite in which we express a mature commitment to Christ, and receive strength from the Holy Spirit through prayer and the laying on of hands by a bishop.

“Baptismal covenant” is a term used in the 1979 Prayer Book.

In support of its “definition” of confirmation the answer to article 118 cites Acts 8:14-17, 19:6. It doing so, it shows the influence of Medieval Church.

The post-apostolic rite of confirmation has its origins in fourth and fifth century Gaul. The development of the rite was accidental. The bishop’s post-baptismal anointing and imposition of hands became disconnected from the rite of baptism and eventually acquired a theology significance of its own, one that has over the centuries diminished the meaning of baptism.

What the apostles had done in Acts 8 and 19 bore a superficial resemblance to what the Western Church was doing, and it was on the basis of this superficial resemblance that the Western Church connected its practice with that of the apostles. The Western Church began to interpret Acts 8 and 19 as the origins of confirmation. It read its own later practice back into the two Acts passages. Its misinterpretation of these two passages became enshrined in the tradition of the Medieval Church and formed an integral part of its view of the theological significance of confirmation.

In 1977 J. I. Packer wrote I Want to Be a Christian as a companion to his widely read Knowing God. In 2007 I Want to Be a Christian was reissued as Growing in Christ. It is an overview of Christianity that covers "the content of the three formulae that have always been central to Christian catechizing"—the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, as well as baptism and conversion. It is a useful popular level group study resource and has gone through a number of printings.

In Chapter 11 - Baptism, Confirmation, and Confession Packer quickly dispels the notion that in the rite of confirmation the bishop’s laying on of hands and prayer for strengthening of the Holy Spirit means that the fullness of the Holy Spirit has been withheld in some way from us up to that point or that through Confirmation we receive the Spirit and his benefits in unique ways that we otherwise cannot. "Such ideas are common," Packer writes, "but are really superstitions, reflecting medieval belief that confirmation is a sacrament, which Peter and John were administering when they laid hands on the Samaritans after praying for the Spirit (Acts 8:14-17), and that sacraments are ordinarily the only means of conveying the blessings they signify."

"The gesture of laying hands on the person you pray for as a mark of goodwill and concern as did Peter and John to the Samaritans, and Paul to the Ephesian disciples, and the Antioch leaders to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 19:6, 13:4), and Paul and an unidentified eldership to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:6; 1 Timothy 4:14)," in the sense of sign that is given by God and which guarantee a particular blessing, Packer goes on to write, is not a sacrament. The New Testament knows only two sacraments in this sense—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Scripture also shows that the gifts of grace signified and guaranteed to believers by the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper may be given apart from them.

After emphasizing the New Testament idea of initiation as becoming a Christian-in-the-church, Packer further stresses:

"Certainly, too, scriptural initiation involves faith, exercised and professed; reception into the believing community by baptism in the triune name; and receiving, or being sealed with, the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13ff.; 4:30). But it is not true, as some has supposed, that confirmation supplements baptism by signifying the gift of the Spirit. In the New Testament baptism signifies all aspects of entering new life in Christ, including the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Confirmation, however, is not part of scriptural initiation, for it is not a biblical ordinance at all [emphasis added]."

The new ACNA catechism, on the other hand asserts that confirmation is a sacrament and confers sacramental grace, a position historically associated with Anglo-Catholicism and Roman Catholicism.

119. What grace does God give you in confirmation? 

In confirmation, God strengthens the work of the Holy Spirit in me for his daily increase in my Christian life and ministry. (Acts 8:14-17; 19:6)

For Archbishop Thomas Cranmer confirmation was a catechetical rite, not a sacrament. See my examination of the origin of confirmation as a rite, its history, and its development in Anglicanism in “An Anglican Prayer Book (2008): The Catechism and the Order of Confirmation.”

Nowhere in the Order of Catechism in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer does it suggest that the rite confers sacramental grace. In the prayer, “ALMIGHTY and everliving God, who makest us both to will and to do those things that be good and acceptable unto thy divine Majesty…,” the bishop’s laying of hands on the confirmands is described as an attestation of God’s favor and gracious goodness toward them.

As we have seen, the Thirty-Nine Articles do not support the notion that confirmation is a sacrament. The Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments and The Homily Concerning the Coming Down of the Holy Ghost and the Manifold Gifts of the Same for Whitsunday also do not support this notion.

In Growing in Christ (formerly I Want to Be a Christian), J. I Packer dismisses the idea that confirmation is even a biblical ordinance, much less a sacrament.

What is also worthy of note about the answer to question 119 is the awkwardness of the language of that answer. Acts 8:14-17 and Acts 19:6 are cited in support of the doctrinal view expressed in the question itself and its answer. See the discussion of the citation of Acts 8 and 19 in support of the doctrine view expressed in the previous question and answer.

What should be evident from our examination of this section of Being A Christian: An Anglican Catechism, as well from our examination of previous sections of the new ACNA catechism, is that the catechism does not merit the hype that accompanied its release. The catechism fail not only to follow the guidelines in its introduction but also to adhere to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican formularies. It suffers from a number of other defects.

While J. I. Packer may have served as general editor of the new ACNA catechism and wrote the introduction to the catechism, it does not reflect his views. The Anglican Church in North America gives the appearance of exploiting Packer’s standing as a leading Anglican theologian to influence perceptions of the catechism, even hoping that since Packer was associated with the catechism, its contents would not be subject to close examination. When the catechism is compared with Packer’s own works and works he has previously edited, one is left with the distinct impression that Packer did not have much of a hand in the actual editing of the catechism. The quality of the catechism is well below the quality of these works. Packer, it must be further noted, also is 87 and not in the best of health.

What we have seen so far in our examination of Being A Christian: An Anglican Catechism calls into question not only the usability and reliability of the new ACNA catechism but also its ethicality. It shows that the Anglican Church in North America is not committed to a policy of comprehension that would make room in the ACNA for all conservative schools of thought, Reformed as well as Arminian, evangelical as well as Anglo-Catholic. The new ACNA catechism is not something that Archbishop Robert Duncan and other ACNA leaders should be crowing about. Rather they should give serious thought to withdrawing their approval of the catechism and distancing themselves from it.