Setting aside for the moment, if possible, one's personal opinion, and remembrance of the "good feelings" experienced when they've participated in a foot-washing ceremony, and concentrating exclusively upon addressing the original question tendered in this thread that focused upon whether one's participation, or failure to do so, in foot-washing rituals (ceremonies, traditions) constituted an issue which would ultimately effect (i.e., negatively impact) their eternal fate (heaven or hell), lets carefully explore what actually happened at that Last Supper when our Lord washed His disciples feet:
When attempting to arrive at a definitive scriptural-based conclusion concerning whether to accept or decline this activity as an established ordinance of the New Covenant, and thereby being one which we are commanded to observe on some type of unspecified schedule. I feel the need to first explore the manner in which the language of the New Testament provides the answers to several related questions:
a. If foot-washing was intended of Christ Jesus to be a New Testament ordinance, then why is it not included among the elementary principles of His doctrine which the writer enumerated in
Hebrews 6:1-2; or, could it be an integral component of one of those that is listed, in which case we must determine to which it is applicable by providing other scriptural proof to substantiate it?
b. If foot-washing was intended of the Lord to be a corporate, every member participatory ceremony, then why was it that only Christ Jesus did the washing of His disciples' feet following the feast of the passover which preceded His death? There's absolutely nothing written within the context of
John 13 to indicate that anyone other that Christ Jesus Himself did any of the washing. None of the disciples participated by washing each others feet!
c. Why did our Lord wash only the feet of HIs chosen apostles but never did so to any of the other disciples or the women at any other moment during his earthly miinistry? What made it so significasnt that He do so on this particilar occasion? Did this imply that only those who serve as apostles (i.e., church planters) were to participate in foot-washing?
d. Seeing that foot-washing was not a customary part of the Law, and that there is no record in the book of Acts or any of the epistles whereby such an activity ever transpired when the saints assembled as a church and performed such an activity, then on what basis have so many concluded that it is a mandatory symbooic ritual/tradition which must be observed at specificially appointed times?
e. Seeing that neither Peter, Paul, John or any of the other writers of the books comprising the New Testament ever mentioned such an activity, or noted it as being an integral ordinance of the New Covenant which we are to observe, then where does the basis exist for one to conclude, even by inference, that it is a New Testament commandment?
f. Why is it that foot-washing is made a part of the activities which transpire whenever the Lord's Supper is conducted, although not always, even though there is absolutely nothing written within the context of
John 13:1-17 that would indicate such to be the case?
g. We do know, for we've been told by Paul the apostle in the writings of
I Corinthians 11: 23-30 that as often (thus indicating no scheduled basis) that one partakes of the sacred symbols which represent the Lord's Supper, as one eats the bread, which is symbolic of the Lord's body, and drinks the cup, which is symbolic of His shed blood, they are publicly proclaiming an identification with His death and burial (that is, they are publicly proclaiming they have taken on HIs name in the waters of baptism and possess HIs Spirit as an indwelling force/entity in their own body) However, we must note that no mention was made by Paul of a simultaneous every-member participatory foot-washig ceremony!.
Immediately after He had finished washing the disciples feet He tendered them the question -- "Do you understand what I have done to you?" Do you think it rather strange that none answered? In fact, because of the silence it could be said they were rather "taken aback," perplexed, or perhaps even momentarily rendered speechless about the whole affair. Can you just imagine what they were thinking? "We've been here for an hour or more, sitting around 'table talking' about various things, and now that we've finished supper He washes our feet? If He had believed our feet were in such dire need of cleansing then wouldn't it have been better for Him to have washed them when we first assembled? What meaneth this? Surely there must be some mysterious, secretive, underlying reason for this that He has done so surely He is going to tell us about!" So then the Lord begins to explain to them the lesson conveyed by His action, saying (paraphrased),
"You've always addressed me as your Master and Teacher, and correctly so, for that is what I am. However, if you noticed I didn't wash your feet when entering the dinner hall, when they were the most soiled from your travels, and that is because what I've done wasn't accomplished to cleanse the dirt from your feet. If that were the purpose then it would have been the first thing I would have done for you. But there's a much more significant lesson that I desire for you learn from what I have done unto you.
A servant is not ranked above his master, and an employee is not ranked above his employer, so what I've done for you only points out the obvious. Later I am going to send you out among others where there you are to serve as their teachers, overseers, undershepherds, elders to lead those whom I shall choose as my own; you who are to be the greater among them are to be their servants to feed my sheep, yea, even humbling yourselves to wash their feet if that's what needed.
Let's not forget the words He spoke to them on another ocassion regarding their functions as leaders of His flock:
"Now Jesus turned to address his disciples, along with the crowd that had gathered with them. “The religion scholars and Pharisees are competent teachers in God’s Law. You won’t go wrong in following their teachings on Moses. But be careful about following them. They talk a good line, but they don’t live it. They don’t take it into their hearts and live it out in their behavior. It’s all spit-and-polish veneer.
Instead of giving you God’s Law as food and drink by which you can banquet on God, they package it in bundles of rules, loading you down like pack animals. They seem to take pleasure in watching you stagger under these loads, and wouldn’t think of lifting a finger to help. Their lives are perpetual fashion shows, embroidered prayer shawls one day and flowery prayers the next. They love to sit at the head table at church dinners, basking in the most prominent positions, preening in the radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary degrees, and getting called ‘Doctor’ and ‘Reverend.’
Don’t let people do that to you, put you on a pedestal like that. You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates. Don’t set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of ‘Father’; you have only one Father, and he’s in heaven. And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.
Do you want to stand out? Then step down. Be a servant. If you puff yourself up, you’ll get the wind knocked out of you. But if you’re content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty." (
Matthew 23:1-12, The Message Bible)
In summary, our Lord's action in humbling Himself to wash the feet of HIs apostles was instended, IMHO, to serve as an allegory (a symbolic representation) of what would be expected of them as apostles, teachers, elders, overseers, undershepherds charged with the responsibility of tending to the needs of His flock. The act of foot-washing, in and of itelf, was merely an example of those who would be greater tending to the needs of the lesser, and was not meant to serve as an ordinance of the Nerw Covenant.
Others are free to disagree, as I'm sure threy weill, nevertheless this is how I understand it.