Chapter 13.2 - The Church, Part II

The Church, Part II (B)

Baptism

Since the publication of Die Kirchliche Lehre von der Taufe (The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism) by Karl Barth in 1944 a theological storm has been raised over the question of baptism As a Reformed theologian who usually defended infant baptism Barth came to conclude that infant baptism was incorrect as well as meaningless apart from faith. Only a discerning person has faith therefore, baptism must be limited to those of faith. Rejoinders in defense of infant baptism have been offered by Oscar Cullman, Joachim Jeremias, and others. Because of the evident requirement of faith for the candidate and the desire to retain infant baptism there are theologians who have attempted to defend faith in the infant candidate. Attempts are then made to prove scripturally that infants have faith.¹

There is more interest in the subject of baptism today than has been shown for generations. Stalemated positions now have erupted into open controversy. In an endeavor to treat the issue we will attempt to deal with a number of questions related to it.

    What is baptism?--The word baptize is a transliteration of the Greek word βαπτιζω, baptizo. It has carried over into English because the translation of it into English seems to decide the question concerning the mode of baptism; namely, its translation by the term immersion. Barth writes, "The Greek word Baptizein and the German word taufen (from Tiefe, depth) originally and properly describe the process by which a man or an object is completely immersed in water and then withdrawn from it again." ²

    In churches where immersion is not practiced, baptism is not translated but interpreted to mean a rite involving the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the candidate. In either case, the "baptismal formula" is spoken: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." It is difficult to define baptism without a relationship to a number of questions, and the definition implies the answer to the questions. Strong wrote, "Christian Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water, in token of his previous entrance into the communion of Christ’s death and resurrection--or in other words, in token of his regeneration through union with Christ."³ One should wait for a definition of baptism until the other issues are settled. Then it is possible to incorporate these facts into the definition.

What is the meaning of baptism?--This question is one way of asking another question, "What does baptism do?" If the latter question is answered in the negative, that is, baptism does not wash away original sin, it does not convey grace, etc., then the meaning of baptism must be discussed. We will discuss the power of baptism

The meaning of baptism can be expressed in a number of ways. First, it is the "representation (Abbid) of a man’s renewal through his participation by means of the power of the Holy Spirit in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and therewith the representation of man’s association with Christ, with the covenant of grace which is concluded and realized in Him, and with the fellowship of His Church."⁴ Note the threefold association; with Christ, his covenant, his ecclesia. Second, baptism is a pledge of God to man, which pledge God maintains through all circumstances. "It testifies to him that God has directed all His words and works toward him and does not cease so to do." ⁵ Third, baptism serves as the entrance gate to the ecclesia and "stands at the beginning of every believer’s life."⁶ Fourth, the intention of baptism is "the glorifying of God in the building up of the Church of Jesus Christ through the pledge given to a man, with divine certainty, of grace directed towards him."⁷ Fifth, baptism implies that the believer is "commissioned for special duty."⁸ Sixth, baptism is the visible means of expressing what has already happened "invisibly through the word and faith."⁹ On this point Calvin concurs that baptism is a confession before the world. "That as we are to be ranked among the people of God ... in short, we publicly assert our faith." ¹⁰

Seventh, baptism portrays the fact that the believer is alive in a new spiritual life but dead to the old way of life in sin. This is true because of the link of faith to Christ, and what happened to him thereby happened to us (Rom 6:3).

Eighth, it can be inferred that the word "baptize" symbolizes purification, not because of water and purity, but because the believer is linked to Christ by faith and therefore he has a new life, a new creation, hence he has put to death the old and put on the "new man" (Col 3:5.).

There are other possibilities for discussion. Is a part of the meaning of baptism the continuity between it and the Jewish rite of circumcision? Some, like Oscar Cullmann, argue that it is. Cullmann maintains that it is the successor to circumcision. He appeals to certain passages in the New Testament (Rom 2:25-29; Rom 4:1-25; Gal 3:6-8; Eph 2:11Col 2:11). The last passage alone is linked with any contextual mention of baptism. If continuity is important and some continuity seems to be, then it is faith, not institution for institution or rite for rite. It is quite easy to argue that the promise of God was a new covenant, which implies a degree of difference. The problem of the old covenant was that the outward sign of circumcision did not bring forth faith in the individual. Likewise, faith is a necessity before the covenant becomes applicable to the individual. The internal nature of the witness of the Spirit as spoken by Jeremiah limits the use of any covenant until the person has come to faith. The old covenant began with an adult (Abraham) and continued in its sign with infants The merit of the new covenant is that it begins and continues with the same sign and status of person. Clearly circumcision as a parallel has implications for infant baptism--which will be discussed below--and one of them is to substantiate by analogy the validity of infant baptism. It is argued that in a missionary church like the early one was, adult baptism was generally practiced; but as their children came along, it was correct to baptize the infants. In reaction to this, it can be said that the practice of infant baptism is the one sure way for a church to lose its missionary enthusiasm. When the second and third generations do not have the same experience of faith, they naturalize their faith to intellectual forms. At the same time, a church that is not missionary oriented is not an ecclesia.

