Sacraments: necessary or unnecessary?

[PLANofMAN]

While I don't attend a Salvation Army church, I do hold the same beliefs as they have codified in the "Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine."

The Salvation Army views all ritualistic forms of Christianity as unnecessary for salvation, including the doctrines of baptism and the Eucharist/communion. They don't forbid or discourage them, they just don't practice them themselves. They see them as outward expressions of an inward reality.

Can anyone show me in the Bible where these doctrines of baptism and communion are absolutely necessary for salvation, and not just holdovers from the Jewish ceremonial and ritualistic traditions?

I do personally believe in a real spiritual presence in the host, and I also believe that baptism is an outward confession of an inward reality, but I also believe that we do these things out of obedience to Christ's commands, not because of any inherent benefit or salvific purpose that these rituals provide.

 

[David]

Can anyone show me in the Bible where these doctrines of baptism and communion are absolutely necessary for salvation, and not just holdovers from the Jewish ceremonial and ritualistic traditions?

The Bible does not teach that baptism or communion is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not by works or rituals (Ephesians 2:8–9). While both baptism and the Lord’s Supper are commanded by Christ, they are acts of obedience that follow salvation, not requirements to receive it. The thief on the cross was saved without being baptized or taking communion (Luke 23:42–43), proving that faith in Christ alone is what saves. Baptism, as explained in Romans 6:3–4, is a public declaration of our union with Christ in His death and resurrection, an outward sign of an inward reality. Communion, according to 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 and Luke 22:19–20, is a memorial to remember Christ’s sacrifice and proclaim His death until He returns. These are not Jewish ceremonial holdovers, but clear commands given by Jesus to His followers as part of the Christian life. However, they are not presented in Scripture as conditions for salvation. Eternal life is given to those who believe in the finished work of Christ, and that faith alone is what saves.

But I don’t know why a truly born-again believer in Jesus Christ would not want to do the things He asks them to if the opportunity presents itself. A heart changed by grace will naturally desire to obey the One who saved them.

 

[PLANofMAN]

...

But I don’t know why a truly born-again believer in Jesus Christ would not want to do the things He asks them to if the opportunity presents itself. A heart changed by grace will naturally desire to obey the One who saved them.

Perhaps they see the act of wearing a salvationist's uniform a clearer indicator of profession of faith than a ritual dunk in water. The baptism they believe in is that of the Holy Ghost.

Is not feeding the hungry a stronger affirmation of the Lord's supper than sharing a sip of juice and a cracker with one's fellow believers?

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in... Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
— Matthew 25:35, 40 (NIV)

Just because they don't follow it exactly the way most mainline churches do, doesn't mean that they don't follow the commandments. If anything they follow it in a clearer manner than most churches.

 

[PLANofMAN]

To add to this, consider how much schism has been introduced to the church, and how many denominational differences there are between Christians because of different views of baptism and communion.

The key issue is whether baptism and communion are requirements for salvation, or whether they are optional expressions of faith that can be fulfilled in diverse ways according to context and conviction.

The Salvation Army’s doctrine aligns with Scripture in asserting that salvation is by grace through faith alone, not of works, including ritualistic ordinances (Ephesians 2:8–9). Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, though instituted by Christ, are not soteriological prerequisites but symbolic acts that point to deeper spiritual realities. The Army maintains that what they symbolize (repentance, new life, and spiritual communion with Christ) can exist without the rituals themselves (Romans 10:9–10; John 3:16–17).

The absence of these rites in the Salvation Army isn’t disobedience to the word of God, but a theological stance that affirms a spiritual baptism (Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5) and a daily communion with Christ through sacrificial service and holiness (Romans 12:1–2; 1 Corinthians 10:16–17). A broader reapplication of Christ's commands in light of His broader teachings, if you will.

Consider Jesus' own words in Matthew 25:35-40, which David and I both cited. Here, the “meal” that honors Christ is not a ceremonial act, but feeding the hungry, welcoming strangers, and clothing the naked; practical righteousness that reflects inward transformation. The Eucharist may memorialize Christ’s sacrifice, but living it out through acts of mercy is its truest fulfillment (James 1:27).

Further, the thief on the cross (Luke 23:42–43) is not merely an exception, but a paradigm: salvation is granted through faith and confession, not through rites. Had baptism or communion been non-negotiable conditions, Christ would not have assured him of Paradise.

The Salvation Army does not deny the value of sacraments, but asserts that their essence can be lived without the form, especially when the form becomes a barrier rather than a bridge. To paraphrase Romans 14:17, “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

 

[A.W. Bowman]

Fantastic thread. Thank you, gentlemen. Well, you both were a bit light on the debate side.

 

[Tom Lee]

The thief on the cross was saved without being baptized or taking communion (Luke 23:42–43), proving that faith in Christ alone is what saves.

Hi David, I was recently challenged on a related topic and went to this passage, only to discover that the Greek word for paradise ("This day you will be with me in paradise") doesn't necessarily refer to what we believers think of as Heaven--our final destination. This could have serious implications for how we understand that statement, particularly when three days later Jesus tells Mary that He has not yet ascended to the Father.

 

[Yesua888]

Hi David, I was recently challenged on a related topic and went to this passage, only to discover that the Greek word for paradise ("This day you will be with me in paradise") doesn't necessarily refer to what we believers think of as Heaven--our final destination. This could have serious implications for how we understand that statement, particularly when three days later Jesus tells Mary that He has not yet ascended to the Father.

Would you please share more : )

 

[David]

Hi David, I was recently challenged on a related topic and went to this passage, only to discover that the Greek word for paradise ("This day you will be with me in paradise") doesn't necessarily refer to what we believers think of as Heaven--our final destination. This could have serious implications for how we understand that statement, particularly when three days later Jesus tells Mary that He has not yet ascended to the Father.

Stay anchored in what the text actually says and let Scripture explain Scripture.

Jesus’ words are direct: “And he said unto him, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” ~Luke 23:42-43. The phrase “to day” removes delay. The promise is immediate.

The Greek word translated “paradise” is παράδεισος (paradeisos). Scripture itself defines how it is used. Paul writes, “I knew a man in Christ… such an one caught up to the third heaven… How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words” ~2 Corinthians 12:2-4. In the same passage, “third heaven” and “paradise” are used together, showing paradise is the place of God’s presence.

Jesus also says, “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” ~Revelation 2:7. That places paradise where God dwells, not somewhere separate from Him.

Now look at what Scripture says about being with the Lord after death. “We are confident… willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” ~2 Corinthians 5:8. There is no gap described between death and being with Him. Again, “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better” ~Philippians 1:23. Departing and being with Christ are joined together.

So when Jesus promises, “to day shalt thou be with me,” it aligns perfectly with these passages. The thief would be with Christ that very day.

Now consider John 20:17 in its context: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” This is after the resurrection, speaking about His bodily ascension. Yet even before this, Jesus had said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” ~Luke 23:46. His spirit was committed to the Father at death.

Scripture does not contradict itself. The Son, in His death, commits His spirit to the Father, and the believer is promised to be with Him. The later statement about not yet ascending refers to the resurrection and public ascension, not the immediate reality of being in the Father’s presence.

The conclusion from the text is clear. The thief was saved by faith alone, and Jesus assured him of immediate presence with Him. No ordinance, no ritual added to that promise. Just Christ, and the man trusting Him.