# Difference between "ordinance" and sacrament" in the LBC and WCF



## bmdowns (Jan 30, 2012)

I browsed through the differences between these confessions and quickly noticed that the LBCF uses the word "ordinance" much more frequently and never uses the word "sacrament" which the WCF uses both, but ordinance less. Why is this? How would each define the words?


----------



## KMK (Jan 30, 2012)

Check out this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptism-lords-supper-sacraments-means-grace-68637/


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 30, 2012)

The word sacrament from the Latin sacramentum was shrouded in superstition under the early days of the Roman Catholic Church. Later Reformed theologians sought to divest the word from the papal appendages and had varying degrees of success. Baptists, in general, believe that the baggage of the early RCC influence is hopelessly entangled with the word and that avoiding its use is prudent.


----------



## bmdowns (Jan 30, 2012)

Bob, does that mean that they have the same definition but that the Baptists refrained from using "sacrament" because of it's Catholic connotations? Ken, thank you for the link, the posts/comments were very thought provoking but I'm not sure if they helped with personal clarity! =)


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 30, 2012)

This discussion by Turretin might help: Francis Turretin - Definition of Sacament

Some quotes:



> III. We do not think there should be any contention about the word "sacrament." For although (being Latin) it does not occur in the books of the Old and New Testaments, still its use has been so customary in the church and it has been received so long, that if anyone (influenced by superstition) would abstain from it (as is done by the Socinians, who in this way aim not so much at the word as at the very nature of the sacraments), we think he is scrupulously and preposterously religious. Hence the Romanists do an injury to Luther and the Lutherans to us when they charge us with being shocked at this word, since it is evident that it is ordinarily used by us. But no less ridiculous are the Romanists who, because this word is not found in Scripture, wish to prove its insufficiency. For to whom can it seem strange if a Latin word does not occur in the Scriptures, which are written in Hebrew and Greek?
> 
> IV It is well known that sacramentum comes from sacrando And its origin. (i.e., "to consecrate" and "to initiate") as juramentum from jurando, testamentum from testando. With the ancient authors of the Latin language it signifies two things. (1) The "money" or the pledge deposited by two parties to a suit with the pontiffs in a sacred place, with which he was mulcted who had lost his cause as a punishment of an unjust litigation (as Varro observes, On the Latin Language 5*.180 [Loeb, 1:166-69]). (2) An "oath" which was taken only when some sacred deity was invoked. Hence sacramento contendere (with Cicero) means "to affirm by a solemn oath"; sacramento interrogari, sacramento teneri, etc. But it is used peculiarly to denote a military oath by which soldiers bound themselves by a certain rite and prescribed words to the state and the magistrate, that they would strenuously perform what the emperor had commanded and would not desert the military standards. Hence the phrase obligare sacramento (Cicero, De Officiis 1.36 [Loeb, 21:38-39]) and Isidore (Etymologiarum 9.3 [PL 82.347]). Hence in the old glosses sacramentum is a military oath (horkos stratiotikos). Tertullian: "We were called to the militia of God, even then when we responded to the words of the sacrament" (To the Martyrs 3 [FC 40:22; PL 1.697]).
> 
> ...


----------



## KMK (Jan 30, 2012)

bmdowns said:


> Bob, does that mean that they have the same definition but that the Baptists refrained from using "sacrament" because of it's Catholic connotations? Ken, thank you for the link, the posts/comments were very thought provoking but I'm not sure if they helped with personal clarity! =)



The thread demonstrates that there is some disagreement among those who call themselves RBs about what 'ordinance' means in the context of the LBC.


----------



## raekwon (Jan 30, 2012)

The way I've often though of it has been this: ordinances merely show something, sacraments both show and do something.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 30, 2012)

To help the non-baptist better understand the caution with which the writers of the 1689 LBCF approached the decision to not use the word sacrament I offer the following historical background.



