The Gospel and the Sacraments
I’m sorry but this is stupid. My pastor mentioned Charlie Kirk, he and I even talked more about him afterwards. But the primary goal of a Church is to preach the Gospel and to administer the sacraments. We cannot cause continuous schism.
(NOTE: I have a history with this commentator. See here)
This is a deeply ironic comment.
“Sacraments” are historical anachronism. The Apostles and the early church preached the gospel alone. The church knew nothing about sacraments, a concept that would only begin to be formalized at conclusion of the 4th century.
The fruit of the sacraments—along with their development in the 4th century and later—was, in fact, schism. They have remained a schismatic doctrine, long past even the Protestant Reformation. In short, the church began to teach a new “gospel” of sacraments that had not been received.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a good news contrary to the good news we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I now say again, if anyone proclaims to you a good news that is contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Sacraments, as they are known today, are sacred rituals of the church. In the case of Roman Catholicism, they are essential. For example:
God’s mercy is not unconditional. If we reject the Catholic Church and the Sacraments needed to receive God’s mercy, we willingly reject His gifts of grace and mercy. Hard words. True words.
According to this Roman Catholic, the mercy of God is conditioned on man’s ritual observances. This is a “gospel” message, but it isn’t the one Paul received.
In Galatians, the Apostle Paul positively declares anathema—condemnation; excommunication; schism—on anyone who would preach a different gospel. So, it is of great necessity to understand the central role that sacraments play in the history of the church. We are supposed to “cause continuous schism” when faced with a false gospel.
What’s In A Word?
I’ve written about sacraments fairly extensively on this blog (see here), so I’ve covered this material before. But let’s go over it again. Here is one pertinent example to illustrate the problem with the word “sacrament.”
This—”means of grace”—comes from the idea of sacraments as means of grace. But sacraments are a 4th century innovation.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Where is the means of grace?
You might be wondering why I begin a discussion of sacraments with a discussion of grace. This is not an accident. The term sacrament doesn’t exist in the original Greek texts. It comes from the Latin sacramentum. So in order to discuss the sacraments, we first have to talk about what the Bible actually says.
Paul talks of the “Administration of the grace of God” which he calls the “Administration of the sacred mystery.” He associates the grace of God with the sacred mysteries—secrets—of God, stating that it was a secret before Christ, but that Christ had come and made the mystery of the grace of God known to all.
Grace comes from God. It is the sacred secret that was once hidden but now revealed. The “administration of grace” is what we do as Christians, by spreading the gospel for the forgiveness of sins leading to eternal life.
Paul’s focus is on belief and knowledge, not on actions, deeds, or means. Grace is something that God gives, and the “administration” of grace is not giving grace, but spreading the sacred secrets that have been revealed to us through Christ. It is preaching the gospel. Now, contrast this with the teaching of Roman Catholicism:
The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.
The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.
So how did preaching the gospel of grace become performing rituals as a means of grace?
The key is Ephesians. In chapter 3, verses 2-9, Paul talks about the administration of grace. In chapter 5, verses 29-32, he calls the marriage of Christ and the church a “sacred secret.” As we will see shortly, this key passage formed the bridge that caused the switch within the church from the Great Commission (teaching revealed sacred secrets) to a priestly system of administering rituals (sacraments). That’s because nowhere else in scripture is any ritual described alongside the administration of grace.
The Sacramentum
In Latin, the word sacramentum originally meant “oath or vow to the gods” or a “pledge”. But, in the late 2nd century, Tertullian is alleged to have translated the Greek musterion into the Latin sacramentum. Tertullian described baptism and eucharist (but not marriage!) as sacraments (but not as mysteries!). He did not describe the pagan mysteries as sacraments. Tertullian merely drew parallels between the two.
Tertullian only called baptism and thanksgiving (eucharist) sacramentum. Why did he do this?
The sacramentum was a military oath that a soldier made before the gods. The sacramentum was the initiation rite for a Roman soldier. Tertullian’s own father was a Roman centurion who had once spoken the sacramentum. For Tertullian, baptism and eucharist (the tithe) were the initiation rites for the new Christian after their confession of faith. The secular analogy made perfect sense, and Tertullian never pressed the analogy farther than that.
However, by the late fourth century, the word sacramentum in Latin no longer had the same meaning it had when Tertullian wrote. By this point in history, the military oath had become a yearly ritual that had to be renewed. Around this time, some writers of the church began to call the rituals of the church “sacraments,” especially those which were repeated. The Latin word was a simple descriptive fit for what was occurring: sacred rituals that were regularly repeated.
