The Difference Between Ordinances and Sacraments
(A Guest Post by Pastor Antonio Romano from Ames, Iowa)
12/5/24
When I became a Southern Baptist with my family in 1996, it was required that I be rebaptized to become a member at our local church. I had been baptized in the Nazarene church in 1987 at age 12, but that apparently didn’t take. I had been “sprinkled” a few weeks after I had prayed to be saved, not immersed. To become a member in a Southern Baptist church, even though I had already made a “credible profession of faith,” I needed to be “biblically” baptized (full immersion). I was told that, since I had only been sprinkled, I hadn’t really been baptized when I was 12; I had only “gotten wet.” Full immersion was necessary to make me a bona fide Baptist and biblical Christian. While the Baptist would not necessarily say one is not saved unless they have been immersed, baptism by immersion would be required to join most Baptist churches.
For our Baptist brethren, the mode of baptism is of the utmost importance. Baptism by immersion is the only acceptable means of baptism. But there is one other requirement before you can be baptized in the first place: a credible profession of faith. This is because baptism is not a sacrament in the Baptist church, but an ordinance. The distinction is quite deliberate on both sides.
In the Lutheran church, baptism is a means of grace through which one is granted the forgiveness of sins. Baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21). It is, therefore, a sacrament. In the Baptist world, baptism symbolizes salvation; it does not give it. Baptism is what a believer does to prove or to exhibit a profession of faith. It is a physical demonstration or symbol of what has happened to the person: the old man has been put to death (into the water) and the new man has been born in his place (out of the water). It is a pronouncement to the church and to the world that you have decided to follow Jesus. Perhaps the most common phrase describing baptism is that it is “an outward sign of an inward work.” Grace does not come to us through it. We choose to be baptized because we have accepted grace and want to show it. This is precisely why it is described as an “ordinance,” rather than a “sacrament.” Baptists did not want to imply that anything salvific was happening to someone in their baptism. Looking over several Baptist church’s explanations of ordinances, this description from Calvary Baptist Church in Seymour, TX, gives a distinctly Baptist explanation: “An ordinance, on the other hand, can be defined as ‘a God-ordained ceremony’. It is a practice that was commanded and prescribed by the Lord to be observed by the church. Ordinances do not invoke God’s grace or convey His blessings. They are simply acts of human obedience to the teachings of scripture. They are ceremonial reenactments meant to memorialize Christ, proclaim His salvation, and edify His church (emphasis mine). Baptists, along with several other Protestant denominations, believe that God’s saving grace is poured out fully and sufficiently on the new Christian at the moment that they trust in Jesus for salvation.” (http://www.calvarybaptistseymour.org/sermons/baptist-distinctives-two-symbolicordinances)
There are two such “ordinances” in the Baptist church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This means that the description of ordinances above also applies to Holy Communion. It is not considered a means of grace in the Baptist church, and it is outrightly denied that Christ is present in any way in the bread and wine (or more likely, grape juice). Rather, the Lord’s Supper is simply a “memorial meal” in which the church remembers (and honors) the crucifixion of Christ while taking elements that merely symbolize his body and blood. In this sense, it is almost like a tribute to his sacrifice, in much the same way that baptism is a testimony to God that one has aligned oneself with him. Usually, one can only take the Lord’s Supper in a Baptist church if they have made a profession of faith (some may also require baptism by immersion and/or church membership).
In the case of ordinances, the key issue is that neither Baptism nor the Lord’s Supper is doing anything for me or to me. I am the one doing something. I am giving evidence of the change that has taken place inside me in baptism. In the Lord’s Supper I am remembering and honoring the crucifixion of our Lord.
For Lutherans, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are deliberately called “sacraments” because they deliver the forgiveness of sins to the recipient. They are “means of grace” in which God’s grace comes to the recipient through the word united with the water in baptism and in, with, and under the bread and wine in Holy Communion as Christ himself is present in both elements, doing his work of forgiveness. Without these objective realities, the danger for the believer is that the ground of assurance and forgiveness must be found somewhere else. Somewhere inside of me. My faith, therefore, is forever dependent upon my feelings or my piety.
