Brick Walls and Picket Fences

[susanlo]

I think that LM is just being obstinate with regard to Polycarp’s infant baptism and his age at his martyrdom.

This is a pretty good summation on Polycarp.

The truth is we don’t know when Polycarp was born or when he died. The Martyrdom of Polycarp tells us that he served God for 86 years. What does the age he was baptized have to do with this? Baptized infants are unable to serve God in their first few years of life. Many older children are serving God long before they decide to become baptized. I think to take the statement, “Eighty and six years have I served Him,” to mean that Polycarp was definitely baptized as an infant by the Apostle John is truly stretching it.

BTW, you guys might benefit from the following…
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

This article reports that the only controversy about the age of baptism was a letter written by Cyprian in the 3rd century. Earlier in the 3rd century, Tertullian, in his writing On Baptism, discouraged baptizing little children. This is the first time baptism of infants or young children is mentioned and there is at least some level of controversy or disagreement here. This article cites The Apostolic Tradition which has been credited to Hippolytus in the early 3rd century, but this work was revised over the centuries and what we read is not the original. ( britannica.com/topic/Canons-of-Saint-Hippolytus#ref1209 ) This source does not show us that infant baptism was occurring in 215AD, however writings by Cyprian and Origen by the mid-3rd century do show that infant baptism was occurring in their regions. But in the 4th century there are many examples of Christians like Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Ambrose who were born in Christian homes (Basil and Gregory were sons of bishops) yet there are records of them being baptized as adults. At this same time some were delaying baptism until the end of their life due to the belief that baptism was the only way that sins were forgiven. So clearly there were many different opinions on when baptism should occur. It was not a clearly defined issue in the first few centuries.

 

[lanman87]

Many Catholics have cheated on their spouse. So that makes it a teaching of the Church? :ehh:

The Church has unambiguously rebuked Santeria.

The article on the Mayan Catholics indicates it has been going on for hundreds of years. The implication is the Catholic church allowed the Mayans to continue pagan worship in the Catholic church. The same can be said for those that practice Voodoo in Haiti.

This is much more troubling to me that if a Catholic cheats on their spouse. If the Catholic cheats it is recognized by sin by the church and the person falls under church discipline.

By allowing pagan rituals to continue the church has implicitly approved those rituals. The nature of the ritual in Mayan Mexico is also troubling as it is in effect, sacrificing an animal on the alter. The heart of Christianity is the one time sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which did away with the need for repeated animal sacrifice under the Mosaic Law.

 

[lanman87]

There is much that is disciplinary that is “picket fence”. There is also very little that is theological that isn’t “brick wall”. You must affirm the Trinity to be a Catholic. Plenty of Protestants don’t.

The comparison here might best be summarized as “dogma is brick wall, discipline is picket fence”.

Church.

I’m sorry, but what you describe sounds a lot like denominationism. The difference is that in the Protestant world consensus and cooperation define dogmatic doctrine instead of Rome. Another difference is we choose to identify ourselves by our differences. If you walk into a Southern Baptist church you pretty much know what to expect, the same with Assembly of God and United Methodist and so on. You know if the denominations holds traditional Christian values or if they are “progressive”. If I walk into a random Catholic church I could find myself in anything from a Charismatic service to pre-Vatican II Latin Mass with Gregorian Chant. The local bishop could be a ultra-traditionalist or a liberal progressive.

The same forces that cause denominations are active in the Catholic church as well. As you put it, “As long as we’re a Church made up of real people that administer to real people, there will always be issues coming and going with time.” Having the same name on the door or having the same core(dogmatic) beliefs doesn’t make Catholics any more unified than Baptist are with Methodist.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The article on the Mayan Catholics indicates it has been going on for hundreds of years. The implication is the Catholic church allowed the Mayans to continue pagan worship in the Catholic church. The same can be said for those that practice Voodoo in Haiti.

This is much more troubling to me that if a Catholic cheats on their spouse. If the Catholic cheats it is recognized by sin by the church and the person falls under church discipline.

By allowing pagan rituals to continue the church has implicitly approved those rituals. The nature of the ritual in Mayan Mexico is also troubling as it is in effect, sacrificing an animal on the alter. The heart of Christianity is the one time sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which did away with the need for repeated animal sacrifice under the Mosaic Law.

That’s like saying the Protestant Churches ‘allowed’ heretical sects like LDS and Spiritism to emerge and practice. I mean after all, they started just like Protestants with a bible in hand and Sola Scriptura.

The Catholic Church has been vehemently against Santeria, Free Masonry and whatever else.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’m sorry, but what you describe sounds a lot like denominationism. The difference is that in the Protestant world consensus and cooperation define dogmatic doctrine instead of Rome. Another difference is we choose to identify ourselves by our differences. If you walk into a Southern Baptist church you pretty much know what to expect, the same with Assembly of God and United Methodist and so on. You know if the denominations holds traditional Christian values or if they are “progressive”. If I walk into a random Catholic church I could find myself in anything from a Charismatic service to pre-Vatican II Latin Mass with Gregorian Chant. The local bishop could be a ultra-traditionalist or a liberal progressive.

