• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How are "ordinances"/sacraments Biblical?

abacabb3

Newbie
Jul 14, 2013
3,217
564
✟91,561.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is an issue I am giving serious thought and I don't like being a doubter on this, but when the Bible uses the word "ordinance" it is only in reference to the Law. Further, I do not see the basis for the Lord's Supper or baptism being any more timeless than the laying on of hands for the sick, head covering rules, and more loosely the plethora of moral commands that God makes in the Scripture, revealing to us what He finds pleasing.

Wouldn't it be Biblically more accurate to say that everything that God commands is an ordinance, being this is how the term is actually used in the Bible? Is there a Biblically-based argument for exalting the Lord's Supper and baptism as somehow above other things God has commanded of us?

I appreciate your responses.
 
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Is there a Biblically-based argument for exalting the Lord's Supper and baptism as somehow above other things God has commanded of us?

Let's see...

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

James 3:9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers,3 these things ought not to be so."

Someone else can put forth the argument for the Lord's Supper, but from these two passages of Scripture, Baptism is by far more closely associated with salvation, than the command to not curse. From the context, the Christians James addressed were double minded, evidently they were both blessing and cursing with the tongue, like most of us. Also an observation, the command to do and command not to do. One is above the other.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,493
10,861
New Jersey
✟1,344,760.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I think I see what's going on. You're not disputing that we're commanded to serve communion and baptize new Christians. I think those commands are pretty obvious. It seems like your question is why these things differ from everything else we're commanded to do, right?

The usual definition of a sacrament is that it is an outward and visible sign of the inward activity of the Spirit. Luther spoke of baptism as water joined to the Word. Hence Luther rejected marriage as a sacrament, not because it isn't an important Christian action, but because it is itself. It's not the like communion or baptism, which is a sign joined to the Word.

When reading your question, i ask myself how my experience of communion differs from, for example, my experience of hearing the Scripture read. I think the thing that makes the sacrament different is that it involves our senses in doing something, in this case eating bread and drinking wine, and thus reaches us in a way that just hearing the Word may not always do (though I would certainly not wish to belittle hearing the Word preached -- at times one gets the impression that Reformed writers treated preaching almost like a sacrament).

Of course music has some of the same effects, and of course music can be a powerful inspiration. But again, it doesn't have the two levels of the symbolic action and what's really happening spiritually.

Calvin is willing to see a similar combination of symbol with promise in other things, such as the rainbow, but he said he normally used the term for specific actions commanded by Christ for universal use by the Church. Here's what he says in more detail:

"But my present purpose is to discourse especially of those sacraments which the Lord has been pleased to institute as ordinary sacraments in his Church, to bring up his worshippers and servants in one faith, and the confession of one faith. For, to use the words of Augustine, “In no name of religion, true or false, can men be assembled, unless united by some common use of visible signs or sacraments” (August. cont. Faustum, Lib. 9 c. 11). Our most merciful Father, foreseeing this necessity, from the very first appointed certain exercises of piety to his servants; these, Satan, by afterwards transferring to impious and superstitious worship, in many ways corrupted and depraved. Hence those initiations of the Gentiles into their mysteries, and other degenerate rites. Yet, although they were full of error and superstition, they were, at the same time, an indication that men could not be without such external signs of religion. But, as they were neither founded on the word of God, nor bore reference to that truth which ought to be held forth by all signs, they are unworthy of being named when mention is made of the sacred symbols which were instituted by God, and have not been perverted from their end—viz. to be helps to true piety. And they consist not of simple signs, like the rainbow and the tree of life, but of ceremonies, or (if you prefer it) the signs here employed are ceremonies. But since, as has been said above, they are testimonies of grace and salvation from the Lord, so, in regard to us, they are marks of profession by which we openly swear by the name of God, binding ourselves to be faithful to him. Hence Chrysostom somewhere shrewdly gives them the name of pactions, by which God enters into covenant with us, and we become bound to holiness and purity of life, because a mutual stipulation is here interposed between God and us. For as God there promises to cover and efface any guilt and penalty which we may have incurred by transgression, and reconciles us to himself in his only begotten Son, so we, in our turn, oblige ourselves by this profession to the study of piety and righteousness. And hence it may be justly said, that such sacraments are ceremonies, by which God is pleased to train his people, first, to excite, cherish, and strengthen faith within; and, secondly, to testify our religion to men." (Institutes, 4.14.19)

I think it's a useful category of particularly important ceremonies, but I would note that Scripture doesn't specifically put Baptism and Communion into such a category.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

abacabb3

Newbie
Jul 14, 2013
3,217
564
✟91,561.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well put, Hedrick. To be honest, I have nothing against the idea that God's spirit joined into an ordinance makes its sacred, hence sacramental.

I suppose, the only problem is if we don't concede what you wrote in your last sentence. All things being said, we are making a classification that the Scripture does not. For this reason, I think it to be dangerous to build theologies around ordinances/sacraments that the Scripture does not bear out.

For example, let's take the issue of head coverings. I asked my Pastor why could wedding rings replace head coverings as a legitimate tradition passed down through Paul (1 Cor 11:2) but we cannot replace the Lord's Supper with grape soda and chips ahoy cookies. The answer was, "The Lord's Supper is an ordinance."

