What are the differences between Sacraments and Ordenances?

Sorry; I always read it "Donna" - my bad

But, for me, as I said earlier, that's the pinnacle of grace - the baby can do nothing at all to receive it. It is utterly without precondition and is more 'grace-full' than the evangelical demand that one must have faith as a condition precedent to receiving saving grace

 

Very interesting; about 100 years ago, I started a thread on these boards entitled "The Bible as Sacrament" which, IIRC, put forward the thesis that, for evangelicals, reading the Bible performed the same function vis a vis encountering God as Holy Communion did for those Christians higher up the candle. I'll see if I can find the thread...

 

Thread here

 

But one would have to also believe there is regeneration without faith. This to me is totally opposed to what the Bible teaches and there is no example of an infant being baptized.

 

This is a seductive argument, Marcia, and I agree there is no instance where scripture speaks expressly of an infant being baptized. Yet I have to wonder about the three instances where we know of entire households being baptized. Don't "entire households" include children? And what about Acts 2:39? Why would Peter single out children as people other than his listening audience unless they were too young to understand? Notice he did not single out wives, presumably because they could understand what he was saying. What say you?

 

I was waiting for someone to bring this up!

First of all, we don't know there were infants in the household, so your argument is fallacious. Secondly, households included servants as well, and this is what it could refer to. Thirdly, taken in context with the rest of scripture, we would have to assume that all those who were baptized believed as well.

As for Acts 2:39 - it says nothing about baptizing babies!

 

Entire households could include: dogs and cats, extra-terrestrials, the oxen the pulled the plow, etc.
You are reading into the Scripture those things which are not there.
If it is not in the Scripture why put it there? That is the fastest way to go right into heresy. Whose to say there were not Martians living there as well? Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! And it sounds ridiculous to say that there were infants baptized when the Bible has no record of it; especially when the Bible requires one to have faith and understanding of the gospel message before they are permitted to be baptized. __________________

 

Back to the OP...

Catholic churches, Orthodox churches and most Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, & Methodist to name a few) all use the term "sacraments." Other than Baptists and perhaps SDAs, I don't know any other denomination that refers to "ordinances." Are there others -- I don't know.

 

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.

 

Brethren, Churches of Christ and probably Disciples of Christ.

 

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

 

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?

 

Thought so. But which one of you in the photo is 'Annsni'?

 

But what if the other one's standing on a box? I think we should be told...

 

My Bible doesn't have the part where it says they were too young to repent. Can you tell me where your's does?

But the text says "come unto me" not "baptize them."

Which is a great argument against infant baptism. Infant girls were not circumcised, but they are baptized, which is strange if the connection is circumcision and baptism.

 

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

How else are babies supposed to come to Jesus?

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