The same forces that cause denominations are active in the Catholic church as well. As you put it, “As long as we’re a Church made up of real people that administer to real people, there will always be issues coming and going with time.” Having the same name on the door or having the same core(dogmatic) beliefs doesn’t make Catholics any more unified than Baptist are with Methodist.

I would agree that many of the issues you have in protestantism, we have as well, to varying degrees.

The difference is, if need be, we have someone to ref these disputes.

 

[lanman87]

That’s like saying the Protestant Churches ‘allowed’ heretical sects like LDS and Spiritism to emerge and practice. I mean after all, they started just like Protestants with a bible in hand and Sola Scriptura.

The Catholic Church has been vehemently against Santeria, Free Masonry and whatever else.

The difference is those cults and sects are not under the authority of other Protestant churches. Apparently, the churches is Mexico are under the authority of the RCC. I would say if they were excommunicated (or just left the Catholic Church) and they started the church of the chicken sacrifice then it would remove the RCC from the equation.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The difference is those cults and sects are not under the authority of other Protestant churches. Apparently, the churches is Mexico are under the authority of the RCC. I would say if they were excommunicated (or just left the Catholic Church) and they started the church of the chicken sacrifice then it would remove the RCC from the equation.

I saw a special on this on CNN. They spoke directly to very frustrated Catholic clergy there who are dealing with this problem and doing the best they can to rid the country of it.

The Vatican has condemned it…People are being removed from what I understand and it’s becoming very uncomfortable because this religion or shade of ‘Santería’ and this unCatholic ‘Santa Muerte’ they pray to has exploded down there.

But we are talking a gigantic Church here so you will always have little corrupted pockets here and there. I’m sure some clergy have been apathetic and taken a blind eye to certain things. They don’t represent the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They represent themselves.

 

[lanman87]

I saw a special on this on CNN. They spoke directly to very frustrated Catholic clergy there who are dealing with this problem and doing the best they can to rid the country of it.

The Vatican has condemned it…People are being removed from what I understand and it’s becoming very uncomfortable because this religion or shade of ‘Santería’ and this unCatholic ‘Santa Muerte’ they pray to has exploded down there.

But we are talking a gigantic Church here so you will always have little corrupted pockets here and there. I’m sure some clergy have been apathetic and taken a blind eye to certain things. They don’t represent the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They represent themselves.

I’m glad to know efforts are being made. I’m sure both faithful Catholics and faithful Protestants agree that the Bride of Christ has no place for active pagan worship.

 

[Duane1966]

I’ve seen children as young as 4 years old baptized. It is possible for young children to believe.

Except some translations of Justin’s say they were illuminated as infants, and Justin makes it clear that illuminated is synonymous with baptism.

I have, in the passed confessed sins to my pastor. However, my normal routine it to examine my heart each day and confess my sins directly to God.

If your pastor says to you that your sins are not forgiven, would you accept his judgement?

The Pastor of any church has the responsibility to fight against sinful behavior. Even in protestant churches Christians are subject to church discipline. Even in my own church we have “excommunicated” someone when they wouldn’t repent of an adulterous relationship.

What is to keep such a person from joining another church down the road, which will not excommunicate him for such behavior?

I don’t have the power to determine who is going to heaven or hell. However, I do know the Bible says to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing and that false teachers will come from among you.

Correct. And sometimes the false teacher does not realize they are teaching false. Every heresy in the history of the Church, including those that Protestants admit were heresy, were started by priests who sincerely believed the Holy Spirit was guiding them.

What should they have done, when they sincerely believe they are guided by the Spirit, but the Church tells them they are wrong? Remember, these are the founders of heresies that even Protestants admit are heresies.

The evidence is the bishops and popes in the middle ages who engaged in everything from fornication to simony to bribery to extortion and some even say murder. Many of them were never removed from their positions because the held so much power in the church. I can’t say for sure that they were Christians or not, only God judges the heart, but their works show a lack of faith.

Very good. Can you show where any of these bishops and popes officially taught heresy, and were not disciplined for it? Because if they didn’t, though they did not live up to the Church’s teachings, and their actions brought scandal to the Church, this does not in any way show that they were false teachers.

My point is that if Apostolic succession is an unbroken chain handed down from bishop to bishop then there are certainly holes in that chain.

You equate a sinful life with loss of Apostolic Succession. This is a common fallacy of some Protestants. Jesus’ own words show this not to be true. Even though they led sinful lives, Jesus made it clear that those who sat in Moses’ seat had authority to teach, and those teachings were to be followed.