I find such an answer wholly unsatisfying, simply because it is being dogmatic about something the Bible isn't. For example, Paul does not say, "Now, the Lord's SUpper is an ordinance so you have to treat it super special." Instead, he approaches it like any other commandment of the Lord, with the utmost seriousness. To me, to create an artificial distinction of ordinances and stuff we're supposed to do, we create a new legalism in some ways and in others blatantly ignore things God would ask of us.
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I find such an answer wholly unsatisfying, simply because it is being dogmatic about something the Bible isn't. For example, Paul does not say, "Now, the Lord's SUpper is an ordinance so you have to treat it super special." Instead, he approaches it like any other commandment of the Lord, with the utmost seriousness. To me, to create an artificial distinction of ordinances and stuff we're supposed to do, we create a new legalism in some ways and in others blatantly ignore things God would ask of us.
I think once you carefully review the following commentary by one of the primary authors (Zacharius Ursinus) of the Heidelberg Catechism you will come to a deeper and revised view of this matter:

Question 66
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,493
10,861
New Jersey
✟1,344,760.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
For example, let's take the issue of head coverings. I asked my Pastor why could wedding rings replace head coverings as a legitimate tradition passed down through Paul (1 Cor 11:2) but we cannot replace the Lord's Supper with grape soda and chips ahoy cookies. The answer was, "The Lord's Supper is an ordinance."

I find such an answer wholly unsatisfying, simply because it is being dogmatic about something the Bible isn't. For example, Paul does not say, "Now, the Lord's SUpper is an ordinance so you have to treat it super special." Instead, he approaches it like any other commandment of the Lord, with the utmost seriousness. To me, to create an artificial distinction of ordinances and stuff we're supposed to do, we create a new legalism in some ways and in others blatantly ignore things God would ask of us.

The second quoted paragraph doesn't seem to follow. Whether we group baptism and communion into a special category or not, they are established by Christ. We use the signs we do because they are the ones he established. I don't think we should be legalistic about it. The Last Supper used wine as a symbol for Christ's blood. I think grape soda is not as good a symbol. If we were in a culture where wine was unavailable or had a meaning that wouldn't be consistent with the sacrament, we might have to pick a different symbol. But I'm not sure whether such cultures exist. There have been debates over the type of bread. I think those can get legalistic But again, we need to be careful to stick as close as makes sense in our culture to Jesus' own usage. I've seen suggestions that in cultures where bread is some kind of exotic delicacy, a staple that is equivalent to bread for us should be used. I would consider that a legitimate decision for a Church to make.
 
Upvote 0

abacabb3

Newbie
Jul 14, 2013
3,217
564
✟91,561.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The second quoted paragraph doesn't seem to follow. Whether we group baptism and communion into a special category or not, they are established by Christ. We use the signs we do because they are the ones he established. I don't think we should be legalistic about it. The Last Supper used wine as a symbol for Christ's blood. I think grape soda is not as good a symbol. If we were in a culture where wine was unavailable or had a meaning that wouldn't be consistent with the sacrament, we might have to pick a different symbol. But I'm not sure whether such cultures exist. There have been debates over the type of bread. I think those can get legalistic But again, we need to be careful to stick as close as makes sense in our culture to Jesus' own usage. I've seen suggestions that in cultures where bread is some kind of exotic delicacy, a staple that is equivalent to bread for us should be used. I would consider that a legitimate decision for a Church to make.

It is worth noting that Christ established the New Covenant, so traditionally, we don't view a command given by Jesus and different than a command given by Paul in the New Testament. The same God commands both..

Second, you move onto the Lord's Supper not requiring any sort of replacement, because most societies we can think of have bread and wine.

This is a tad disingenuous. First, societies today all have head coverings, particularly hats, so lack of access materially or culturally to head coverings is not the problem. It is the lack of will to follow the command. Second, the Lord's Supper in many churches has replaced wine with grape juice. Now, as certain as people didn't have refrigerators back then, it must be certain that the wine in the Last Supper was alcoholic wine. So, we are already replacing wine with something it isn't.

So, why not replace welch's grape juice with welch's grape soda? Both have grape as an ingredient. Is the sugar offensive? The carbon dioxide gas? At least it is actually grape.

Then, we get the issue of bread. Should it be leavened or not? Further, there are people like me who are "allergic" to wheat gluten. Does bread have to be made of wheat or rye, the ingredients in which Christ would have used to be really bread? The Catholic CHurch refuses to use any other ingredient but wheat for this reason. And, then, what is a more faithful rendition of the Lord's SUpper? Rice bread or chips ahoy, which are made of wheat? Ar ethe chocolate chips offensive?

Clearly, the issue with grape soda and cookies is not the actual ingredients themselves. I can imagine in an extreme circumstance, such as in a fall out shelter, there would not be any problem with using such things as the elements with nothing else available. Rather, the problem is with so clearly going against the simple intended meaning of what God commanded us to do.

So, let's take head coverings. To replace a head covering with anything else as opposed to its intended meaning in Scripture, especially when they are so widely available, requires some sort of justification. Wat we often then see is artificial distinctions, such as "Well Christ Himself commanded this, but Paul commanded that." That might fly among red letter Christians, but then traditional CHristians get into other problems, holding to teachings f the Apostles on one issue but then ignoring another teaching as "culturally based" or something else, even when the Scripture does not make this argument.

Hence, the danger of extrapolating whole theologies out of the ordinances.
 
Upvote 0