Reducing sacraments to mere ordinances robs the Gospel of what God gives it to do for me. If one isn’t careful, it does have the potential to become heresy. If Christ cannot be present in the water, bread, and wine, we are dangerously close to denying the two natures of the God-man. I say this as a potentiality because I do not believe for a second my Baptist brethren would deliberately deny the two natures of Christ (divine and human in the Incarnation). My point is that beliefs have consequences, and we should be mindful of being on the slopes.
Sacraments give something to me. Ordinances require something from me. Our semantics are important. When it comes to the forgiveness of sins and how we are justified, we need a gift. We need something objective coming to us from outside of ourselves. It is a matter of done versus do. Of gift versus duty. Of God being the subject and I the object (or tragically, vice versa). The reason I shared the story of my experience with baptism at the beginning of this post is to point out an inconsistency in my prior view of baptism (the Baptist view). If the water does nothing, if it is what I am doing for Christ as opposed to what he does for me and to me, why does the mode matter so much? It’s as if I was being told in the Baptist church, “That thing that doesn’t do anything, you have to do that right or it doesn’t count.” I certainly understand the hesitancy to embrace baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, not ordinances. But in my desire not to turn these things into works, I did just that. Saint Peter’s proclamation that “baptism saves” is a huge problem if baptism is my work, if it is something I do for God. But that’s just the point. It isn’t. It’s his work for me. Believing Saint Paul’s words about the bread and wine being a participation in the body and blood of Christ is hugely problematic if Holy Communion is just a memorial meal. Paul writes as though the bread, and the cup are real body and blood (1 Cor.10:16). How is Christ present in bread and wine? We don’t claim to know. But we confess with Christ and with Paul that he is. When bruised reeds are wondering where God is, whether he still loves them and forgives their sins, we don’t point them to the inside, the place from where their doubt came in the first place. We point them to the bread and wine where he has promised he is, where he is giving the forgiveness of sins. We point them not back to their decision but to the water where he promised to be with his word. We point them away from themselves and to Christ. That’s the fundamental difference between a sacrament and an ordinance: where does it point the eyes of my heart? What does it give to strengthen my faith? Me or Christ?
Keep your eyes on the one out there, the one walking on the water. For you.
(A Guest Post by Pastor Antonio Romano from Ames, Iowa)
12/5/24
When I became a Southern Baptist with my family in 1996, it was required that I be rebaptized to become a member at our local church. I had been baptized in the Nazarene church in 1987 at age 12, but that apparently didn’t take. I had been “sprinkled” a few weeks after I had prayed to be saved, not immersed. To become a member in a Southern Baptist church, even though I had already made a “credible profession of faith,” I needed to be “biblically” baptized (full immersion). I was told that, since I had only been sprinkled, I hadn’t really been baptized when I was 12; I had only “gotten wet.” Full immersion was necessary to make me a bona fide Baptist and biblical Christian. While the Baptist would not necessarily say one is not saved unless they have been immersed, baptism by immersion would be required to join most Baptist churches.
For our Baptist brethren, the mode of baptism is of the utmost importance. Baptism by immersion is the only acceptable means of baptism. But there is one other requirement before you can be baptized in the first place: a credible profession of faith. This is because baptism is not a sacrament in the Baptist church, but an ordinance. The distinction is quite deliberate on both sides.