Where it all came crashing down was when Jerome created the Latin Vulgate. When faced with the Greek ‘musterion’—which itself had shifted in meaning over time—he had to choose between two bad choices. The first was to transliterate it as ‘mysterium’ and the second, alternatively, was to translate it explicitly as ‘sacramentum’.
You may be surprised to learn that he used both throughout the New Testament. But, he did not transliterate the term in the passages in Ephesians (and another one in Colossians). And so, by a single act, he conflated the Greek musterion of Paul with the modern Latin sacramentum. This is how a mystery became a sacrament.
In Jerome’s defense, the advantage of sacramentum is that, ironically, in Christ the sacred things had already been revealed, so calling what was now widely known in the new state religion as “sacred secrets” (Greek: musterion) or “mysteries” (Latin: mysterium) didn’t seem to fit anymore. But, unfortunately, this opened the door to “back port” the ritualist sacraments onto the non-ritualist mysteries of Paul…. including marriage.
By the end of the 4th century, marriage had become a “sacrament”—a ritual—in the church. It didn’t have anything to do with grace, of course, it was just something that people did. But, native Latin speakers were now confronted with “Paul” in the Latin Vulgate authoritatively calling marriage—indisputably a ritual observance—part of the administration of grace.
In conflating, the revealed sacred mysteries with the ritualistic observances, Jerome had opened the door for the the development of a system of the sacraments and sacramental grace.
Consequences
The most obvious consequence of this conflation was the formal establishment of a priestly system. The elders and deacons of the church were elevated to an essential role. While the office of priest already had political support (since Constantine’s adoption of Christianity), now the priestly system had theological support. Thus:
“Christianity” was changed forever. In elevating the importance of the sacraments, the role of the priests was elevated in order to administer those sacraments. It is unsurprising, then, that preaching the gospel would be quickly replaced with the centrality of administering the sacraments, in particular the Roman Mass Sacrifice.
So how did preaching the gospel of grace become performing rituals as a means of grace?
The key is Ephesians. In chapter 3, verses 2-9, Paul talks about the administration of grace. In chapter 5, verses 29-32, he calls the marriage of Christ and the church a “sacred secret.” As we will see shortly, this key passage formed the bridge that caused the switch within the church from the Great Commission (teaching revealed sacred secrets) to a priestly system of administering rituals (sacraments). That’s because nowhere else in scripture is any ritual described alongside the administration of grace.
The Sacramentum
In Latin, the word sacramentum originally meant “oath or vow to the gods” or a “pledge”. But, in the late 2nd century, Tertullian is alleged to have translated the Greek musterion into the Latin sacramentum. Tertullian described baptism and eucharist (but not marriage!) as sacraments (but not as mysteries!). He did not describe the pagan mysteries as sacraments. Tertullian merely drew parallels between the two.
Tertullian only called baptism and thanksgiving (eucharist) sacramentum. Why did he do this?
The sacramentum was a military oath that a soldier made before the gods. The sacramentum was the initiation rite for a Roman soldier. Tertullian’s own father was a Roman centurion who had once spoken the sacramentum. For Tertullian, baptism and eucharist (the tithe) were the initiation rites for the new Christian after their confession of faith. The secular analogy made perfect sense, and Tertullian never pressed the analogy farther than that.
However, by the late fourth century, the word sacramentum in Latin no longer had the same meaning it had when Tertullian wrote. By this point in history, the military oath had become a yearly ritual that had to be renewed. Around this time, some writers of the church began to call the rituals of the church “sacraments,” especially those which were repeated. The Latin word was a simple descriptive fit for what was occurring: sacred rituals that were regularly repeated.
Where it all came crashing down was when Jerome created the Latin Vulgate. When faced with the Greek ‘musterion’—which itself had shifted in meaning over time—he had to choose between two bad choices. The first was to transliterate it as ‘mysterium’ and the second, alternatively, was to translate it explicitly as ‘sacramentum’.
You may be surprised to learn that he used both throughout the New Testament. But, he did not transliterate the term in the passages in Ephesians (and another one in Colossians). And so, by a single act, he conflated the Greek musterion of Paul with the modern Latin sacramentum. This is how a mystery became a sacrament.
