The root meaning of the Latin word sacramentum is "making sacred." Though I have used it interchangably in the past with ordinance, I stopped simply because it often connotes Papal trappings and sacramental excesses of Anglicans and Roman Catholics in the Protestant popular imagination. It's extrabiblical phrasing, so I don't think one can be too dogmatic about it, either way.
Ryan,
I agree with Gabriel. We do not change the Gospel just because evil men construe it wrongly. We do not change the message because men abuse it. That would be like saying just because a killer used a scalpel, doctors can no longer use them. The absurdity of it all is obvious.
The key issue is the direction, the receiving and so forth. I having been truly on both sides of this issue I think the most lazy, irresponsible and quite frankly ignorant way to approach this is to remove a term "œjust because" some falsely use it. If anything the fact that Roman Catholics "œexcess" and "œtrappings" have abused the term, then it is all the more crucial to teach it correctly. If we take this foolish approach then we need to stop using the term "œGod" as it is surely most abused both in secular society, religious society and some Christian society.
I can make a very very strong argument over the use of the term "œordinance" in our day. Most folks today, if you ask them, hear the term "œordinance" and think immediately of law to be followed. This in the chain of thought leads to "œhope of reward, for obedience, and fear of punishment for disobedience". Most would equate "œordinance" with something like secular "œordinances", speeding ordinances, zoning ordinances and etc"¦ This is why many many many lay SB for example think that baptism and the Lord´s Supper is an obedience either meriting for the effort OR "œproving their faith" as if to prove to a mob Don their faithfulness unto worthiness. And this is easily ferreted out and proven by simply quizzing the lay of those churches.
When one carefully analyzes say the SB use of these as "œordinances" and the Roman Catholic excesses and abuses as "œsacraments" one will quickly find that in the end analysis both laity view them the same - as works! What we are looking at here is not the superficial "œnaming" of things but the REAL principles underlying them and the way the principles are perceived. E.g. The typical Roman Catholic baptizes because he/she thinks that the work itself is performed by them and thereby, ex opera operato, does the deed. Yet, in ironies of ironies the S. Baptist, and similar factions, consciously operate the exact same way. They don´t think that doing the work of baptism earns the work, but that faith earns the baptism. This is why Luther and Calvin rightly saw that the Roman Catholic´s view and Anabaptistic view were in the end identical. Its functionality and essential principle led to the same end, works and merit, yet the later gave it a white wash of "œjustification by faith alone" paint to cover it up. The typical southern Baptist will scoff at the Roman Catholic saying, "œyou cannot work your way to heaven or work your children into heaven meritoriously by baptizing them. You have to profess faith first." Not seeing that they are doing EXACTLY the same thing sans the children. If baptism = the Gospel by sign and Word instituted to it, then moving to the S. Baptist view which says, "œyou have to possess/profess faith before being baptized", becomes, "œyou have to possess/profess faith before receiving the Gospel." The absurdity thus reveals itself and likewise a works based baptism. And if you base baptism IN faith you are point blank admitting it is not based in the Gospel. It is true that one cannot work one´s way to heaven and by doing baptism merit salvation, but it is equally true that faith does not merit baptism. The flaw for both the Roman Catholic and S. Baptist lies in both seeing it as man´s work rather than God´s work through instruments (the church, parents, pastor) as His arms and legs. Both end up denying both the sovereignty of God in all things and as the mover of all providence. The Roman Catholic thinks he is doing the work when he baptizes an adult or child. The S. Baptist likewise thinks he is doing the work (painted of course in justification language on the front end) when he assesses himself that he has faith or when he sees Reformed or Lutherans who baptize their infants as works (he´s stuck on the idea of it being man´s work, else he´d never makes such a foolish statement). When in reality when ANY baptism takes place, adult or child, by the hands of the parents, pastor and church it is GOD who is moving everything. They miss the real sovereignty and providential operation of God in all things in time and space. It´s not at all unlike Armineans who see when people come to faith that it must have emerged from within them and their wills. It appears that way because God operates in time and space and we only see the "œtime and space" moving, but in reality when faith comes, it is given by God.
Even if you remove the baptism of children from the argument the Roman or SB position cannot stand. When God has commanded baptism it is based upon HIS promise and HIS Word and HIS Gospel. When He commands it to be done it is manifestly not the work of men even though men carry out the command. Men can vainly pretend they are the one´s doing it but then they just usurp the mandate of God and HIS gifts as if it were their own. If a King, which God is, mandates a man, church or pastor to "œdo a thing" and they do it, then it is exactly the same as if God, the King, is doing it. Why? Because it carries His authority and order to do it! This is obvious. However, if a false servant takes that same mandate and falsely attaches to it, "œmy doing it is doing it", then he is trying to rob God. The mandate is still God´s and so is still valid. However, if a man says "œhe is doing it" not as an instrument of God but "œhe himself is doing it", then he is just like a thief whom the great King has given a mandate/gift to deliver for the great King and in the place of the Great King so as to be the King doing it Himself vicariously, but wickely pretending he the instrument is doing/giving it "“ and thus he deceives the receiver.
If I give someone 10 gold coins as a gift to someone for you to deliver in my stead, it´s my gift and your delivery as my instrument should be as if I myself did it but I use you as an instrument to carry it out. However, if when you deliver it you say it is from you (your work), then you have lied and stolen from me and deceived the receiver. For the receiver cannot now know that I delivered it to them via you, but now thinks it is from you. Thus, you now control them since you lied about the gift. This is Rome´s view of baptism and why the Roman church controlled its people by indulgences and so forth. Similarly, if you are the one receiving my gift of ten gold coins via some other messenger as my instrument, like above, and then you (the receiver) think, "œI must already have faith or rebirth to receive this gift", then you the receiver are attempting to rob me of my gift to you by saying it is not my gift to you but your worthiness and fitness (faith in this case or regeneration perhaps) to merit it from me. This is the view of Baptistic baptism of adults only and why they fundamentally cannot understand baptizing children of believers. This IS the most fundamental reason why a Baptist cannot see it, they still cling to the idea that when a parent baptizes their child it is the parent, church and pastor doing it "“ this is entirely false. However, it is driven by the fact that THAT is EXACTLY what Rome taught. Rome says, "œWe the church, priest and parents do it". The Baptist reacts correctly that this TEACHING is wrong but then it reacts incorrectly that when it is ACTUALLY done by the church, parent of pastor that it is still the church, parent or pastor doing it. They are blinded to the fact that it is God doing it, His work through the means of the church, parent and pastor.
Thus, baptism becomes the merit of faith to them rather than the Gospel to them. And NO Baptist ever would use his baptism to support his faith when weakened for to trust in baptism is TOO Roman Catholic "“ the devil´s trick has worked both ways. Thus, in their view, if baptism is based upon "œmy faith" the strength of and so forth, baptism becomes utterly useless to one and in fact Satan will use it against you so you will be rebaptized, that is by a false baptism driven by the devil. Thus, in many baptistic churches quite naturally, just like Rome, arise many new inventions and extra-curricular works for assurance of the soul such as rededications, aisle walking again and again and again, rebaptisms and etc"¦ The soliloquy of the typical Baptist is not at all unlike that of the typical Roman Catholic. And what is worse is that this ends up extending to the Lord´s Table in that it no longer becomes a means of Grace, a true sacrament, but yet another "œlaw" that we will pretend we don´t call a law but yet our deeds prove our real meaning.
Ldh
I almost started a thread with the same question and then decided to research the 1689 London Confession first. I had become concerned with some of the messages I had seen on related threads. I rejoice with you, brother.
That's = 1.0 × 10<sup>-7</sup>. You're very special Ivan.
