"Sacrament" or "Ordinance" when speaking of Baptism and Lord's Supper?

[matthew11v25]

I have seen both words thrown around. although Roman Catholics (when I talk to them) strictly hold to the word "sacrament". I am guessing presbyterian and baptists may have different takes on this...but I am interested anyway.

Questions:

Is "Sacrament" (protestant use) different than RC's use?

What is the difference between "ordinance" and "Sacrament"?

Which is proper in referring to Baptism and the Lord's Supper?

 

[fredtgreco]

The reformed view of sacrament is very different from Rome's.

The best way to understand that is to read WCF 27 and compare it to Trent's Canon on the sacraments.

 

[Robin]

"Sacrament" is another word that the contemporary Reformed folk need to take-back. All the word means is something that is "sacred."

Here is a link to a detailed explanation of what the Reformed understanding of the Sacraments are plus compared to the current issues of our time - i.e., the so-called "free expressions" of worship so popular in American religion.

http://www.christreformed.org/resources/sermons_lectures/00000058.shtml?main

Fred's right -- the Reformed have a completely different understanding of them.....and I think it's good that we re-assert the use of the dreaded "S" word!

I also think it's OK to take-back the dreaded "C" words: "ca- (small c)-tholic" and "catechism." These are good words!

Let the papists keep "Romanism" to designate the differences. (But that's another thread...)

R.

 

[Larry Hughes]

In my meager assessment:

Non-Roman "Sacrament". Should we cease to use the word "God" because so many abuse it? Definitely sacrament because the signs are an encouragement and strengthening to our faith. They are primarily gospel signs to aid in our weakness.

Ordinance is fine and accurate but it has a tendancy to carry with it a Law to be done.

ldh

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I the thoughts expressed in this thread with respect to the idea that words can be both abused by the RCC and used properly by Protestants.

The Reformers said there were two sacraments not seven, but they did not reject the word sacrament itself. The Westminster Confession has a whole section dealing with sacraments.

Likewise, the word "catholic" and the word "catechism."

The word "ordinance" is entirely proper too wrt sacraments, but let's not do away with sacraments because the word was hijacked by the RCC.

The word "gay" was hijacked by sodomites, but 19th century literature uses it to express joy or merriment, and I hope someday we can take that word back too.

 

[Solo Christo]

There is nothing wrong with the term 'sacrament'. If anything is of importance, it is the proper teaching and practice of the two.

 

[fredtgreco]

Most baptists use the word "ordinance" instead of sacrament not as much because they are afraid of Rome, but because they have a different understanding of baptism and the Lord's Supper than the classic Reformed view.

They object not just to the word, but to the WCF's teaching on this.

I don't bring this up to be critical (Phillip Way could agree with my assessment) but to show that what is at stake is not just a word game.

 

[pastorway]

yes indeed, I use the word "ordinance" on purpose for several reasons.

First, the Bible uses the word "ordinance" to refer to Passover (and by extension the Lord's Table) and to refer to things that God institutes for His people to follow for holy living.

Second, the word "sacrament" is not in the Bible! It is true that "sacrament" mens sacred, or holy. But it is not used ib the Scripture to refer to the "ordiannces." (yes, I know that the word Trinity is not there either....but read on.)

Third, the word "sacrament" has a lot of theological baggage attached to it.

Fourth, it helps make a distinction between Reformed and RCC practice, especially in areas of the country steeped in Catholicism.

Fifth, the word "sacrament" is usually used to denote that the Supper and baptism are a means of grace. I reject this. The Word of God and prayer are the only means of grace I see in the Scripture. The Word attached to the ordinances (used in conjunction with their observance) makes the ordinances significant, as they are not significant on their own (I am sure Presbyterians agree with the necessity ofthe Word for proper observance).

But here is where Baptists (not all, but many) and Presbyterians disagree on these observances. Here is the key aspect for me - A work, any work, even a good work, is not a means of grace (Rom 4:4). It is not the preaching of the Word (a work), but the Word preached. The Word of God is the power of God to salvation (Rom 1:16), converts the soul (Ps 19:7), makes one wise to salvation (2 Tim 3:15), and never returns void (Is 55:11).

And I believe prayer is a means only in that when we ask God for grace He gives it.

So combine all of this and you see why I prefer the term ordinance and will rarely if ever use the word sacrament.