    What does baptism do?--In the above section we said that baptism does not do anything. This is rejected by those of a sacramental bent for whom baptism is said to effect something.

From the Roman perspective, baptism "exonerates us completely before God, since there is neither guilt nor debt of punishment in the souls of the baptized. More explicitly, whether it be a question of original sin or actual sin, baptism not only delivers us from eternal loss, but also remits all temporal punishment due to actual sin and entitles us to eternal life." ¹¹ In essence, baptism produces the regeneration of the soul, a new birth, the Christian life. Thus baptism is a necessity for salvation: "Without it, it is impossible to go to Heaven." ¹² Certain loopholes are found in this statement, however. Roman theologians admit martyrdom for the faith before baptism as the equivalent of baptism. In the case of one’s being baptized by some heretical group, as long as it is done correctly, it is valid baptism. If it is not performed correctly, it is not. Baptism by desire is also permitted. Where one loves God, it could not be without a sorrow for sin. Loving God means that one must explicitly or implicitly desire the sacrament of baptism.

Such extenuating circumstances in theology are essential when baptism is regarded as a necessity. Reformed theology regards baptism as a means of grace but does not conclude that it is necessary for salvation. Reformed thought seems to work its way into a corner when it deals with the question of infants. If it is supposed to strengthen, what is there to work on? There is no faith. If it does not regenerate, what does it do? The best answer that Berkhof gives-and it is not too good--is that the operation of baptism and its power is not limited to the time of performance but may strengthen later in augmenting the individual’s faith. Obviously, it is a short step to saying, why not wait until later on when the child is aware and has faith? The issue of baptism’s power is a serious one. Does it bring forgiveness? Is it the means of the Spirit’s reception? Is it necessary for eternal life? The scriptural support for sacramental power of baptism rests upon inference, misinterpretation, and poor textual support. With reference to inference, an example is seen in John 3:5 : "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It is an inference that "water" refers to baptism. The term may refer to "water birth," as the context implies in the discussion of birth; or, it may refer merely symbolically to cleansing. Nothing is said of baptism in the passage. The same is true for Tit 3:5. The "washing of regeneration" can very well be a simile for the precise work of the Spirit without reference to real water at all.

Poor textual support is seen when men quote Mark 16:16 to prove that baptism as a sacrament is necessary for salvation. The passage belongs to the longer ending of Mark which is not among the most ancient manuscripts. To build a doctrine upon such a shaky foundation is wrong.

Misinterpretation fits another category of passages like Acts 2:38, in which the King James Version says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The crux of the passage rests upon the Greek preposition eis, which can mean for, with reference to, in token of, on the basis of, and because of. In this case the usage of "for" is used to support a sacramental line, while the use of "because of" the remission of sins is the non-sacramental approach to baptism. This is the meaning of the statement in Mat 3:11, where John says, "I indeed baptize you [eis]"_because of repentance. This occurs similarly elsewhere. Supporting this non-sacramental line of thinking, Emil Brunner wrote: "There is no question of Paul thinking that this sign itself effects something which had not previously been effected by the Word. Baptism is not itself a factor in salvation except in so far as it is the making visible of an invisible event. . . . The baptized person says ’I now belong to Christ and wish also to confess my faith before the whole world.’ The preacher says, ’Through your confession you show that you really belong to Christ.’ " ¹³ What is the mode of baptism?--Strangely enough, this is often regarded as the most important question whereas it is really the least important. Baptists are often misunderstood when they insist on immersion. The argument over the mode is often confused with the meaning. Baptists insist on immersion secondarily, and the meaning primarily. Concerning the mode, one can begin from the ground of general agreement. All parties agree that immersion was a form of administering the rite called baptism. Not all parties agree that it was the only one. Further, there is a difference of opinion on how early departures from immersion came. Can one infer that John the Baptist poured rather than immersed? If the issue is decided on the basis of the meaning of the Greek word, there can be little doubt that it is correctly translated by our words immerse, dip, or sink into water. This is its usual meaning in the New Testament. Various objections are raised on circumstantial grounds. Was there enough water in Jerusalem to baptize 3,000 after the Pentecost sermon? One must certainly allow some time for preparation, and there were certainly enough pools in Jerusalem to do so. In mission history, it is recorded that 2,222 Telugu Christians were immersed in 9 hours by 2 administrators. One need only think in terms of 12 apostles to easily accommodate 3,000. Would the jailer have followed his prisoners outside the city of Philippi to be baptized? The jailer was so thankful for his life that he would have done almost any rash act, and baptism is not beyond the bounds of his reason. Other circumstantial arguments have adequate answers. There is reason to look for such arguments only on the presupposition that infant baptism is true. Undoubtedly, immersion was the practice into the Middle Ages, as is shown from the great baptistries that have been uncovered. In spite of our line of reasoning here, the question of the mode is not significant in comparison to the question of the meaning of baptism.

