What are the differences between Sacraments and Ordenances?

[Pastor Larry]

So is my 12 month old daughter old enough to repent?

Probably not, but I don't know your 12 month old.

How else are babies supposed to come to Jesus?

They don't. They don't come to anything. But God appears to cover babies with the atonement of Christ, meaning that all babies who die were elect babies.

Baby boys were circumcised so presumably you at least approve of them being baptised?

No, because Colossians 2 has to be pretty well twisted to connect physical circumcision to baptism. I was merely pointing out that the comparison doesn't work.

 

[Matt Black]

Ah. Are you not therefore falling under the same admonition Christ gave His disciples by "forbidding the little children to come" to Him? And I'd like to see chapter and verse for your assertion that His atonement somehow 'covers' them (how is that done?) and that they are 'elect'.

 

[Marcia]

Just what I said, scripture never expressly talks about baptizing babies. But Acts 2:38 places a very high emphasis on baptism and it is immediately followed by a promise (1) to Peter's listeners, (2) to their children and (3) to all who are far off. Clearly something is going to happen to the children--they are going to be saved, just like Peter's listening audience and like those away from there. They are too young to repent, so that only leaves the sacrament of baptism.

So Peter is promising them that their babies will be saved and baptized?

Your argument here makes no sense at all. He's talking about the promise we have if we believe!

Children are not too young to repent - I think a child as young as 5 can repent and be saved. But the issue was infant baptism and you have totally gone off that.

 

[Marcia]

But that for me flies in the face of Jesus' injunction not to forbid the 'little children' from coming to Him in Matt 19:14. You also have the Pauline comparison with circumcision in Col 2:11-12 - and we know that infant boys were certainly circumcised. If one lacks the intellectual capacity for faith - for whatever reason - does that mean in your schema of salvation that he or she is incapable of being saved?

I don't equate little children with infants. I do believe God saves babies who die (this would be another thread - want to start it? I've been in that discussion before) by His grace. But that is God doing it - baptizing a baby is saying, "Here God, regenerate this baby and the baby is saved even though he/she has no idea what is going on."

And if one believes infants and very young children (3 or 4 and under) at least go to heaven if they die, why baptize them to "save" them?

Do you believe baptizing an infant is salvation?

There is zero biblical support for ths.

 

[Marcia]

Sorry to go back to this but DonnA IS a lady. She posts in the women's private forum and her profile states that she's a mom and grandma. That's pretty much a lady. LOL

Well, I was sure wrong with my memory on that one! LOL! (I can't find the laughing icon - they come and go here). I should have checked the profile!

Sorry Matt, and sorry DonnA! (Wavey is gone, too! Who is stealing all the good icons?)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Are you not therefore falling under the same admonition Christ gave His disciples by "forbidding the little children to come" to Him?

No. When Jesus said that, he was not offering baptism to them, and there's no indication that there was any saving going on. Go back and read the passage carefully and not the absolute lack of any reference to baptism or to saving grace.

And I'd like to see chapter and verse for your assertion that His atonement somehow 'covers' them (how is that done?) and that they are 'elect'.

There is none. I said that. The best biblical evidence is David's infant who died, and he took comfort in saying "He will not come to me, but I will go to him." I assume David was not relishing the thought of his own death there, and the idea of hell certainly seems out of place given David's spiritual state and comfort (since hell is hardly a comfort). So the biblical evidence is that babies go to heaven, and that is because their Adamic sin is covered by Christ's death.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

In our old Presbyterian church (PCUSA but a very solid one - fought against the Presbytery a lot), we had ordinances and not sacraments.

I knew I liked you :smilewinkgrin: .

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Yet the word "sacrament" is not used in the Bible, but the word "ordinance" is.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Yes, you are technically correct. The word "ordinance" is indeed found in the Scriptures. The word is used to mean rules, regulations, and so forth. Nowhere is Scripture is it meant to describe the Lord's Table and Baptism.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Here is a good article on the subject written by a Methodist pastor --- see http://www.revneal.org/Writings/sactheol.html.

While he does write from a Methodist viewpoint, he gives a fairly balanced view of things. Here's the last paragraph.

"The difference between a Sacramental understanding of the means of grace and an Ordinance understanding of these same rites must be recognized before the differences in interpretation of the Scriptural witness, and the subsequent traditions of the Church, can be understood. In all honesty, it must also be recognized that neither approach is free from the oft-attacked "traditions of men." Both have Scriptural warrants for their approach, and both rely upon a specific set of man-made hermeneutical devices and assumptions. The best any of us can do is approach these questions with humility and acceptance, knowing that many – even those who accept the means of grace concept – will not agree on every point. This is okay. God's grace is bigger than our differences."

 

[DHK]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Yes, you are technically correct. The word "ordinance" is indeed found in the Scriptures. The word is used to mean rules, regulations, and so forth. Nowhere is Scripture is it meant to describe the Lord's Table and Baptism.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

The first ordinance that Paul speaks of is wearing a head-covering. In both Catholic and Protestant churches all women used to wear head-coverings up to about 40 years ago. What changed? Christians still do in eastern nations.
In the same chapter the second ordinance that Paul speaks of is the Lord's Supper.

Paul uses the word ordinance in the plural and then proceeds to speak about two things only.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Again, depends on what your definition of is is. Yes, the KJV uses the term ordinances in that particular verse.

All other translations do not use the word ordinances. Instead, they state it much differently -- using the terms traditions or teachings --- totally a different concept than ordinance. Not most other translations, but all other translations --- NIV, ESV, Holman, NASB, Amplified, ASV, etc. Even the New KJV does not use the word ordinance, using word traditions instead.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

The first ordinance that Paul speaks of is wearing a head-covering. In both Catholic and Protestant churches all women used to wear head-coverings up to about 40 years ago. What changed? Christians still do in eastern nations.
In the same chapter the second ordinance that Paul speaks of is the Lord's Supper.