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by pastorway
Fifth, the word "sacrament" is usually used to denote that the Supper and baptism are a means of grace. I reject this. The Word of God and prayer are the only means of grace I see in the Scripture. The Word attached to the ordinances (used in conjunction with their observance) makes the ordinances significant, as they are not significant on their own (I am sure Presbyterians agree with the necessity ofthe Word for proper observance).

This being the crux of the matter. I respect and love Phillip, but disagree with him here.

 

[Scott]

Matthew: Fred and Phillip have identified the differences. The term ordinance can be used by either presbyterians or baptists. The Westminster Standards even use the term "ordinance" to describe the sacraments. See For example WCF 28.6 for example. Baptists would not use the term sacrament.

As to Phillip's point about the sacraments being a means of grace he is right and this is an important difference. Presbyterians believe that the sacraments confer grace in ways similar to prayer and the Word. I would note that presbyterians do not believe that grace is conferred because of a "good work" but rather because the sacraments are a tool through which the Holy Spirit chooses to operate (like prayer and the Word). Receipt of grace through a sacrament is no more problematic than receipt of grace through prayer (a similar good work, even though it is neither it status as goodness or work that effects the grace).

Scott

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

Matthew:

You might find these provisions from the Larger Catchism helpful:

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.

Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

Q. 162. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without.

Q. 163. What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of the sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ´s own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.

 

[strangerpilgrim]

"The Word attached to the ordinances (used in conjunction with their observance) makes the ordinances significant, as they are not significant on their own (I am sure Presbyterians agree with the necessity ofthe Word for proper observance)..."



Why was the Corinthian church hurting specifically over the matter of the Lord's Supper? Why not their prayers? Why not the way they were reading the Word or not reading the Word when observing the ordinances? If the ordinance is of no special significance...indeed of lesser significance then prayer and the reading of the Word and only deriving significance from their attachment to it...then why would Paul mention the observance of the ordinance itself as the problem, and not the improper usage of the things that make the ordinance of some significance: the prayer and the reading of the Word?

 

[Larry Hughes]

Some baptist, thank God, John Piper for one, though do not use the term "sacrament" have picked up on the idea of it being a means of grace - though not using that phrase due to its Roman baggage, which tends to blind some.

Piper understands it to be more than a mere memorial ala SB. He points out the obvious, that it is a SUPPER, thus nourishes. How? he questions. Certainly not physical as Paul advizes them in Cor. to eat before coming. So what is the nourishment Piper asks? It's spiritual connecting back to the Gospel. He thus sees it as a means of grace even though the phrase is not used for it feeds grace in reality.

It is no wonder the Lord's table has fallen on hard times in Americanized Christianity, it has been relegated to almost nothing in far too many congregations just because Rome blasphemed it. Satan's strategies often pack a right, then a left hook.

l

 

[Scott]

Larry: That is good news on Piper and other baptists. I did not know this.

 

[Larry Hughes]

I've been pondering further the terms sacrament and ordinance. I suppose it is of no continued benefit to argue to the death the terms in and of themselves. If "œordinance" be understood similarly to the true meaning of "sacrament" the term would not be provocative. For it is true that the term "œsacrament" carries with it a certain baggage attached from Rome´s abuse of it in implementing it as a works/law. But it should be rightly pointed out that "œordinance" as well carries baggage in that it has become in some, some, circles by implied teaching a works/law. When in fact the sacraments/ordinances are primarily Gospel signs given to be performed thus and declared thus, and not as works or Law signs though they are commanded to be performed. As Gospel signs the sacraments/ordinances must be means of grace.

Concerning, specifically, the Lord´s Supper as sacrament/ordinance; anyone affirming that the Word of God, specifically the Gospel, is a means of GRACE, must affirm from the very Word of God that the Lord´s Supper is nothing less than a means of grace by extension. Paul is crystal clear on this point. This we see very easily in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 26 in which the Holy Spirit says, "œFor as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you PROCLAIM the Lord's death until He comes." For what else is it to PROCLAIM the Lord´s death by His body broken for us in the display and taking of the bread and in the display and taking of His blood shed for the forgiveness of our sin in the wine "“ but to declare and proclaim the Gospel itself! If then by the Word of God the Word of God says that this sacrament/ordinance is a proclamation of the Gospel, even more proclaiming the Word (esp. the Gospel) via the sacrament/ordinance with the Word, and we affirm that the Word of God - specifically the Word which is the Gospel - is a means of grace, then it necessarily follows that taking the sacrament/ordinance which PROCLAIMS the Lord´s death till He comes IS by definition as defined by the Word of God itself a means of grace. For if the Word, the Gospel, alone is proclaimed is a means of grace, then so is the Lord´s Supper which also proclaims the Gospel attached to the Word of God (namely 2 Cor. 11:26). Otherwise it (the sacrament/ordinance) is always in and of itself apart from the Word of no effect. i.e., Once the Word is attached to it, it becomes a means of grace.