    What are the requirements of baptism?--Here again one can set forth a proposition that all may agree on initially. Most camps agree that baptism requires faith. The division comes in saying "faith on the part of whom." Roman writers insist on faith as a prerequisite for baptism: "That these dispositions of faith and repentance are necessary for adult sinners is shown to us in the Sacred Scriptures."¹⁴

As for infants, faith is required either in the parent or the godparent. The requirement boils down, for the adult, to his intention of receiving the sacrament. He may not have repented of his sins, but the "character" of baptism is placed upon him. He is still validly baptized.¹⁵ On the Reformed line, faith is likewise required of the adult before baptism, but not from the infant. Faith is transferred to the congregation. "If faith were lacking in the congregation assembled for the Baptism, it would not be a congregation. . . . But where the believing congregation is, there the Holy Spirit, operating within it and knowing no limitations, has the power to draw an infant into his sphere."¹⁶ In support of his reasoning, Cullmann argues that in Christ the essential act of baptism was carried out, entirely without our cooperation, and even without our faith.¹⁷ In so arguing, Cullmann is teetering on the verge of universal salvation. On this analogy one may say that all men are redeemed in Christ without regard to having faith or not having faith. This would prove much more than the Scriptures warrant. Again, if faith is a necessity, then it is limited to an age of discernment. If baptism does not effect a change why have infant baptism? If it is solely a matter of the covenantal sign why not wait until it means something to the child’? The last line of reasoning is that of Karl Barth and the Baptists who have long supported the requirement of faith as a conscious responsible act. Barth declares: "If it is to be natural, the candidate , instead of being a passive object of baptism, must become once more the free partner of Jesus Christ, that is, freely deciding freely confessing, declaring on his part his willingness and readiness."¹⁸ He goes further to characterize as a "half-baptism" any rite that does not call for a conscious knowledge of faith and regeneration" ¹⁹ In another place he speaks of baptism without faith and readiness as a "clouded" baptism.²⁰ Who may be baptized?--This question implies part of the foregoing. The question here deals more specifically with the issue of infant baptism only or baptism only of the discerning; hence, more generally adult baptism. Infant baptism has as its rationale presuppositions it must maintain to be legitimate. First, that it can be sustained in the Scriptures as a practice. Second, that it is a successor to circumcision which was administered to infants. Third, that baptism washes away original sin, and is the means for regeneration of the person to insure his entrance into heaven. Fourth, the desire to retain some form of a national church (Volkskirche), whereby the church is coterminous with the state. One is born into the church by baptism as one is born into the state by birth: both events come about without the consent of the individual.²¹ All of these presuppositions are disputed. All of them militate against the apostolic requirement of faith and repentance. Barth is rather decisive on the matter: "From the standpoint of a doctrine of baptism infant baptism can hardly be preserved without exegetical and practical artifices and sophism--the proof to the contrary has yet to be supplied." ²² " Brunner is in agreement in saying, "It is impossible to harmonize Paul’s teaching about faith and in particular his explicit teaching about Baptism with the thought of Infant Baptism."²³ Supporters of infant baptism should not reason as Calvin did by using the words of Jesus concerning children, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." It is their childlikeness in faith and commitment that is commended to adults to emulate. The kingdom of heaven is not theirs because they are little or even infants, but because of a trusting, childlike faith in God. ²⁴ Who may baptize? --The Roman Catholic view is the most lenient: All that has to be said about the minister of baptism can be summed up in these two statements: First, anyone, man or woman baptized or un-baptized, can validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism. Secondly, while all can administer this sacrament validly, only priests (and bishops, of course) are the ordinary lawful ministers of it; others being lawful ministers only in the case of necessity"²⁵ The lack of limitations is due to the sacramental nature of baptism. Emergency baptism is necessary sometimes when an infant is born and dies without the presence of a priest . Calvin, on the other hand, without the burden of the sacramental approach to salvation, asserts that it is "improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism, for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office.²⁶ He reinforces his reason by the command of Christ to the appointed apostles. He prohibited a woman from doing it