> All the creatures of the universe proclaim something sacred, namely, the wisdom and the goodness of God, as they are sacred in themselves, not as they are sacred things sanctifying men, hence they cannot be called sacraments in the sense in which we speak of sacraments (III.60.2, ad 1um). The Council of Trent includes the substance of these two definitions in the following: "Symbolum rei sacrae, et invisibilis gratiae forma visibilis, sanctificandi vim habens" — A symbol of something sacred, a visible form of invisible grace, having the power of sanctifying (Sess. XIII, cap.3). The "Catechism of the Council of Trent" gives a more complete definition: Something perceptible by the senses which by Divine institution has *the power both to signify and to effect sanctity and justice* (II, n.2). Catholic catechisms in English usually have the following: An outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls. Anglican and Episcopalian theologies and catechisms give definitions which Catholics could accept.
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sacraments



From the time of 1442 via the epistle from pope Eugenius: “the sacraments of the new law, are seven ….. which differ much from the sacraments of the old law; *for those do not cause grace,* but represent it as only to be given through the passion of Christ; *but the sacraments of the new law contain grace, and confer it on those who worthily receive them…”*

The Council of Trent in the middle of the 16th century asserted the following:



> “Whoever shall affirm *that the sacraments of the new law are are not necessary to salvation*, but superfluous, or that men may obtain the grace of justification by faith only, without these sacraments … *let him be accursed*.”



It was against this backdrop that many Baptists determined to use the word ordinance instead of sacrament. This is not to say that a confessionally secured definition of "sacrament" could never be useful. But for Baptists it would seem unlikely to come about.


----------



## KMK (Jan 30, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> It was against this backdrop that many Baptists determined to use the word ordinance instead of sacrament. This is not to say that a confessionally secured definition of "sacrament" could never be useful. But for Baptists it would seem unlikely to come about.



The problem is that some modern Baptists want to say that the change to the word 'ordinance' in the LBC is an indication that English Particular Baptists held to a materially different view of baptism and the Lord's Supper than Westminster. This is not necessarily the case.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 30, 2012)

I think in the case of baptism, the term "ordinance" does hold some semantic and polemical edge for baptist theology in their stress upon there being an explicit _command _or example for baptism, as opposed to the lack thereof they see for paedobaptism.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 30, 2012)

Reformed theology has historically used "ordinance" as a broader category of commanded actions of which "sacrament" is a small sub-category (there being only two). So psalm-singing, for instance, is an ordinance but not a sacrament.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 31, 2012)

The Church of Rome has seven sacraments—Baptism, Confirmation,
Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Order and Matrimony.
Protestantism holds to two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These two
Baptists and some Evangelicals call “ordinances,” as these have been
commanded by our Lord (Lat. ordinare, “to put in order”). A sacrament (Gk.
musterion, “mystery;” Lat. sacramentum, “secret,” and sacer, “holy”) is a
physical rite which posits something mysterious and beyond the physical
elements in the communication of grace. Historically and theologically,
therefore, the term “ordinance” distinguishes baptism and the Lord’s Supper
as being only symbolic and representative in nature, and considers them to be
means of grace only insofar as they bring the mind and heart to fix themselves
upon the spiritual realities thus symbolized. The term presupposes no mystical
significance as means of grace.
Quest.

From a Baptist Cathechism with Commentary....used by permission


----------



## Petty France (Feb 11, 2012)

austinww said:


> Reformed theology has historically used "ordinance" as a broader category of commanded actions of which "sacrament" is a small sub-category (there being only two). So psalm-singing, for instance, is an ordinance but not a sacrament.



This is the correct answer to the question. Benjamin Keach and Nehemiah Coxe both used the term "sacrament" in their writings. They were not afraid of the word. Ordinance is the largest category of commanded actions, the means of grace being a smaller set, and the sacraments being another subset of the means of grace. The use of "ordinance" was in line with their desire to place everything in the doctrine of the church under the sovereignty and commandments of Christ, the head of the church. It is an ordinance because it is "ordained" by Christ. It was a part of their polemic against infant baptism and other practices in the church with which they disagreed.

Baptist Catechism 55: 
What is required in the second commandment?
The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and *ordinances*, as God hath appointed in his Word. Deut. 32:46, Matt 28:20, Acts 2:42
See also Baptist Catechism 93.


----------

