Thanks for jumping into the conversation, Sudoku. I find that people often don't know the difference between sacraments and ordinances, which is what makes conversation worthwhile.

Generally, I would surmise, that denominational leaders understand the definitions and the difference between the terms and have structured their church rules the way they understand the theology to guide them. In other words, they know what they believe and why, and are doing it on purpose. I would also guess that most of the people [i]don't[/i] know the difference, and probably just go along with what their leaders say or their church believes.

That is well said. I was not understanding sacrament according to that definition. Ordinances would seem to be the more appropriate term.

Perhaps similar confusion is why there is so much difference in 'sacraments' between the denominations.

Because it was specifically proscribed by Jesus, which is true, doesn't mean it has sacramental import. The message of Jesus and the Church were radically non-sacramental: no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrifices. As Vernard Eller writes, " 'Sacraments' do not fit the historical context of original Christianity; neither do they fit the theological context. Sacraments constitute about as 'religious' a technique as can be devised; and original Christianity was [i]religionless[/i]."

With sacraments, we are able to do things (rites, rituals, practices) that obligate God to act (i.e., if you get baptized, God is obligated to bring you to heaven no matter what your commitment or your lifestyle, or even your worship). This is directly contrary to everything Jesus taught. And there is also no reason for Him to have died if you could just get baptized and have a ticket to Heaven.

It is more biblical and more accurate to view baptism and the Eucharist as ordinances—practices reflecting commitment and relationship—rather than sacraments: actions we can do or items we can possess that put God's actions under human control.

> baptism is just a symbol and has no sacramental effect.

I agree baptism is a symbol, but disagree that is "just" a symbol. It was specifically proscribed by Jesus as something for all believers to do. Which is why most Christian denominations hold baptism as a sacrament (the Catholic Church holding that it is one of seven sacraments, John Calvin and the reformed tradition holding that it is one of two sacraments).

Sure. I've known people who chose baptism as a teenager, but then wanted to be baptized later in middle adulthood when they understood so much more about God and their commitment to Christ. It's unnecessary, but I understand what they're trying to say. It's sort of like a married couple re-affirming their vows 50 years later. Unnecessary, but a beautiful thing.

I've also known others who were baptized as a baby by their parents who grew up and came to the belief that was fairly meaningless and wanted to get baptized again by choice and knowing what commitment was all about.

But since baptism is just a symbol and has no sacramental effect, getting baptized more than once is a statement rather than earning anything or obligating God to anything.

Can someone be baptized more than once?