Why only two ordinances?

Not to repeat too much of rlvaughn's comments, but:

That is your interpretation. There are churches that claim a biblical foundation that have more ordinances.

The first thing I want us to do is look at what the nature of a church ordinance is, as the bible describes it.

The Bible does not specifically describe ordinances. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Now first of all we find that a church ordinance testifies of the work of Christ, not what we are and not what we do, but what Christ was and what Christ did. ...

Feet washing fits that description. In the first sense, it is an act of humility on the part of Christ and an example; in its second sense, it is a symbol of the ongoing sanctification of the Christian, the need for daily cleansing — accomplished by Christ — of believers from the daily sins that keep us from a full relationship with God.

Now what I want to point out also is that foot washing was not a necessary act on Christ's part, but an example for their actions. ... It was not a necessary action upon the part of Christ, but it was simply an example for their action.In other words it was not something that He needed to do, but rather something He did to show them an example of how they were to act one toward another.

Again, I think this is your interpretation. Did Christ do anything that He did not need to do? There were other ways, of course, to stress humility, but He did not choose those ways.

We also find that the church ordinances show the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. This is the very purpose of them.They both have to do with the sacrificial offering of His body unto death.
It's not simply an offering of Himself unto service, but the sacrificial offering of His body unto death.Foot washing just does not fit into this mold that we find here so far as the nature of it is concerned.We find these two church ordinances pointing in the same direction, but not at all so concerning foot washing.So, the nature of a church ordinance is not found in foot washing.

Again, I think you have overlooked the two-fold nature of foot washing. One purpose was, indeed, to teach humility; the other was to emphasize the need for regular "cleansing." Thus, foot washing reminds us that the work of Christ continues beyond the initial washing away of sin and thus is a worthy adjunct to baptism.

So, let us look at the actual nature of foot washing itself in particular. We find foot washing to be the ministering of a physical and not a spiritual need.

I would disagree, based upon my previous comments. Surely Jesus didn't only have physical needs in mind when he set the example. In addition, the Lord's Supper, considered in the light you propose, also ministers to a physical need. Indeed, baptism also meets a physical need.

We have shoes and socks to keep our feet clean and for someone to offer to wash your feet would not only be a service that you did not need it would actually be an annoyance to you.

And we have bathtubs and showers, which does not obviate the need for baptism.

Foot washing just could not be looked at as a form of worship. If we could actually wash Christ's feet rather than our brother's then you could call that worship. But, the obvious fact is that we can not wash Christ's feet.

Of course it can be an act of worship. "Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

... we should pray that God would teach us to be humble again.

And on that, we agree.