What About Baptism? – A Biblical Discussion Between Billy Baptist and Peter Presbyterian

B.: No, I must admit that I cant think of any such texts right now.   But if we take the Bible as a whole, it is very clear that God is Triune and that Sunday is now the Sabbath.

P.: Exactly!   And precisely the same applies in the case of infant baptism.  But tell me — does your Church allow its women to celebrate the Lords Supper?

B.: Of course!

P.: So does the Presbyterian Church.   But where in the Bible do you read that any women ever participated in the Lords Supper?

B.: I must admit I never thought of that before!   Yet we know that faithful women used the Passover in Old Testament times, and that the Lords Supper replaces the Passover in New Testament times.   So deduce that faithful women should be allowed to receive the Supper too.

P.: Actually, the Old Testament nowhere teaches that; for the Passover was not to be given to for those who had not been circumcised.30   Yet precisely if you believe women nevertheless used the Passover — you should even more acknowledge that little children born into faithful households received circumcision during Old Testament times,31 and that New Testament baptism has now replaced cir-cumcision.32    So we can also deduce from this that little child-ren born of faithful parents should receive baptism too.  After all, you can hardly make this kind of deduction in respect

Page 7

of the one sacrament and not predicate it also of the other!   No Chris-tian Church is about to abandon dispensing the Lords Supper to faithful women – is it?

B.: Well, if baptism really did replace circumcision — which is administrable only to males — would you please tell me why you Presbyterians also baptize little girls as well as little boys, even though it was only the little boys that were circumcised in former times?

P.: It should be remembered that even circumcision was instituted only as a sign of purification from sin,33 and that sin origin-ally polluted the human race, not only through the federal transgression of Adam as the male head of the entire human race but circumstantially through the disobedience of woman.34    As a result of sin, woman was subjected to mans rule, and in this — on account of her leading role in bringing about the fall — she for-feited any right she may otherwise have had to the sign of circumcision which foreshadowed the atoning death of Christ,35 and which in later times was given only to faithful males and their male infants as the sign of faith.36

But as soon as Jesus Christ – the seed of the woman37 – came and effected redemption, faithful women too thenceforth received the sign of faith.   The old sign of circumcision was accordingly replaced immediately after Christs atoning death by the unbloody sign of baptism which, unlike circumcision. can easily be administered to the female sex and was so administered to such women as believed38 — and, by implication, also to their little girls. All this is, of course, a dramatic indication of the way in which faithful woman has now been restored to her original position alongside her husband as a helpmate for him.

B.: But why then do Presbyterians only baptize male and female infants and not male and female adults?

P.: Not so!   Presbyterians dont baptize children only.   Actually, we baptize whole households as soon as the heads thereof profess their faith in Christ.   Of course, households consist not only of adults, but usually also of children and frequently even of babies which are never excluded from the household and consequently are never to be excluded from the baptism of households either.39

Page 5 of 13« First...34567...10...Last »