Sacramental Soteriology

Poor ecumenical understanding and communication leads to gross doctrinal mischaracterizations.

Readership: Christians
Theme: Church Policy and Sacramental Marriage
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

What is the Eternal Significance of Sacramental Marriage?

In the first post of this series, I posed the question, “Are the Church Policies and Teachings on Sacramental Marriage a Social Polity or a Doctrine of Salvation?”

In this post, I expressed how the Sacramental Marriage construct has value as a social polity.  Regulations vs. Reality (2023/5/30) further explored how it could be utilized to guard against fallen human nature and support the sanctity of marriage.  The Necessity of Requirements for Sacramental Marriage (2023/6/1) examined how it was a pitch for Cathodoxy and a means of consolidating unity in the church.  All in all, I’ve addressed this construct’s value as a practical implementation and some of the problems thereof.  The issue of soteriology was addressed in terms how the above relates to sanctification, but was not considered as a doctrinal principle. 

Derek L. Ramsey (ramman3000) has taken a leap into abstract soteriological doctrine by continually describing Sacramental Marriage as some sort of rite of passage that is necessary for salvation (presumably according to the Catholic view).  For a long while, I thought the same thing (about the Catholic position), due to my ignorance of all things Cathodox.  Apparently, Ed Hurst made the same assumption in his post, There Is No Sacrament (2023/5/15).

However, after investigating this further, I believe Derek has misinterpreted and misrepresented Sacramental Marriage.

As I quoted him saying in Regulations vs. Reality (2023/5/30),

“Salvation under the covenant of Jesus should precede both baptism and marriage, as part of the already established covenant, not sacraments.  […]  Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy falsely assert that marriage and baptism are sacramental, that is, part of saving grace, and thus sacramental marriage cannot satisfy the prerequisite [that Christ be his Lord first].”

Asking “Which comes first, Christ or salvation?” is a circular, morally redundant argument, like asking, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”  It is a question that assumes a chronologically linear, human instigated cause and effect, rather than the hand of God moving throughout a person’s life.  Confusion arises because the metaphysical phenomenon which is addressed here has no explanation that can be comprehended by human rationality alone.

Some people might have a born again experience (which is a Protestant characterization of salvation, BTW), but for most, redemption involves continual growth and renewal (a Cathodox position).  For some, this may continue for a good majority of their lives.

All Marriages involve Sex, but NOT All Marriages are Sanctified

Concerning the Apostolicity behind Sex = Marriage, in one explanatory comment Derek wrote,

“Every argument has assumptions behind it. The Sex = Marriage and Sex ≠ Marriage arguments are no different. They both axiomatically assume a particular apostolicity.

I can’t argue Sex = Marriage without also arguing that apostolic succession is wrong. This is obviously true!  If I thought Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy were legitimately God’s authorized apostolic representatives on earth, I would be obligated to say that sex does not equal marriage and that marriage is a sacrament of salvific grace.

I shouldn’t be blamed merely for pointing out what no one wants to admit, that these matters of extremely great importance to us (i.e. what constitutes marriage) go to the heart of the Christian denominational divide that has existed for over 1500 years.”

Although the different sects have different structures of doctrinal authority, there is no such dichotomy concerning Sex = Marriage as this is a more fundamental truth that originated in the Adamic Covenant.

While it is true that Marriage is sacramental / sanctified for some, it is not for others, and this is not necessarily correlated with any particular faith tradition.  Whether marriage is sacramental / salvific / sanctified or not does not negate Sex = Marriage as described in the Bible.  It only means exactly what it means — that the quality of the marriage is (or isn’t) blessed / salvific / sanctified, or whatever.  In Christian Red Pill parlance, it means that there is no Headship and it does not fit the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife structure (which is common, even within the church).  It does NOT mean that the individuals are NOT truly married nor can we conclude that such individuals are certainly going to hell.  (Although having a debased marriage certainly approximates the experience by comparison.)  If the Catholic church refuses to recognize an extra-canonical marriage, it is NOT because the couple is having sex or not, nor is it because they are NOT “truly” married.  No.  It is an effort to identify the nature of the relationship and to see what needs to be done to bring the couple closer to having a sanctified God honoring marriage.

Closing Statements

From what I have gathered so far, Sacramental marriage, properly translated, is basically just the Cathodox label for what Protestants would call a sanctified marriage.  It is not an issue of eternal salvation in the hereafter, as Derek has made it out to be, but one of experiencing the joy and peace of the Lord in marriage, which is what Catholics call “salvific grace”, and what I have attempted to capture in the Peaceful Unity marriage model.

Of course, tapping into this Life in the Spirit carries with it eternal significance, and this is how it relates to the Protestant concept of redemptive salvation.  That is, it is not THE deciding factor in salvation, but it enhances the sanctimonious qualities thereof.

I am surprised that Catholics have not called out Derek for misrepresenting the Catholic position on Sacramental Marriage, or me for misunderstanding it.  Catholic readers have been strangely silent about this whole topic, as though it passes right over their heads without any perception of what is being discussed, or maybe they just don’t give a d@mn about what others perceive about their faith tradition.  Not sure which is worse.  I have made the mistake of assuming that their silence is a tacit agreement.

For all his talk of “unity”, whenever Derek L. Ramsey strikes up an argument, the unity falls apart.  I kindly suggest that Derek’s skills are better suited towards infiltrating non-Christian sites in order to tear down their atheistic / progressive constructs.

Related

• Dalrock: Does romantic love sanctify married sex? (2018/11/20)
• Dalrock: Is it a sin to go against God’s command? (2019/2/10)
• Σ Frame (Jack): The Mosh Pit of Sex Analysists (2019/3/24)
• Bruce Charlton: The metaphysical role of men and women in this world, and the next (2022/12/13)
• Catacomb Resident: Living and Dying (2023/4/15)
• Bruce Charlton: How can we change our own metaphysical structure through-which we relate to the world?  Is this analogous to the ‘process’ of resurrection? (2023/6/5)
• Bruce Charlton: Forget about Hell — Do you want to go to Heaven, or not? (2023/6/7)
• Bruce Charlton: A specific example of how God can work for a man’s salvation and theosis: Philip K Dick and his Exegesis (2023/6/11)