Including Sacraments, Grace, & Salvation; Protestants & Salvation Through Baptism & the Eucharist
Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.
Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).
This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).
I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.
*****
While Roman Catholic theology claims that there is no salvation apart from God’s grace, their view of the sacraments tends to take away in practice what they have affirmed in principle. The Catholic view of a sacrament, unchanged by Vatican II, is that it is given “not merely as a sign but as a cause of grace.” Catholic dogma states: “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place any obstacle in the way, as though they were only outward signs of grace or justice, received through faith . . . let him be anathema. ” Furthermore, it is anathema to believe that “grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked” but has come from “faith alone.” This being the case, salvation is by sacraments. God’s normative way of saving sinners is, according to Catholic dogma, through the Catholic sacramental system . . . (p. 242)
The sacraments, institutionalized as they are in the Roman Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation. (p. 243)
Dr. Geisler here employs an extreme version of the common and most unfortunate Protestant “either/or” mentality, which has to do with the propensity to create false dichotomies that don’t logically — or theologically — follow. He claims that Catholic thought is contradictory insofar as we agree on grace alone (sola gratia) but also believe in sacraments. Then he cites a Catholic source asserting that sacraments “contain” and “confer” grace. Yet to him this is a contradiction. Why? Catholics reply that it’s still be grace, and that sacraments are merely conduits or the means of obtaining grace. There is no difference. It’s only a prior irrational antipathy to sacraments (physical or material means of obtaining grace) that would bring about this supposed conflict in one’s mind.
The Bible clearly states that baptism conveys grace and salvation (I found 14 passages), as does also receiving the Holy Eucharist:
John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
This is what Geisler is forced to oppose. His beef is ultimately against biblical teaching; not merely Catholic teaching, because the latter is derived from the former. It’s so clear in the Bible that many important — even the most important — Protestants agree. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, is one of these:
Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.” (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A. T. W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970, 197)
Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:
Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . . When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . . (From edition by Augsburg Publishing House [Minneapolis], 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pages 162, 165)
Let it be a fixed point, that the office of the sacraments differs not from the word of God; and this is to hold forth and offer Christ to us, and, in him, the treasures of heavenly grace. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, 14:17)
There never can be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. (Ibid., IV, 18:19)
Those whom the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by baptism, are freed from guilt and condemnation . . . (IV, 15:12)
God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, . . . (IV, 17:1)
It is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). (IV, 15:1)
In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:25, 26); and again, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Peter also says that “baptism also doth now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). (IV, 15:2)
We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. (IV, 15:3)
All who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, . . . we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism. (IV, 15:12)
But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. (IV, 16:17)
They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for, seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb. . . . If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. (IV, 16:22)
John Wesley, who was a lifelong Anglican (Anglicanism holding to baptismal regeneration), but is also considered the founder of Methodism, also concurs with Catholics, Luther, and Calvin:
By baptism we, who were “by nature children of wrath,” are made the children of God. And this regeneration, which our [Anglican] Church in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being “grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.” This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5]. By water then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the apostle “the washing of regeneration.” Our Church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long-continued wickedness. (A Treatise on Baptism; 11 Nov. 1756)
But “as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, to justification of life.” And the virtue of this free gift, the merits of Christ’s life and death, are applied to us in baptism. “He gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” [Eph. 5:25-26]; namely, in baptism, the ordinary instrument of our justification. Agreeably to this, our Church prays in the baptismal office that the person to be baptized may be “washed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and, being delivered from God’s wrath, receive remission of sins, and enjoy the everlasting benediction of his heavenly washing;” . . . (Ibid.)
Our [Anglican] Church declares in the rubric at the end of the office, “It is certain, by God’s word, that children who are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved.” And this is agreeable to the unanimous judgment of all the ancient fathers. . . . Baptism doth now save us, if we live answerable thereto; if we repent, believe, and obey the Gospel, supposing this, as it admits us into the Church here, so into glory hereafter. . . . In the ordinary way there is no other means of entering into the Church or into heaven. (Ibid.)