At the other end are those in agreement with Baptists who, for the sake of order, think in terms of the pastor’s administering baptism but would have no objection if the ecclesia itself, without a leader, should appoint someone to officiate. The important question for the Baptist is not who is baptizing, but who is being baptized? When baptism is not regarded as sacramental in nature, the important question is whether the candidate has committed himself in faith to Christ. In conclusion, one may define Christian baptism, according to the New Testament, as the immersion of a person who has faith in Christ and wishes to be initiated by immersion into the fellowship of his followers, and receive from him in baptism the sign of his promise that not even death can deter the surety of his covenant. The Lord’s Supper

It seems strange that there should be such a difference of opinion concerning the meaning and implication of the four little words, "This is my body." Ironically, a rite that was to symbolize unity has fractured the Christian church into many pieces. About the only common ground left is the words of Jesus, to which all make an appeal. Here too, as in baptism, a definition would be better at the end, after answering certain relevant questions. For the sake of order, a preliminary definition will be given here and a final one to conclude the discussion. What is the Lord’s Supper?--The Lord’s Supper is a religious rite instituted by Jesus the evening before he was crucified. He took bread and wine in turn and blessed both of them. Concerning the bread, he said to his disciples in the upper room, "Take, eat; this is my body." Then the cup of wine was passed with the words, "Drink of it; all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mat 26:26-28). This is the rite in its simplicity. This simple rite was enjoined upon the disciples to be observed in remembrance of him. From these simple statements many conclusions have been drawn. The Lord’s Supper is sometimes called the eucharist, an ancient name for it which implies a ceremony of thanksgiving. Another term which is non-biblical is the Mass, a Latin word meaning "to dismiss."

What is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper?--The first source of understanding comes from the Bible accounts which speak of certain things by way of Jesus’ interpretation of the meaning of the simple rite. First, it is an act of remembrance Luk 22:19; 1Co 11:23-26 ) By observing it, the disciples were to look back to that night and the following events to recall that his body was broken and his blood spilled in their behalf.

     Second, it is representative of the new covenant. All four Gospels incorporate this assertion which stand out as very important. A covenant was established by the ancient Hebrews in killing an animal and sprinkling its blood. In essence, Jesus is saying that the promises I have made are now to be ratified in covenant by my own blood. The basis of the covenant is now quite different from the past. In contrast to the use of animals for covenantal initiations, now Jesus, the Son of God, sets forth a new covenant founded upon his life’s blood as the Son of God incarnate. Because God has deigned to forgive sin, and because this is difficult to believe, he makes a new covenant whereby this is guaranteed to men of faith. Thus, as the Lord’s Supper is observed from time to time, one is to remember God’s covenant with him. This is part of its present reality.

    Third, it is prophetic of his return. Two accounts speak of this fact. He will not share in this rite personally until the day when he drinks it new in his Father’s kingdom. Paul’s account to the Corinthians speaks of the rite as the continual announcement of the Lord’s death until he comes.

The Lord’s Supper can be admitted to be all of this by almost every professing Christian. But is it any more than that? Can one go from the simple Last Supper rite, in which Jesus holds up a piece of bread in the presence of his disciples, to the view that a simple piece of bread now literally becomes the body of Christ? Roman thinkers attempt to do this. In other words, once a symbol embodied a person, whereas now in the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation the person is embodied in the symbol. Instead of saying that the verb "is in the sentence "represents" something, Roman Catholic writers insist that the verb "is" means that a transformation has taken place (transubstantiation) and now the elements contain the true body of Christ. On this has been erected an elaborate system. Thus, one can justify worship of the Eucharist, because of the living Christ is contained in the elements.²⁷ The Mass is then regarded as a "bloodless sacrifice which is reenacted. Moreover, Christ is the "offerer" with his church in corporate worship as well as the one who is offered.²⁸ The Mass becomes a prayer on the part of the "offerers." ²⁹ More important, it is regarded as a vital channel of grace. The Eucharist is supreme among the sacraments, "the sacrament par excellence of the Mystical Body, whereby we are continually nourished and united ever more closely with its Head." ³⁰ The starting point for the Roman understanding of the Eucharist is the Gospel of John, chapter 6, rather than the decidedly clear explanation of Christ himself in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians.