Paul uses the word ordinance in the plural and then proceeds to speak about two things only.

Head coverings have never been an ordinance (or sacrament) in either the western or eastern churches. It may have been a tradition - but not a sacrament.

 

[DHK]

Head coverings have never been an ordinance (or sacrament) in either the western or eastern churches. It may have been a tradition - but not a sacrament.

It is simply a matter of semantics and definitions.
There has never been a sacrament in any Biblical church--never.
Sacraments are in churches that have gone into apostasy, unbelief. It is a definite mark of unbelief.
It is a mark of unbelief in the gospel.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

It is simply a matter of semantics and definitions.
There has never been a sacrament in any Biblical church--never.
Sacraments are in churches that have gone into apostasy, unbelief. It is a definite mark of unbelief.
It is a mark of unbelief in the gospel.

Interesting. So all other churches have gone into apostasy since they consider the Lord's Table & Communion to be sacraments rather than ordinances? All Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, etc. have gone into apostasy? I guess everyone but Baptists.

 

[DHK]

Interesting. So all other churches have gone into apostasy since they consider the Lord's Table & Communion to be sacraments rather than ordinances? All Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, etc. have gone into apostasy? I guess everyone but Baptists.

To some degree or another. That would be my position.
A sacrament is a means of grace.
An ordinance is a command.
The Lord gave the church two ordinances (as we consider them), baptism and the Lord's Supper. But you use the word sacrament. Sacrament is a means of grace, and the Catholic Church has seven of them. So why not just follow the Catholic Church? You have them listed above. I don't consider the Catholic Church a Christian Church. It preaches a gospel of works not of grace. Its grace is in its sacraments not in the gospel of Jesus Christ, effectively denying the gospel.

 

[Matt Black]

I don't equate little children with infants. I do believe God saves babies who die (this would be another thread - want to start it? I've been in that discussion before) by His grace. But that is God doing it - baptizing a baby is saying, "Here God, regenerate this baby and the baby is saved even though he/she has no idea what is going on."

No, it's still God doing it - through the means He has provided.

And if one believes infants and very young children (3 or 4 and under) at least go to heaven if they die, why baptize them to "save" them?

Do you believe baptizing an infant is salvation?

I'm not sure I would go so far as the Catholics (although even they, particularly the present Pope, have reeled themselves in somewhat on this issue) and say that unbaptised infants do not go to Heaven, nor am I 100% sure on the whole baptismal regeneration thing (although I Peter 3:21 seems fairly clear on that); what, for me, it does do is incorporate the child into the salvific new covenant community, the Church, much as circumcision incorporated male children into the old covenant community of Israel, hence the Pauline parallel in Col 2:11-12. In so far also as the crossing of the Red Sea was an antitype of baptism, the children of the Israelites were included in that, and it is noteworthy that, during the negotiations for the liberation of Israel from Egyptian bondage, Pharoah refused to let the children be included, and that was clearly not acceptable to God (Ex 10:8-11ff)

 

[Matt Black]

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

The first ordinance that Paul speaks of is wearing a head-covering. In both Catholic and Protestant churches all women used to wear head-coverings up to about 40 years ago. What changed? Christians still do in eastern nations.
In the same chapter the second ordinance that Paul speaks of is the Lord's Supper.

Paul uses the word ordinance in the plural and then proceeds to speak about two things only.

The Greek word is paradoseiV , which literally means "that which has been handed over or handed down" and is better translated "tradition", not "ordinance". The former word implies "something we do" whereas the latter implies "something we must do".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To some degree or another. That would be my position.
A sacrament is a means of grace.
An ordinance is a command.
The Lord gave the church two ordinances (as we consider them), baptism and the Lord's Supper. But you use the word sacrament. Sacrament is a means of grace, and the Catholic Church has seven of them. So why not just follow the Catholic Church? You have them listed above. I don't consider the Catholic Church a Christian Church. It preaches a gospel of works not of grace. Its grace is in its sacraments not in the gospel of Jesus Christ, effectively denying the gospel.

An ordinance is a command. I will reference Matt Black's responce to this particular issue for it is the most accurate.

The Greek word is paradoseiV , which literally means "that which has been handed over or handed down" and is better translated "tradition", not "ordinance". The former word implies "something we do" whereas the latter implies "something we must do".

A sacrament is a means of grace. Your issue with this, I think is that you do not believe that an act can be a means by which grace is given to the one who enacts it. Is this your belief? Then how are we to understand Romans 10: 9-10?

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

It is clear that justification is one part of salvation which is operated by faith. But here is the rub "if you confess with your mouth" and again "it is with your mouth that you confess that you are saved." So it seems that there is a grace that is enacted with actual confession of the mouth by which you are saved. So faith is one step (at least) but is nothing with out an act (another step such as confession or living rightly) is nothing as we can see in James.

You stated that the Lord established 2 ordinances (which we understand to be tradition handed down that must be enacted) Communion and baptism. Well what about this one?

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Yet take this verse with this verse

19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

There is then authority to forgive sins of others or not to. Though the command is obvious in the Lord prayer

14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins

So this too is an ordinance (a command by tradition handed down and also a scripture) to forgive people of their sins by the authority God gave his apostles. And by the scriptures above the act of forgiving allows for grace of forgiveness to occur.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As a side bar or maybe it should be another thread but this has to do with some thought I had on forgiveness. How are we to view sins themselves. What does 1 John 5:16-17 Mean?

16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Seems to be levels of it does it not?

 

[annsni]

I knew I liked you :smilewinkgrin: .

LOL - DH was an elder in the PC too!! He was the youngest one there.