Means of grace further examined: For who is this proclamation to? The observing world who cannot discern it and thereby receive it? Perhaps, at a distance, yet they cannot partake of it nor understand it. But primarily to the Christian who can receive and feed upon it! It is a means of grace proclaiming the Gospel to the believer and thus refreshing and feeding him/her spiritually by its very real substance and proclamation attached in the Word of God. In and of its self it is nothing but with the Word appended it with the Holy Spirit is eternal life proclaimed.

It is far from a mere memorial and naked obedience for Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit clearly states that IT IS a PROCLAMATION of the Gospel. Is the proclaiming of the Word of God, specifically the Gospel, a mere memorial or something more "“ namely Good News brought by beautiful feet and that is just as good and just as alive today as the very day it happened. Does Paul not say in Romans 1 that it (the Gospel) is the power of God for life and justification, and if so (to the believer that can discern its meaning via the word) is not this same proclamation via the Lord´s Supper the POWER of God for life, a refreshing to the Christian! The Christian needs the Gospel to and at that often, weekly!

It is a memorial but it is more than that as 2 Cor. 11:26 clearly states. The Law sleighs and kills but the Gospel gives life eternal. As such the Lord´s Table gives life if it is rightly discerned, but death if wrongly discerned. The worthy manner is a sinner self examined and stricken by the Law and in need of the Gospel, thus he/she takes the Lord´s Body to refresh and feed his/her self. The unworthy manner is to make it something it is not like an empty vain ceremony devoid of any means of grace, a magical "œmeans of grace" (ala Rome), or a Law sign only (like the Jews made circumcision).

This sacrament/ordinance proclaims Christ to the believer with all of our God given/gifted senses. It is a wonderful gift and condescension by the Lord to our weakness and need of Him. He is such a wonderful Servant King! It proclaims and embeds upon our weak minds and hearts via hearing the Word proclaimed attending the sacrament/ordinance , tasting the Word proclaimed, touching the Word proclaimed as we handle the elements, smelling the Word proclaimed as we detect the elements by odor, seeing the Word proclaimed as we see the elements. 1 John 1: 1-3, "œWhat was from the beginning, what we have <<heard>>, what we have <<seen>> with our eyes, what we have <<looked at and touched>> with our hands, concerning the Word of Life"”and the life was <<manifested>>, and we have <<seen>> and <<<testify and proclaim>>> to you the <<<eternal life>>>, which was with the Father and was <<manifested>> to us-- what we have <<seen and heard>> we <<<proclaim>>> to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." Certainly we don´t see and experience Christ bodily in His human nature and the same way that John and the Apostles did, but we do experience Christ in His Supper in a very real way in His deity as the Word is connected and the Holy Spirit is present. For where else does the Holy Spirit attend but at the presence of the Word proclaimed testifying to Christ Crucified and Risen to the believer? Christ is really there both in the Word and in the Sacrament/Ordinance which proclaims HIM as Savior, that much is clear. It is far more than a mere memorial, if the proclamation in the Lord´s Supper via the Word, the Gospel Word, is not a very real means of Grace for the believer, then what in the world is?

ldh

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Both the LBCF and WCF see the sacraments as a means of grace. Read carefully, as they are referred to as a "means of spiritual nourishment" in both and in the same context.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Gab,

Your right, I looked it up. I cross checked it against the Baptist Faith and Message because I was certain that is not what I recall reading there. Sure enough it differs and it seems it has fallen away from the LBCF (reference below the LBCF)"¦way short in that "œconfession". The BF & A seems to be the one that has removed all the means of grace, spiritual nourishment, true communion and made it effectively an empty Law sign.

