What are the differences between Sacraments and Ordenances?

[Pastor Larry]

Sort of. Not exactly. In their guts, Baptists want to baptize their infants so they invent infant dedication. In the same way, Baptists are not permitted to "believe in" sacraments so Baptists rename them "ordinances."

Wrong on several different levels. Not all Baptists dedicate babies. And the reason Baptists typically don't use the word sacrament is because of what it means. We don't see it taught in the Bible. It may just be that you are not familiar with the issues here.

I would be more impressed if paychecks or personal cars were dedicated to God. Fat chance of that.

I see people do stuff like this all the time.

 

[Reformer]

I was once told

If you don't do the Sacraments you will go to hell, if you don't do the Ordinances you will be chastened

was an interesting statement that gets me confused today, mainly because I don't know if he was joking or not

 

[billwald]

>And the reason Baptists typically don't use the word sacrament is because of what it means. We don't see it taught in the Bible.

If (for example) marriage doesn't set the apart for special service to God and a special blessing from God then why make a big deal out of who should marry whom? If it only involves rule keeping then a Hindu or Moslem is as valid and no more advantageous than Christian marriage?

 

[Pastor Larry]

If (for example) marriage doesn't set the apart for special service to God and a special blessing from God then why make a big deal out of who should marry whom? If it only involves rule keeping then a Hindu or Moslem is as valid and no more advantageous than Christian marriage?

Not sure how in the world this is relevant here. The question about sacraments or ordinances doesn't have anything to do with setting apart for special service or special blessing. It has to do with whether or not an act is a means of grace or not. The Bible teaches that it is not. It is an ordinance, not a sacrament.

There are many things that are important, that are more than rule keeping, that have nothing to do with sacraments v. ordinances. That would perhaps be a worthy discussion, but certainly out of place here since it is off topic.

 

[Zenas]

Not sure how in the world this is relevant here. The question about sacraments or ordinances doesn't have anything to do with setting apart for special service or special blessing. It has to do with whether or not an act is a means of grace or not. The Bible teaches that it is not.

Really? Where?

 

[annsni]

Sort of. Not exactly. In their guts, Baptists want to baptize their infants so they invent infant dedication. In the same way, Baptists are not permitted to "believe in" sacraments so Baptists rename them "ordinances."

This is quite funny to me. I dedicated my children and I honestly never "in my gut" wanted to baptize my babies. If our church didn't dedicate children, I would have been just fine - I dedicate my babies anyway. My children are all special blessings - gifted to me by God. I am not only dedicating them to the Lord but dedicating myself in my role as a parent to raise up these children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In the public dedication, the church also promises to assist me in parenting - to support me, to pray for me and to help me when necessary. In my own church, that has happened in so many ways. Honestly, I have no desire to baptize the babies since baptism is a sign of a relationship with the Lord and they do not yet have that. I have been so happy when my 2 older girls chose to be baptized and I see glimmers of that in my 7 year old son right now. When his time comes - and his little sisters - I will also be overjoyed. But it is not my choice to baptize them. It's theirs. "Believe and be baptized" is what the Scripture says so me baptizing them as infants makes absolutely no sense to me.

When Samuel was dedicated to the Lord, he was turned over Eli. It was a great cost to Samuel's mother. (It was samuel, yes?)

Yes, this was Samuel and Hannah. Hannah had told God that if He gave her a child, she would GIVE him to God. So that is what she did. It wasn't just a dedication as we do but a wholly giving him over.

When a child is dedicated to God it doesn't cost the parents anything. The relationship between the child and the parent does not change. The parent does not expect the child to go into the priesthood (ministry) or whatever. I would be more impressed if paychecks or personal cars were dedicated to God. Fat chance of that.

Well, dedicating the children to the Lord doesn't "cost" me a child - but it does mean that I have a good bit of work to do. I have promised the Lord that I will raise my children for Him and will teach them His precepts. I expect all of my children to go into the ministry since we believe in the priesthood of the believers. Their father might be an ordained minister but the rest of us are also ministers in our own lives. I DO expect our children to walk with the Lord and to dedicate their lives to Him. In all they do, they will do it for the glory of God.

Cars and paychecks are easy to give to God. Been there done that as have many others. To give our lives and our children to Him - that's much tougher, IMO.

 

[Matt Black]

Typically, sacraments work ex opere operata ... They work of themselves. A sacrament accomplishes what it signifies. An ordinance is a visible symbol of a saving truth.

Hold on to your hats, people, I agree with Pastor Larry! The basic difference to my mind is that a sacrament effects something in the participant whereas an ordinance reflects what has already happened to the participant.

 

[Matt Black]

In general, sacraments are recognized by the RCC, Anglicans and Orthodox, who prefer to call them mysteries. The RCC recognizes 7 sacraments, some of which are easily recognized in scripture, others requiring more discernment. They are

1. Baptism
2. Reconciliation (confession)
3. Confirmation
4. The Eucharist (communion)
5. Holy matrimony
6. Holy orders (ordination)
7. Annointing of the sick (formerly called last rites)

All sacraments except baptism and holy matrimony require a priest to perform. I can't really comment on the theology behind excluding these two sacraments from the exclusive purview of the priesthood.