John 6:1-71 deals with the feeding of the multitude and a description of Jesus as the Bread of life. The Roman Catholic conclusion from the chapter is summed up in the following words: "How does Jesus give eternal, everlasting life to men? How can bread give this life? And it is Christ himself who answers: ’I myself am the living bread that has come down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And now, what is this bread which I am to give?

It is my flesh, given for the life of the world.’ The bread is His flesh of which we must eat, and with the eating is bound up eternal life for all mankind."³¹

From this is concluded that the disciples must eat his literal flesh The recollection of these words of Jesus, in their minds, is the basis of their understanding the Last Supper--a difficult thing to prove . The Council of Trent gave the following definition of the matter. "Because Christ declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called Transubstantiation."³² The act of consecration is the utterance of the words of Jesus, "This is my body." Does John 6:1-71 support a sacramental view of the Lord’s Supper? This may be answered with an emphatic no. Jesus frankly declares to his disciples that the flesh is of no avail, but it is the Spirit that gives life. He furthered this by saying, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:60-63). One may conclude from these verses that the whole discourse has a deeper meaning than the surface understanding of the hearers who rebelled against the sayings. The deeper or symbolic meaning uses the metaphor of feeding upon Jesus to indicate believing and trusting. It seems strange that so much argumentation is used to literalize "this is my body" into a sacrament, while nothing is done to make sacramental meaning out of "I am the door (John 10:7). ... I am the light.)John 8:12) ... I am the truth. ... I am the way.(John 14:6) ... I am the good Shepherd John 10:11. .. ." There are no good reasons for doing the first and neglecting the latter. We may conclude this section with a reference to Brunner, who wrote: "Is the Lord’s Supper celebrated by the Pauline community symbolic? Yes, certainly, for it is the same as that first Supper where Jesus was still bodily present, and where consequently there could as yet be no talk of a transubstantiation of ’elements’ in a miraculous sense. With bread and wine, Jesus said something. He underlined what He was saying in His words, and Oriental man had no difficulty in understanding such sign-language."³³ He concedes that a miracle did take place the night of the Lord’s Supper, but it was a miracle involving the institution of the new covenant and not the "prodigy of the transubstantiation of the elements."³⁴

    What does the Lord’s Supper do?--The answer to this question depends upon the church background.

The Roman Catholic answer is that the Eucharist conveys grace to the believer. It furnishes the spiritual food for daily growth in Christ and is the channel of this grace. Conversely, "the Mass brings us no new merits, no new atonement, no new reunion between God and men. Mass is only the means by which the fruits of Christ’s suffering and death are applied to men in particular."³⁵ The Mass is important enough that the Roman Church declares everyone of her members are bound--under pain of mortal sin--to observe the Lord’s Day "by assisting at Mass."³⁶ Without the reception of the sacrament the individual cuts himself off. from the source of God’s grace. The Reformed view is that the Lord’s Supper is regarded as a sign and seal. Calvin wrote, "That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us ... he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfills what he promises."³⁷ While denying a "real presence" in the Roman meaning of the term, because the body of Christ is localized in heaven, the elements nevertheless serve as instruments of God’s grace. This same truth was declared by Charles Hodge, who taught that "the sacraments are real means of grace, that is, means appointed and employed by Christ for conveying the benefits of his redemption to his people."³⁸ There is a third view associated with the name of Baptists and others. The Lord’s Supper does not transmit any mysterious spiritual power. The Lord’s Supper does not bring Christ any closer to the believer than he was before. The believer may feel existentially, but not geographically, nearer to God. The Lord’s Supper thus regarded is a memorial, covenantal, and prophetic symbol. As a memorial it reminds the believer of the death of Jesus Christ at a point in history. The believer continues to observe the memorial to his Lord. But unlike other memorials in which the person is yet dead, this memorial centers around one who died and is yet living and sharing in the memory of the believing in a living way. Because the living Saviour indwells the believing, the Lord’s Supper does not increase any quantitative grace content in his life. This covenantal aspect of the Lord’s Supper is his promise of continued forgiveness of sin. In observing the Lord’s Supper the believer renews the sign of the covenant in his life and indicates his own dedication as well as cherishing God’s promise of forgiveness over his own failing life. . The prophetic role of the symbol relates to Christ’ s promise of return It speaks of a future supper. The prophetic meaning tells us that life is fleeting and un-whole. The covenantal and prophetic elements keep the rite from becoming a return to the past. Life is to be lived in the present with an eye to the future.

