If we baptize women, why not infants?


#1

Circumcision was the rite by which Jews entered into the Covenant. Jewish males, of course. Baptism is the rite by which Christians enter into the New Covenant, and both males and females can participate. Right? I don’t know of a single protestant church that excludes women from baptism.

But I’m not aware of a single instance in the Bible where we specifically learn that a woman was ever baptized. It is implied, but not specifically stated (not that I know of).

However, one could also say that infant baptism is also implied (often by the same verses that imply woman baptism), though we don’t know of a specific and precise Biblical example of infant baptism.

Assuming I’m right about lack of precise and specific Scriptural warrant for woman baptism (corrections welcome), how do protestants justify admitting women to baptism but not infants? Especially since we do have a clear prior understanding of God’s covenant that admitted only males? What is their Scriptural authority for believing that the rules of Covenant changed, and both genders are now able to participate in the rites?


#2

Man I never thought of that one. Your genius! I have got to use this in my apologetics! Thanks I got to double check this of course but you may be right.

The Bible talks of baptism of households catholics would assume this to be a typical household of that time husband, wife, slave, servant, several children and before the days of birth control likely an infant.
Prots don’t want to read into this verse to deeply so they deny the deeper insight but if you do that you deny wives and women which are not explicitly described elsewhere. Adult Men are the examples elsewhere.
Of course now that you mention this some protestant is going to misinterpret this and declare baptism for men only!:rotfl:


#3

Acts 16:14-15 says:
14One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyati’ra, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. 15And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.”


#4

Oh well, back to the drawing board . . .

:stuck_out_tongue:


#5

Jews before the advent of Christianity baptized entire Gentile families, including infants, to ritually wash the Gentiles of their iniquities. The males were then circumcised. Jewish baptism today includes the baptism of infants.


#6

plus the main argument is that the person must first come to faith before being baptized and infants are baptized based on their parents faith, so I think that even if that argument suggested was used, it wouldn’t really change anyones minds.


#7

[quote=Catholic Tom]plus the main argument is that the person must first come to faith before being baptized and infants are baptized based on their parents faith, so I think that even if that argument suggested was used, it wouldn’t really change anyones minds.
[/quote]

I know all the old arguments I just thought we might a totally new way to apprach this. Alas to good to be true. I am sure if there was no women baptized in the Bible some funide wouldn’t baptize women either. Some are that strict and literal.


#8

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]Oh well, back to the drawing board . . .

[/quote]

Darn it, darn it, darn it!


#9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.