Not quite: for a wedding to be a sacrament, as opposed to a 'mere' legal ceremony, Catholic ecclesiology demands a priest do perform it. You are correct about baptism, but only in extremis; the usual rule is that only a priest or deacon may perform the sacrament unless it is an emergency (eg: stillborn/ dying baby) and no clergy may be found - in those circumstances anyone may baptise provided they have the necessary matter (water+"I baptise you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit") and the necessary intention (to baptise in the Name of the Father etc). Of course, all of this this stems from the (traditional) Catholic belief that baptism is (usually) necessary for salvation and that unbaptised infants go to Limbo - a view which I do not share (and neither does the present Pope, I gather).

 

[Matt Black]

Marcia quoteth thusly:

The problem with the sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church is that it is supposed to give grace to the recipient - infused grace. This is not a biblical view. Grace is a gift and does not come from something we do.

and DonnA similarly:

An ordance is a symbol,it is done for obedience, not to earn grace or favor from God, a sacrament is for the purpose of earning grace from God.

I have to say that I detect a slight flaw in your argument, ladies, particularly with regard to a baby being baptised: how much more gracious can you get (in Catholic soteriology), whereby God bestows His grace of regeneration on a new-born infant who has done and can do nothing to earn salvation; surely that is the epitome of grace?

 

[Matt Black]

This is quite funny to me. I dedicated my children and I honestly never "in my gut" wanted to baptize my babies. If our church didn't dedicate children, I would have been just fine - I dedicate my babies anyway. My children are all special blessings - gifted to me by God. I am not only dedicating them to the Lord but dedicating myself in my role as a parent to raise up these children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In the public dedication, the church also promises to assist me in parenting - to support me, to pray for me and to help me when necessary. In my own church, that has happened in so many ways. Honestly, I have no desire to baptize the babies since baptism is a sign of a relationship with the Lord and they do not yet have that. I have been so happy when my 2 older girls chose to be baptized and I see glimmers of that in my 7 year old son right now. When his time comes - and his little sisters - I will also be overjoyed. But it is not my choice to baptize them. It's theirs. "Believe and be baptized" is what the Scripture says so me baptizing them as infants makes absolutely no sense to me.

Heh heh! This reminds me of 'dry baptism' joke about the exchange between the Baptist pastor and the Catholic priest re their understandings of baptism and confirmation. The Baptist went first: "well, we don't baptise infants, we dedicate them", and then went on to explain what that involved. The priest chuckled and said "Sounds like a dry baptism to me." Then he went on to tell the pastor what they did at confirmation, and it was the Baptist's turn to chuckle and say, "Sounds like a dry baptism to me!"

 

[Zenas]

Not quite: for a wedding to be a sacrament, as opposed to a 'mere' legal ceremony, Catholic ecclesiology demands a priest do perform it. You are correct about baptism, but only in extremis; the usual rule is that only a priest or deacon may perform the sacrament unless it is an emergency (eg: stillborn/ dying baby) and no clergy may be found - in those circumstances anyone may baptise provided they have the necessary matter (water+"I baptise you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit") and the necessary intention (to baptise in the Name of the Father etc). Of course, all of this this stems from the (traditional) Catholic belief that baptism is (usually) necessary for salvation and that unbaptised infants go to Limbo - a view which I do not share (and neither does the present Pope, I gather).

This is correct only if you are talking about Catholics. However, the RCC recognizes all all trinitarian water baptisms as valid, meaning that if a Bapist, Methodist or Anglican seeks membership in the RCC he does not have to be baptised again by a priest. The original non-Catholic baptism is considered sacramental. Same thing with a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians. The RCC recognizes this as a sacramental marriage.

 

[Matt Black]

Agreed re baptism, but I'm not sure about marriage: when I was contemplating swimming the Tiber a few years back, I was told that Mrs B and I would need to go through a 'convalidation' ceremony to make it (retrospectively) sacramentally valid before we could receive Holy Communion

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Agreed re baptism, but I'm not sure about marriage: when I was contemplating swimming the Tiber a few years back, I was told that Mrs B and I would need to go through a 'convalidation' ceremony to make it (retrospectively) sacramentally valid before we could receive Holy Communion

Why? And if you decided against swimming the Tiber why did you not swim it? What about them gave you pause?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Really? Where?

All over. The ordinances are symbolic (a remembrance, an outward profession). They are never, in Scripture, said to convey grace to the participant or recipient.

 

[Matt Black]

Why?

Because, to them, it wasn't a valid Catholic marriage

And if you decided against swimming the Tiber why did you not swim it? What about them gave you pause?

