How were the sacraments recognized?

[CuronianPickle]

Can anyone give book or chapter recommendations on how the sacraments were recognized? For example, why the Lord's Supper is considered a sacrament while foot washing isn't?

Note, I'm not asking for books on how the sacraments work, or the different views of Baptism and the Lord's Supper of which there are plenty of good ones. I'm specifically looking for how the historic church read scripture and recognized the two and only the two.

Thank you!

 

[RamistThomist]

Foot washing isn’t a sign and seal of the covenant of grace

 

[CuronianPickle]

Foot washing isn’t a sign and seal of the covenant of grace

Anything I can study that goes in-depth as to why?

 

[Parakaleo]

James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, goes into some depth on the qualifications for a sacrament. I would say the main thing disqualifying foot washing from being a sacrament is the lack of a specific promise annexed to it. Christ simply says, "Ye should do as I have done to you." John 13:15

 

[CuronianPickle]

Perfect, I'll check it out. Thank you!

 

[RamistThomist]

Anything I can study that goes in-depth as to why?

Any standard Reformed treatment on the sacraments, primarily Keith Mathison's Given for You and Robert Letham's Eternal Word in Broken Bread.

 

[Solparvus]

Further question: Christ says, "Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you." Why don't we do it?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Further question: Christ says, "Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you." Why don't we do it?

If that link works, I found it to be helpful when navigating cultural commands like foot washing and the holy kiss.

Thread 'The Normative Principle'

Nov 11, 2005

Here is an article by Peter Masters that I thought was very illuminating. I would like to understand this a bit better in contrast to the Regulative Principle. It has some good points and guides. Especially in relation to things we practice in our weekly observance of the LORD's Day. I do expect to read some more enlightening articles posted by you guys. Illumine Me. Thanks.

Is the Bible Always Binding for Today?

An article by Dr Peter Masters, Sword & Trowel 1995 Issue no 2.



HOW CAN WE TELL what biblical commands or examples are binding on the people of God today...

• PuritanCovenanter
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Worship

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Further question: Christ says, "Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you." Why don't we do it?

The matter at issue is: whether Christ was ordaining a ritual ordinance for all time, or setting a general example. Whereas in old time footwashing was a common menial task, it was not universal. Nor do we see one instance or reference of the apostles back to this service.

It is the nature of sacraments that they put God's gracious acts of salvation on display. They are gospel, not works or sanctification. Baptism and the L.S. are initiation and remembrance rites of God's making covenant with his people.

We also don't make worship about our acts toward each other. It is about answering a summons, receiving from God what he is pleased to give us, and rendering to him what he is pleased to require of us.

 

[MW]

I second the Bannerman recommendation.

As for why -- we can use Bannerman to break it down.

A sacrament must be instituted by Christ. Maybe, maybe not. That is the question at hand.

It must be a visible sign of a spiritual grace. Could it possibly signify washing from sin? If it does it means the disciples wash away each other's sins. This creates a massive theological problem for the message of the cross. It also means it overlaps with baptism, which either makes baptism ineffective or foot-washing redundant.

It must be a seal of the covenant of grace. Definitely not. There is no authority in this action. The whole point of the action is to show the humble nature of service under Christ. The disciples are equal to each other. There is no "headship," no way of manifesting the "representative principle." Widows wash the feet of the saints. Do we now have women in positions of authority to administer sacraments. Besides, baptism initiates in the covenant, and the Lord's supper confirms it. What is left for another ordinance to do?

It must be a means of grace, a channel through which God promises to confer grace to the believer. Again, definitely not. Where is the promise to strengthen the faith of believers? Where is the symbolism in the letters of the NT? There is no "footwashing" into Christ as there is "baptised into Christ." There is no "footwashing" body of Christ as the bread which we break is called the "communion of the body of Christ." And we still have the problem that the disciples do this to each other. It is quite possible to leave God out of it altogether. There is nothing to bring us to God, which would be very strange for an ordinance.

 

[Solparvus]

The matter at issue is: whether Christ was ordaining a ritual ordinance for all time, or setting a general example. Whereas in old time footwashing was a common menial task, it was not universal. Nor do we see one instance or reference of the apostles back to this service.

It is the nature of sacraments that they put God's gracious acts of salvation on display. They are gospel, not works or sanctification. Baptism and the L.S. are initiation and remembrance rites of God's making covenant with his people.

We also don't make worship about our acts toward each other. It is about answering a summons, receiving from God what he is pleased to give us, and rendering to him what he is pleased to require of us.

I second the Bannerman recommendation.

As for why -- we can use Bannerman to break it down.

A sacrament must be instituted by Christ. Maybe, maybe not. That is the question at hand.

It must be a visible sign of a spiritual grace. Could it possibly signify washing from sin? If it does it means the disciples wash away each other's sins. This creates a massive theological problem for the message of the cross. It also means it overlaps with baptism, which either makes baptism ineffective or foot-washing redundant.

It must be a seal of the covenant of grace. Definitely not. There is no authority in this action. The whole point of the action is to show the humble nature of service under Christ. The disciples are equal to each other. There is no "headship," no way of manifesting the "representative principle." Widows wash the feet of the saints. Do we now have women in positions of authority to administer sacraments. Besides, baptism initiates in the covenant, and the Lord's supper confirms it. What is left for another ordinance to do?

It must be a means of grace, a channel through which God promises to confer grace to the believer. Again, definitely not. Where is the promise to strengthen the faith of believers? Where is the symbolism in the letters of the NT? There is no "footwashing" into Christ as there is "baptised into Christ." There is no "footwashing" body of Christ as the bread which we break is called the "communion of the body of Christ." And we still have the problem that the disciples do this to each other. It is quite possible to leave God out of it altogether. There is nothing to bring us to God, which would be very strange for an ordinance.

Clear as day, both of these. Why have a symbol of service to the saints, when you can just have service to the saints?

 

[CuronianPickle]

Isn't there an expectation that it would continue though?

"Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work." -1 Timothy 5:9-10

Interestingly Paul doesn't seem to equate foot washing with other acts of service like hospitality or care of the sick.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

Isn't there an expectation that it would continue though?

"Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work." -1 Timothy 5:9-10

Interestingly Paul doesn't seem to equate foot washing with other acts of service like hospitality or care of the sick.

It actually seems that, by placing foot-washing between "showing hospitality" and "caring for the afflicted," that equating it is exactly what he is doing. It's a further elaboration of "good works." If we were to see it placed between baptism and the Lord's Supper on a list, then that would be a good sign to consider it a sacrament. As it is, it seems pretty obviously in context to be a part of hospitality/good works, and I don't think anyone in our paved-road, closed-toe-shoe cultural context would find foot washing very hospitable at all.