What are the differences between Sacraments and Ordenances?

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

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.

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.

 

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'.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?)

 

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.

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.

 

I knew I liked you :smilewinkgrin: .

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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)

 

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".