Several factors:

1. I was not convinced that the RCC, anymore than the EOC, is the valid successor of the Undivided Church.

2. There is a degree of forensic legalism within the RCC that puts me off eg: if you don't go to Mass on a Sunday, it's a mortal sin and you're doomed to Hell unless you go to confession and say five Our Fathers, four Hail Marys and three Hello Dollys. The convalidation point was indicative of that

3. My wife would have to be convinced that the RCC is the right Church for us as a family; she is Plymouth Brethren in background and was brought up rabidly anti-Catholic so that's a bit of a chasm for he to leap!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Because, to them, it wasn't a valid Catholic marriageSeveral factors:

1. I was not convinced that the RCC, anymore than the EOC, is the valid successor of the Undivided Church.

2. There is a degree of forensic legalism within the RCC that puts me off eg: if you don't go to Mass on a Sunday, it's a mortal sin and you're doomed to Hell unless you go to confession and say five Our Fathers, four Hail Marys and three Hello Dollys. The convalidation point was indicative of that

3. My wife would have to be convinced that the RCC is the right Church for us as a family; she is Plymouth Brethren in background and was brought up rabidly anti-Catholic so that's a bit of a chasm for he to leap!

Forensic legalism. I like that though I'm not sure of the entire meaning of it. So, I understand not RCC. The Hello Dolly prayers definately put me off :laugh: Really, though its applicability of the faith that I have issue with. So if not the Tyber why not EO?

 

[Matt Black]

Partly practicalities: there are no non-ethnic (ie: not Russian or Greek) Orthodox churches within about 70 miles of where I am. The nearest English-speaking Orthodox parish is an Antiochene one near Dorchester. Also, partly, for me Anglicanism is more...well...authentically English and suits me best. That, admittedly, sounds very post-modern and is probably the weakest reason for being part of the CofE.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I have to agree with Matt as just one of my reasons that I decided not to swim the Tiber when he said:

Matt Black said: There is a degree of forensic legalism within the RCC that puts me off eg: if you don't go to Mass on a Sunday, it's a mortal sin and you're doomed to Hell unless you go to confession​

That just really didn’t sit well with me either. Even though I agree that we, Protestant/Catholic or Orthodox, should make ever effort to attend Church, still one shouldn’t be threatened with Hell, for succumbing to our Passion and being lazy and not going to Church.

Also, St. Paul does say that we should not only discern the body and blood of Christ, but also properly prepare ourselves before we partake in the Eucharist. Thus if I attend Divine Liturgy (same as Mass for the Roman Catholic), and I feel I should abstain from approaching the chalice, the Church then respects and applauds my decision. Furthermore, I believe, but not sure, but one is really only required to partake in the Eucharist once or twice a year. Some I’ve noticed only partake during certain Fasts, like the one we’re in now…The Dormition Fast.

Matt Black said: Partly practicalities: there are no non-ethnic (ie: not Russian or Greek) Orthodox churches within about 70 miles of where I am. The nearest English-speaking Orthodox parish is an Antiochene one near Dorchester. ​

I would add that the Antiochian Patriarchate (which I’m apart of) here in the US are a lot more open to American converts, in regard to English speaking services only, Americans are welcomed in any Orthodox Church regardless of Jurisdiction. Most of our services are in English, but we do hear some Greek, Arabic and Russian from time to time, which is quite interesting. Since our parish was founded by Lebanese, it’s been some getting used to eating Lebanese food…

In XC
-

 

[Marcia]

Marcia quoteth thusly:

and DonnA similarly:

I have to say that I detect a slight flaw in your argument, ladies, particularly with regard to a baby being baptised: how much more gracious can you get (in Catholic soteriology), whereby God bestows His grace of regeneration on a new-born infant who has done and can do nothing to earn salvation; surely that is the epitome of grace?

I don't think DonnA is a "lady" if I recall correctly.

I think the problem with bapitzing a baby being a sacrament is that the baby has no idea what's going on, and is being baptized in order to receive the grace.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have given some consideration to the post made on this thread and have come to a singular conclusion. That all protestants have at least one Sacrament. Here is how I come that belief:

Taking Pastor Larry's deffinition of Sacrament:

Typically, sacraments work ex opere operata ... They work of themselves. A sacrament accomplishes what it signifies.

I believe that unlike an ordanance where it is

a visible symbol of a saving truth.

There is an operation which Protestants perform in which they believe that by its working a special distribution of grace is given to the benefit of the believer where he can be in present communion with Jesus Christ. What is this work? What is this operation that would fit the definition of sacrament? Reading, meditating and particpating with scripture. Devotions. Is this not so? You read the scripture and by the very act of reading it truth becomes revealed to the believer by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit. Non believers can read scriptures very dispassionately and are no wiser. Not the Christian. It is the word of God which the believer finds himself to be in a special communion with God. This is not in effect with out the reading or the preaching of the word of God it can only be done when this operation is in effect. Reading of scripture accomplishes what it signifies. Thoughts? If this then is the case is it possible that there are other opperations that work similarily?