    Who may receive it?--This question too must be answered from the vantage point of the traditions.

The Roman answer is for the person to be in a state of grace. This means one has been baptized, has examined the conscience with the possibility of having been absolved from sin through confession. The Reformed church has similar demands. Faith in Christ is a requirement along with repentance of sin and a desire to grow in the Christian life. In addition, the recipient must have an understanding of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper as opposed to a common meal. Children, who are not able to examine themselves, as well as unbelievers are excluded. The Baptist tradition requires the recipient to have a conscious experience of conversion. This is followed by the requirement of immersion according to the command of Christ. The third usual requirement is to be a member of the ecclesia. The rite is not a private matter but is to be observed in the family of the ecclesia. The last requirement is obedience in the Christian life. Grounds for exclusion include immoral conduct, disobedience to the commands of Christ, and heresy or false doctrine. Some Baptists are divided in opinion over whether the Lord’s Supper should be observed by the members of the local church only or whether it is a general rite observed by members of the same faith but not necessarily of the same local group. Who may administer it?--The administrators vary. By analogy, the people in the priesthood institute the Mass in the Roman Church, but in reality it is the priest alone who has the control of the elements. The Reformed churches are similar in their position on baptism. The administering of it belongs to the office of pastor. Churches related to the Baptist tradition declare that anyone whom the church appoints may administer the Lord’s Supper.

How frequently should it be observed?-- The logic of the Roman definition of the sacrament is this: if it is a means of grace, frequent communion is the conclusion. Daily communion would be ideal

If one rejects the premise of a sacrament, some other answer is forthcoming. The denomination of the Churches of Christ observe the Lord’s Supper weekly. This is not commanded, however. If the attitude of Jesus toward binding tradition is taken seriously, one must reject any arbitrary decision that makes a religious rite a routine event For the sake of regularity some rule is needed, but room must be allowed for spontaneity and spiritual discernment. Freedom must dictate additional observance beyond regularity as well as omitting the regular when necessary. To conclude the discussion, we may say that the New Testament describes the Last Supper as a simple memorial which has covenantal and prophetic meaning. To go beyond this means to go beyond the authority of the New Testament. The Church, Part II ¹David P. Scaer, "The Conflict over Baptism," Christianity Today, April 14, 1967, XI no. 14, p. 8 (688) ²Karl Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, trans. Ernest A. Payne (London: SCM Press, ET. 1948), p. 9.

³Strong, op. cit., p. 931.

⁴Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, p.9

⁵Ibid., p. 14

⁶Ibid., p.15

⁷Ibid., p. 25 ⁸Oscar Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (Chicago: Allenson,1950), p. 36.

⁹Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation, p. 42.

¹⁰Institutes, p. 520.

¹¹ Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 774.

¹²Ibid., p. 776 ¹³The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation,p. 42.

¹⁴ Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 792.

¹⁵Ibid., p.791 ¹⁶Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, p. 430

¹⁷Ibid., p.23 ¹⁸The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, p. 54 ¹⁹Ibid., pp. 47-48 ²⁰Ibid., p.Mat 21:1-46 Ibid., pp. 52-53

²²Ibid., p. 49 ²³Christian Doctrine of the Church. Faith. and the Consummation, p. 54

²⁴Cf. Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 for an excellent historical and theological summary of the issues in infant baptism.

²⁵The Teachings of the Catholic Church, p. 785.

²⁶Institutes, p. 524.

²⁷Cf Smith, The Teachings of the Catholic Church pp. 869.70. The practice of the Church of paying to the Eucharist the worship which is due to God alone is a logical consequence of her belief that therein is permanently present the living Christ, true God and true man."

²⁸Henri Daniel-Rops; This is the Mass (Garden City: Image, 1959). p. 16. Such is Bishop Sheen’s statement in the preface.

²⁹Smith, The Teachings of the Catholic Church, p. 910.

³⁰Ibid., p. 700 ³¹A Handbook of the Catholic Faith, p. 295.

³²Smith, The Teachings of the Catholic Church, p. 857 ³³The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation, p. 62.

³⁴Ibid.

³⁵A Handbook of the Catholic Faith, p. 310.

³⁶The Teachings of the Catholic Church, p. 909.

³⁷Institutes, II, 563.

³⁸Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), III., 499.