In the Lutheran church, baptism is a means of grace through which one is granted the forgiveness of sins. Baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21). It is, therefore, a sacrament. In the Baptist world, baptism symbolizes salvation; it does not give it. Baptism is what a believer does to prove or to exhibit a profession of faith. It is a physical demonstration or symbol of what has happened to the person: the old man has been put to death (into the water) and the new man has been born in his place (out of the water). It is a pronouncement to the church and to the world that you have decided to follow Jesus. Perhaps the most common phrase describing baptism is that it is “an outward sign of an inward work.” Grace does not come to us through it. We choose to be baptized because we have accepted grace and want to show it. This is precisely why it is described as an “ordinance,” rather than a “sacrament.” Baptists did not want to imply that anything salvific was happening to someone in their baptism. Looking over several Baptist church’s explanations of ordinances, this description from Calvary Baptist Church in Seymour, TX, gives a distinctly Baptist explanation: “An ordinance, on the other hand, can be defined as ‘a God-ordained ceremony’. It is a practice that was commanded and prescribed by the Lord to be observed by the church. Ordinances do not invoke God’s grace or convey His blessings. They are simply acts of human obedience to the teachings of scripture. They are ceremonial reenactments meant to memorialize Christ, proclaim His salvation, and edify His church (emphasis mine). Baptists, along with several other Protestant denominations, believe that God’s saving grace is poured out fully and sufficiently on the new Christian at the moment that they trust in Jesus for salvation.” (http://www.calvarybaptistseymour.org/sermons/baptist-distinctives-two-symbolicordinances)
There are two such “ordinances” in the Baptist church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This means that the description of ordinances above also applies to Holy Communion. It is not considered a means of grace in the Baptist church, and it is outrightly denied that Christ is present in any way in the bread and wine (or more likely, grape juice). Rather, the Lord’s Supper is simply a “memorial meal” in which the church remembers (and honors) the crucifixion of Christ while taking elements that merely symbolize his body and blood. In this sense, it is almost like a tribute to his sacrifice, in much the same way that baptism is a testimony to God that one has aligned oneself with him. Usually, one can only take the Lord’s Supper in a Baptist church if they have made a profession of faith (some may also require baptism by immersion and/or church membership).
In the case of ordinances, the key issue is that neither Baptism nor the Lord’s Supper is doing anything for me or to me. I am the one doing something. I am giving evidence of the change that has taken place inside me in baptism. In the Lord’s Supper I am remembering and honoring the crucifixion of our Lord.
For Lutherans, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are deliberately called “sacraments” because they deliver the forgiveness of sins to the recipient. They are “means of grace” in which God’s grace comes to the recipient through the word united with the water in baptism and in, with, and under the bread and wine in Holy Communion as Christ himself is present in both elements, doing his work of forgiveness. Without these objective realities, the danger for the believer is that the ground of assurance and forgiveness must be found somewhere else. Somewhere inside of me. My faith, therefore, is forever dependent upon my feelings or my piety.
Reducing sacraments to mere ordinances robs the Gospel of what God gives it to do for me. If one isn’t careful, it does have the potential to become heresy. If Christ cannot be present in the water, bread, and wine, we are dangerously close to denying the two natures of the God-man. I say this as a potentiality because I do not believe for a second my Baptist brethren would deliberately deny the two natures of Christ (divine and human in the Incarnation). My point is that beliefs have consequences, and we should be mindful of being on the slopes.
Sacraments give something to me. Ordinances require something from me. Our semantics are important. When it comes to the forgiveness of sins and how we are justified, we need a gift. We need something objective coming to us from outside of ourselves. It is a matter of done versus do. Of gift versus duty. Of God being the subject and I the object (or tragically, vice versa). The reason I shared the story of my experience with baptism at the beginning of this post is to point out an inconsistency in my prior view of baptism (the Baptist view). If the water does nothing, if it is what I am doing for Christ as opposed to what he does for me and to me, why does the mode matter so much? It’s as if I was being told in the Baptist church, “That thing that doesn’t do anything, you have to do that right or it doesn’t count.” I certainly understand the hesitancy to embrace baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, not ordinances. But in my desire not to turn these things into works, I did just that. Saint Peter’s proclamation that “baptism saves” is a huge problem if baptism is my work, if it is something I do for God. But that’s just the point. It isn’t. It’s his work for me. Believing Saint Paul’s words about the bread and wine being a participation in the body and blood of Christ is hugely problematic if Holy Communion is just a memorial meal. Paul writes as though the bread, and the cup are real body and blood (1 Cor.10:16). How is Christ present in bread and wine? We don’t claim to know. But we confess with Christ and with Paul that he is. When bruised reeds are wondering where God is, whether he still loves them and forgives their sins, we don’t point them to the inside, the place from where their doubt came in the first place. We point them to the bread and wine where he has promised he is, where he is giving the forgiveness of sins. We point them not back to their decision but to the water where he promised to be with his word. We point them away from themselves and to Christ. That’s the fundamental difference between a sacrament and an ordinance: where does it point the eyes of my heart? What does it give to strengthen my faith? Me or Christ?
Keep your eyes on the one out there, the one walking on the water. For you.
RSS Feed