ldh

From the London Baptist Confession of Faith

Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper

1._____ The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, <<their spiritual nourishment>>, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.
( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17,21 )

2._____ In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

( Hebrews 9:25, 26, 28; 1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:26, 27 )
3._____ The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, <<appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, >> and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.
( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, etc. )

4._____ The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
( Matthew 26:26-28; Matthew 15:9; Exodus 20:4, 5 )

5._____ The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
( 1 Corinthians 11:27; 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 )

6._____ That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
( Acts 3:21; Luke 14:6, 39; 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25 )

7._____ Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly <<by faith, really and indeed,>> yet not carnally and corporally, <<but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death;>> the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, <<but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses>>
( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )

8._____ All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
( 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 11:29; Matthew 7:6 )

From the SB Faith and Message:

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

The Lord's Supper is a <<symbolic act of obedience>> whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.

 

[Scott]

Par. 7 of the London Confession seems to clearly recognize that the sacrament is a means of grace.

Phillip: How do you interpret that? As I recall you hold to the London Confession but do not believe that the sacraments are a means of grace.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I was going to ask Phillip the same thing. Are you not holding to the LBCF now?

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Gab,

Your right, I looked it up. I cross checked it against the Baptist Faith and Message because I was certain that is not what I recall reading there. Sure enough it differs and it seems it has fallen away from the LBCF (reference below the LBCF)"¦way short in that "œconfession". The BF & A seems to be the one that has removed all the means of grace, spiritual nourishment, true communion and made it effectively an empty Law sign.

You mean that modern baptist doctrine is not the same as that of the 1689 Confession?!? Hmmmmm.......

 

[pastorway]

The LBCF does not use the term "means of grace" or "sacrament." It says that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are "ordinances."

1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His Church to the end of the world.

And for the record (for those who might have missed it) I do admit that I hold to the 1689 with a few exceptions.

The only means of grace identified in the Bible are the Bible itself and prayer. Nothing else in Scripture is spoken of as conveying grace to the recipient.

Romans 4
4Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

Romans 11
6And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

The Ordinances that Christ has left the church are acts of obedience, and therefore cannot be a means of grace. Grace is not the result of works, but works result from grace.

Phillip

 

[Larry Hughes]

But yet the Bible itself says, "œFor as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you PROCLAIM the Lord's death until He comes." And proclaiming the Lord's death is GRACE to the communicant, because it is the Gospel (Good News to those who have forgotten).

It is a means of grace in what it conveys to the believer, grace, just as the Word it self communicating does. It is not a mere empty act of obedience. "œFor as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you PROCLAIM the Lord's death until He comes." Or as the Lord Himself says, "This is My body broken for you...this is My blood of the New Covenant for the remission of sins."

There is a bit of a contradictory dicotomy here saying on the one hand it is an act of obedience (a work), then on the other hand quoting Romans 4:4, "Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt".

Good works flow naturally from faith, not the other way around. Cause and effect. Since the Lord's Supper proclaims something, namely Christ crucified, which is grace and mercy, it strengthens this very faith. One does not come to the Lord's Table in view of a Law, one comes to the Lord's Table from the freed heart in view of grace and mercy. For the one with saving faith it is a freely joy filled heart that comes to His table, not an odious labor driven by law. This freed heart in view of Christ's work feeds on his/her same Lord for more grace and faith.

The act of doing it is not a meritorious work because it requires faith, that's the point of rightly discerning the Lord's body in the sacrament/ordinance...faith. By necessity we are commanded to do it, just as we are to the Word and prayer - but that's necessity for how else will you communicate to someone "to do it"? Lay it out there and hope someone picks up the hint? Just as we are commanded to believe yet faith is not meritorious but self-emptying. The command must go forth out of necessity, not to set up a meritorious work. We are commanded the Lord's Supper but the Lord's Supper communicates by proclamation of Christ crucified Grace.

[Edited on 4-8-2005 by Larry Hughes]

 

[Larry Hughes]

You mean that modern baptist doctrine is not the same as that of the 1689 Confession?!? Hmmmmm.......

I'm not surprised entirely, just the logical extension of some of its doctrine played out over time I suppose. When you set the signs forth diminished, over time, what can one expect. It is sort of like artillary, one degree off seems small at the point of detonation, but over a mile or so of travel one can miss the mark quite a bit by that tiny degree.