In Jerome’s defense, the advantage of sacramentum is that, ironically, in Christ the sacred things had already been revealed, so calling what was now widely known in the new state religion as “sacred secrets” (Greek: musterion) or “mysteries” (Latin: mysterium) didn’t seem to fit anymore. But, unfortunately, this opened the door to “back port” the ritualist sacraments onto the non-ritualist mysteries of Paul…. including marriage.
By the end of the 4th century, marriage had become a “sacrament”—a ritual—in the church. It didn’t have anything to do with grace, of course, it was just something that people did. But, native Latin speakers were now confronted with “Paul” in the Latin Vulgate authoritatively calling marriage—indisputably a ritual observance—part of the administration of grace.
In conflating, the revealed sacred mysteries with the ritualistic observances, Jerome had opened the door for the the development of a system of the sacraments and sacramental grace.
Consequences
The most obvious consequence of this conflation was the formal establishment of a priestly system. The elders and deacons of the church were elevated to an essential role. While the office of priest already had political support (since Constantine’s adoption of Christianity), now the priestly system had theological support. Thus:
Isaiah Pressly Lafone
[T]he primary goal of a Church is to preach the Gospel and to administer the sacraments.
“Christianity” was changed forever. In elevating the importance of the sacraments, the role of the priests was elevated in order to administer those sacraments. It is unsurprising, then, that preaching the gospel would be quickly replaced with the centrality of administering the sacraments, in particular the Roman Mass Sacrifice.
YEAH, but what if you’re an emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad ”right”-wing SJW that knows of no social issue caused by the sacraments or the Roman Mass Sacrifice?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukTRgdYwZAM
Charlie Kirk Explains Why Liberal Social Justice Is TOXIC 👀🔥
That explains to ”right”-wing SJWs why Liberal Social Justice Is TOXIC with (newly minted)st. Charlie Kirk!
This may be accurate to how the word sacrament came to have its meaning but I don’t buy it on how the concept developed because they were doing it in Greek already. You assume there was no malice or purposeful paganizing. But forget Latin. Also Jerome is really early 5th century. Already the Greek writers in the mid 4th are calling the eucharist “the mysteries” and “sacred mysteries” so it was a purposeful borrowing from the mystery cults of the idea of calling rituals mysteries because you could not see the ritual until after initiation. They also banned non-christians from seeing the communion observed because if the uninitiated could see it before initiation then its not a mystery. In fact, unless the heresiologists of the 3rd century are rewritten in the 4th century, this goes back to the 3rd century. One of their complaints against Marcionites is that they allow non-christians to be present during the eucharist and see what Christians are doing. So Jerome just inherited this situation. That there was malice and purposeful paganizing is also obvious when you consider how Mary came to be called “Mother of God” as well and all the shenanigins of the council of Ephesus.
Before I respond, do you have any specific citations you’d like to present to defend your claim?
No, its just from memory, and I agree with your overall point so there’s no reason to argue, just I’m not sure it happened exactly that way, but I agree that the idea of sacraments as Isaiah Pressly Lafone is presenting them is not what the church is actually about. Sure the church baptizes and observes the Lord’s supper. But that is no excuse to not preach anything or to ignore when a Christian gets martyred for opposing trans agenda. “We can only administer the sacraments here bub!” Ok, Isaiah, I guess I need to find a new church then.
Now Isaiah Pressly Lafone is of the type who will, and maybe already has, call/called me a heretic for saying Mary is only the mother of Christ’s human nature because the divine essence pre-exists her by eternity, and she is also is not the mother of the Father or Holy Spirit. To this he would say “You are a heretic and will go to hell.” So, I don’t concern myself with his opinion. Like Cleave to Antiquity who recently flip flopped to Eastern Orthodox a day after claiming to be a staunch Protestant apologist and the best and only good Protestant apologist as he claimed, because his belief that we must call Mary “the blessed Theotokos” caused him to pray to Mary and get an olfactory hallucination of smelling incence, so also Isaiah is in the thrall of the council of Ephesus and will claim to believe in Sola Scriptura and then turn around and tell me I’m unsaved for not obeying the council of Ephesus in blaspheming God and calling Mary “Mother of God.”
For context I don’t believe the councils or church fathers represent proper Christianity to begin with. They are just a curated list picked by the Catholics to preserve. They don’t matter. So even if they began this foolishness in the 2nd century, I don’t care. Any of the groups they called “heretics” is as likely to have been the real Christians, especially considering the end result that tge stream of writers and councils approved by the Catholic church ultimately ends up in pure Cybelle worship but calling her “Mary.”
Some Pseudonymous Commenter is talking about DEREK again(which will make Jack and his buttsniffer sperg out again!)!