Infants indeed, our Church supposes to be justified in baptism, although they cannot then either believe or repent, But she expressly requires both repentance and faith, in. those who come to be baptized when they are of riper years. (A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, 1745)
The Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ denominations believe in (adult) baptismal regeneration; and of course, Eastern Orthodoxy holds to baptismal regeneration. Geisler’s is a tiny, tiny minority view, both today and even more so throughout Church history. And it is because it’s contrary to Holy Scripture.
Martin Luther tied Holy Communion to salvation and forgiveness of sins:
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and the wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. . . .
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us by these words, “Given and shed for you for the remission of sins”; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. (Small Catechism, 1529, 20-21)
We go to the Communion because we receive there a treasure through and in which we obtain the forgiveness of sins. (Large Catechism, 1529, section 247).
So did John Calvin:
As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. . . . to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. . . . nourishing us unto life eternal, . . . (Institutes, IV, 17:3-4)
[H]e gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates. . . . That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal life, . . . For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh—viz. that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, . . . (IV, 17:5)
The very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality. “I,” says he, “am that bread of life;” “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:48, 51) . . . . by this food believers are reared to eternal life. (IV, 17:8)
Who sees not that the communion of the flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life? (IV, 17:9)
The true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, . . . are received not by the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life. (IV, 17:19)
Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, . . . (IV, 17:32)
So did the Anglican John Wesley:
What is to be inferred from this undeniable matter of fact,—one that had not faith received it in the Lord’s Supper? Why, 1. that there are means of grace; i. e. outward ordinances, whereby the inward grace of God is ordinarily conveyed to man; whereby the faith that brings salvation is conveyed to them who before had it not;—2. That one of these means is the Lord’s Supper;—and 3. That he who has not this faith ought to wait for it, in the use both of this and of the other means which God hath ordained. (Journal, 7 Nov. 1739)
All who desire an increase of the grace of God, are to wait for it in partaking of the Lord’s-Supper. . . . And that this is also an ordinary, stated mean of receiving the grace of God, is evident from those words of the Apostle, which occur in the preceding chapter. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [or communication] of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” [1 Cor. 10:16]. Is not the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that cup, the outward, visible mean, whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken, and the blood of Christ once shed for us? Let all, therefore, who truly desire the grace of God, eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (Sermon 16: “The Means of Grace,” 15 Nov. 1739)
We see, then, that these matters are not merely “a Catholic thing.” It’s a “mainstream Christian” and “biblical” thing. Christianity is sacramental by its very nature. Geisler is the “odd man out.”
And although some contemporary Catholics are beginning to acknowledge the Protestant contribution of forensic justification, it was not spelled out by the Council of Trent. Indeed, while there may be no logical incompatibility of forensic justification with the Roman Catholic concept of initial justification, there
are serious problems with the Catholic concept of progressive justification. (p. 247)
Trent did indeed allude to a limited sense of forensic or extrinsic justification. See: Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]. Therefore, this being the case, it’s not simply “some contemporary Catholics” who “are beginning” to think about these issues. It goes back almost 500 years. But in the sweeping, exclusive Protestant sense, imputed, external, declared justification is a falsehood:
Salvation and Justification in the Gospels and Acts [21 passages] [1996]
Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]
Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [380 passages] [1-21-10]
Biblical “Power”: Proof of Infused (Catholic) Justification [12 passages] [3-14-11]
St. Paul’s Use of the Term “Gift” & Infused Justification [19 passages] [2013]
Biblical Evidence for Catholic Justification [National Catholic Register, 11-2-17]
Justification: Reply to Jordan Cooper (Highlighting Love as the Fulfilling of the Law & Commandments, in Relation to Justification & Salvation) [4-23-24]
Salvation as a Process: 75 NT Passages [11-16-24]
Transformation of Believers in the NT: 150 Passages (Regeneration is Only the Beginning . . .) [12-16-24]
Works & Sanctification Partly Cause Salvation: 34 Passages [1-30-25]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In