Does the Bible limit the Sacraments to only Baptism and Eucharist? (Sola Scriptura)

Protestants generally hold to only two Sacraments, claiming that Baptism and Eucharist are the only two "ordinances" that Jesus commanded. Reformed pastor R.C. Sproul's ministry has a reflection on this, which says (here):

Now that we have explored the sacraments in a general sense, we are prepared to look at each sacrament in more detail. Yet before we do that, we must determine the number of sacraments revealed in Scripture. Christ instituted two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (The Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 68).

It is easy to see why the Heidelberg Catechism singles out these ordinances as sacraments. After all, the Gospels reveal explicitly our Savior’s command to baptize disciples and to partake of bread and wine in His memory (Matt. 28:18–20; Luke 22:14–20). Some churches, in addition, have viewed foot washing as a third sacrament. Other churches do not invest foot washing with sacramental significance, although they may have special foot-washing services during the year. Both groups cite John 13:1–20 in defense of the practice.

What shall we say about this? Clearly, whatever freedom churches might have to engage in foot washing, no church body may impose it as a sacrament upon its people. First, the early church did not see in John 13 a command for the church in every age to wash feet. Acts, for example, records the disciples administering the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (2:37–42), but this New Testament book never records Apostolic foot washing. Second, Dr. R.C. Sproul notes in his commentary John that the majority of the church has not regarded foot washing as a sacrament.

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church adds five sacraments to baptism and the Lord’s Supper: penance, confirmation, marriage, holy orders (priestly ordination), and extreme unction (last rites). Of course, Roman Catholicism is right to see some of these acts as helpful to Christian growth. A godly husband, for example, rightly regards his wife as one of the most sanctifying influences in his life. An ordinance such as penance, however, denies the gospel because it calls for sinners to make satisfaction for their sin.

While the above claims are standard Protestant claims, there are some obvious problems with the above claims that we should take a look at. First of all, the use of the terms "sacrament" and "ordinance" are not used in Scripture with regards to Baptism or the Eucharist. So it is somewhat of an "oral tradition" that Protestants are appealing to when they dogmatically apply "sacrament" to these two things. Second, the only time the Bible uses the term "sacrament" in regards to these is when Paul speaks of Marriage as a "great sacrament" in Ephesians 5:32, where the Greek term mysterion ("mystery") which is precisely what the Latin term "sacrament" means (see here). So this is another blatant inconsistency.

Third, the teaching of Jesus to wash the feet of others in John 13:1-20 does sound like something of a sacrament, especially in 13-14, where Jesus says: "If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." This is an outward ordinance or ritual, that Jesus expressly commands, and is clearly tied to being washed of sins and being part of the community (v8): "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." This line of Jesus is especially noteworthy, because while Peter was already a believer in Jesus, here we see Jesus tell Peter that if Peter refuses to have his feet washed, then Jesus will disown Peter. This passage not only poses a problem for 'once saved always saved' but it also exposes the Protestant bias and inconsistency in their theology. And even if it is not a sacrament, the Church has historically seen it as an official part of the Liturgy, particularly on Holy Thursday, also called "Mandate Thursday" in Latin because Jesus "mandates" (commands) the washing of feet. So this is not "optional" for the Protestant side, yet most Protestants do not even practice the foot washing rite in any formal/concrete manner.

Fourth, the above article rejects foot washing on the basis that the early church did not adopt it as a sacrament nor impose it. This is an ironic claim given that Protestants have no problem rejecting the other sacraments which the early church does mention. The historical fact is the foot washing ritual has been part of the Church from the earliest times, practiced in various ways, though only holding the status of a "sacramental". None the less, this is precisely why Church Tradition is important for answering the Sacrament question, and which Sola Scriptura clearly fails to be able to do. St Paul explicitly says one of the godly works a Christian can do is "wash the feet of the saints" (1 Tim 5:9-10), speaking literally.

The article tries to claim that the book of Acts makes no mention of washing of feet, which is a low and ad hoc bar to set, as if Acts had to include this detail. Of course, Protestants don't care that Acts does mention the Sacrament of Confirmation very blatantly in places like Acts 8:14-17 and Acts 19:1-6, which is clearly in the context of getting Baptized. To add to that, we see Ordination (Holy Orders) in the Bible as associated with receiving the grace of divine office, as Paul says to Timothy: "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands" (2 Tim 1:6), and we do see this going on many times in Acts, such as in Acts 6:6; 13:2-3. In fact, Protestants regularly use the term "ordinance" for the sacraments, yet "ordination" comes from the same exact word "ordinance". It is ironic that ordaining someone does not involve an ordinance, despite the fact even most Protestants know that ordination does something special to the pastor to set him apart from the average layman. So the Protestant side really isn't searching for truth or even seeking to objectively follow the Bible, otherwise there wouldn't be such a strong opposition to such Catholic claims with clear Biblical proof.

Fifth, the article says the Roman Catholic Church has added additional sacraments out of thin air, as if these additional sacraments have no Biblical basis. This is ironic and just false, as was noted above with Marriage, Confirmation, and Ordination already. And it is beyond question that when the Apostle James speaks of the pastors coming to Anoint the Sick to heal and forgive sins (James 5:14-15), the Protestant side has had to blush and shamelessly explain this away rather than admit Catholicism might have a point. Indeed, Protestants love to regularly hide these Biblical details from their Protestant audience when these conservative Protestant professors start mocking Catholicism for "inventing Sacraments".

Sixth, this basically leaves us with Confession/Penance, which the article says is a grave error because this sacrament "denies the Gospel" by undermining the work of Christ. Well, let's consider the fact that St Paul says those who gravely sin must be kicked out of the congregation (1 Cor 5:3-5; Matt 18:17-18), which means the congregation must also formally bring them back after a certain level of repentance is met. This is the essence of Confession, and even Protestants historically have understood that "church discipline" is an essential part of Christian life. Is it denying the Gospel to say someone is kicked out of the congregation, that is removed from the Body of Christ, until they repent and the Church allows them back? What is even more bizarre is that those Protestants who teach "once saved, always saved" would hold that a truly saved person who is kicked out of the congregation still remains saved! How's that for pushing the bounds of reasonable thought?

But what is really great about this attack on Confession by the article and most Protestants is that it turns out the Lutherans officially hold Confession to be a Sacrament! Let's take a look at the Book of Concord, which says:

• The Augsburg Confession, Article XI and XII explicitly lists "Confession" (also calls it "Private Absolution"), right after mentioning Baptism and Eucharist.
  
  
• Luther's Large Catechism, paragraph 74, says: "And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance"
  
  
• The Defense of Augsburg, Article XIII.4, says: "Therefore Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament."
  

This is wonderful, for just like my "Lutherans and the Canon of Scripture" article, we again have a fantastic resource for countering most other Protestants who attack Catholicism for holding to Confession, because those Protestants must also condemn the Lutherans! Yet folks like Spoul would not condemn Lutherans, nor accuse them of rejecting sola fide, nor of denying the Gospel.

It is (unsurprisingly) ironic that Protestants who claim to go by Sola Scriptura are so wishy-washy about the actual facts, both Biblical and historical. They will go to great lengths of humiliating themselves and harming their credibility just to attack Catholicism. They will invent new rules, such as applying the unbilical terms "sacrament" and "ordinance" to items they feel like it, they will restrict their Biblical scope to only what Jesus said and not what the Apostles said (e.g. James 5), and they will hold the highest contempt for the Sacrament of Confession, even though Lutherans affirm it!  

The prodigal son returns to his father
(Sacrament of Confession)