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 2:42 pm
We can apply that same criticism to certain other critics, who are doing the exact same thing. He reviews cherrypicked data and concludes that it supports his pre-conceived opinions.
There is data that supports red pilled concepts, most notably the study showing correlation between female reported N and divorce. There is also the famous OKCupid “80/20” study and the 69% of divorces are filed by women.
Much of what redpill talks about is hard to quantify scientifically. It’s also unpalatable. Women don’t want to know the truth about what they do and why they do it. They don’t want to admit that physical attraction is just as important to them as it is to men; if not even more important. They don’t like that their actions betray them. They don’t like getting caught in their lies. They don’t like that they’re shown to be dishonest and disingenuous when what they say about what they are attracted to doesn’t line up with what they’re actually attracted to.
One of the biggest lies here is the tradcon claim that marriage equals sexual attraction. No. No it does not. The fact that a man is married does not mean his wife is sexually attracted to him; that he’s getting what he wants and needs from his marriage; that he is getting sex from his marriage; or that he’s satisfied. Women lie. They lie all the time about these things. They bait and switch men all the time.
Another big lie is that because a below average man got sex once, that means he’s sexually satisfied and not an incel and he can easily replicate that experience. No one wants to study this, because they’d be positively horrified at what they would find. (Frankly, our country should be horrified at what little is already known.)
We cannot look at a study of Jefferson City, MO high school students contracting common STDs, and conclude that most of the boys were getting sex or paired off. And we cannot extrapolate from that study any conclusions about the wider world.
We can’t conclude anything about how satisfied heterosexual men are with their sex lives outside of observation. There aren’t any sexual satisfaction studies about heterosexual men in the US. I looked for them, and the closest I could come was a study about hetero men in some Eastern European country. Apparently, no one in the US social sciences community cares enough even to conduct a survey of men to ask them questions about how satisfying (or nonsatisfying) their sex lives are (or aren’t). This just isn’t a pressing problem for our country. This country just does not care about the mental health of its men.
Which, is, ironically, functionally equivalent to:
The inability to quantify it constitutes evidence against it. That’s how something is falsified. A lack of correlation implies a lack of causation. That’s why much of Red Pill wisdom is false by default.
Actually, we can do just that. It’s called inferential reasoning.
It’s one thing to complain that you don’t like my interpretation of the data. If that’s how you feel, fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. But unless you have data that refutes what I’m saying, your opinion brings nothing to the table.
The critics have nothing more than “I don’t like that, so it can’t be right.”
Again, this is simply wrong. There are many ways to measure (and make conclusions about) something without direct observation. The entire field of intelligence—one of the most important and replicable fields of science—is about indirectly measuring the thing being measured.
More on the DEREKS out here who like {REDACTED} as buttsniffs his Spiritual ”leader ” Jack say all these millions of men MEN are autism spectrumed spergy incels.
CP says:
19 September, 2025 at 2:52 pm
“There is data that supports red pilled concepts, most notably…”
Personal observation.
If Revered Experts tell you something that conflicts with observed reality, while horrible no good reprobates tell you something that agrees with observed reality, that’s an advantage for the horrible no good reprobates.
Though not an insurmountable one where some folks are concerned.
surfdumb says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:07 pm
A mildly related issue, of pure speculation. The combination of a high IQ, big redpillic schlong(as he once told ST.DAL LOTSA COCKAS) and personal situations of seeing Christians abuse gut feelings has resulted in an reactionary response that rejects any wisdom coming from a school of hard knocks. Combine this with a gnostic-like rejection of self as bad and corrupted, and you end up with a Christian who recoils at inserting himself personally into topics and instead seeing studies and data as a godly form of dying to self that results in a “pure” truth.
His own premises makes the kind of discussion here, SF, and Dalrocks, as a filthy expression of the carnal flesh and so he is morally compelled to respond with citations and “evidence” about ancillary details. High IQ probably leads him to believe that he is drawing godly conclusions by staying faithful to whatever conclusions the “science” says about such details.
So the old tale about 7 blind men describing an elephant differently due to the part of the elephant they touched is allegedly improved by making a picture of the whole from 7 blind peer-reviewed studies.
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:15 pm
CP
It’s funny that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men are congregating online and in podcasts and telling each other they’re seeing the exact same butthexting things in their lives and in women’s ginas and butts.
The only response others can come up with is that all these millions of men are autism spectrumed spergy incels. All of them. Every one of them.