I totally disagree with this statement. Being a follower of Christ is about what happens inside a person and then what happens inside the person changes their attitudes and actions. A person can perform every act of piety and service and follow all the “rules” to a letter but still never have faith in Christ. And because they never had faith they are not Christians. This is true of anyone. Baptist, Methodist or Catholic… Being a Christian requires faith (belief, agreement, trust) in Christ. The church introduces us to Christ but we each must have a personal faith. Just being a Catholic or Baptist or Methodist…without an internalized faith just makes us religious.

You can disagree all you want. It just means you are wrong. Christ says if you love me, you will keep my commandments. The commandments and rules of the Catholic Church are Christ’s commandments. It is impossible to follow these commandments without having a love for Christ.

See, every bad pope or bishop that you can point to in history, I can show that they did not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yet you cannot show me even one person who followed the teachings of the Catholic Church, who did not lead an exemplary life.

Since communion is never said even once to be given to women in the bible, does that mean women receiving communion, is not of Apostolic origin?

 

[Duane1966]

From what I can tell from reading church history. Infant baptism started to be practiced sometime at the end of the 2nd century. The first explicit mention of it is by Tertullian around 200 who, ironically, advises against it due to the erroneous believe that some sins couldn’t be forgiven after baptism.

Now, put on your deductive reasoning cap. Why would Tertullian be advising against something, that you say did not exist? Wouldn’t the stronger argument against infant baptism be, that if it is as you say that this was not of Apostolic origin, why doesn’t he just play the not of Apostolic origin card, and be done with it? But he doesn’t, and that is telling. Furthermore, if his argument as to the reason why he advises against infant baptism is wrong, then what other reason does Tertullian give for rejecting infant baptism? None.

Hyppolytus is the first (I can find) to advise the baptizing of infants around 215.

In Against Heresies, Irenaeus specifically ties baptism to regeneration, and says that Jesus came so that even infants can be reborn. If Irenaeus does not believe in infant baptism, and yet he ties baptism to rebirth, how can he say that Jesus came so that infants can be reborn?

It could also just be that he was speaking generally such as how we may say “I’ve been a Christian all my life” when what I really mean is that I was taught to believe in Christ my entire life.

He was a Catholic bishop. Catholics believe we become Christian, when we are baptized. You will not find a single church father who calls the unbaptized Christian. Yet that is what you are asking us to believe in the case of Polycarp. From the article found here: calledtocommunion.com/2016/02/who-is-real-christian/

I grew up an evangelical Protestant and became Catholic only in 2003. In the Church of my youth, we had a troubling practice. We distinguished “real Christians” from Christians in name only. People who had gone to Church all of their life would come to our meetings and declare, “I’ve just now become a real Christian!” What they meant was that they had finally experienced conversion. In our minds, conversion was all that mattered. Everything else was just human tradition or ritual. The seemingly unconverted were not “real” Christians.

This way of speaking is not biblical, and it is certainly not Catholic. Scripture teaches that “everyone who is baptized has clothed himself with Christ.” (Galatians 3:27) According to St. Paul, we “have been buried with him by baptism into death so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead . . . we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4) It is baptism, not the psychological experience of conversion that marks you as a Christian. Conversion is important, but it’s a life-long process. It’s not the beginning of Christian life, and it’s certainly not the end of it.

 

[Duane1966]

I can actually think of a number of “picket fence” doctrines among Catholics, for which there is no “official Catholic Answer”:

1. Is evolution fact or just a theory? (Some on CAF passionately believe in Young Earth Creationism, others accept secular evolutionary theory, others take a middle ground position.)
2. Is it a sin to use a medication with abortifacient properties? (Many on CAF would say “of course” but apparently the answer per the USCB is “it depends, there are cases where it can be justified by the Doctrine of Double Effect”.)
3. Did Mary die before her Ascension, or not?
4. Is personal Marian devotion required for salvation? (And actually I think this may actually be an official answer, No, but many think “but it’s very unlikely a Catholic can be saved without such a devotion, so every Catholic should at least say the Rosary”.)

You miss the whole point. Who has the authority to decide what is a picket fence? The Church, or me? What if the Church says something is a picket fence, and I decide it is a brick wall. Should I break away from the Church, and start my own community of believers? This is what has happened in every schism throughout history.

An answer to The Catholics are Divided to Objection.

calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/the-catholics-are-divided-too-objection/

 

[susanlo]

Except some translations of Justin’s say they were illuminated as infants, and Justin makes it clear that illuminated is synonymous with baptism.

Which translation is this? Can you provide a link or a source for this? I can’t find this version.

 

[lanman87]

Except some translations of Justin’s say they were illuminated as infants, and Justin makes it clear that illuminated is synonymous with baptism.

And many say young children

If your pastor says to you that your sins are not forgiven, would you accept his judgement?

If I am seeking to be restored in my relationship to God then my pastor is a guide. However, He cannot speak for God.

What is to keep such a person from joining another church down the road, which will not excommunicate him for such behavior?

The same thing that keeps an excommunicated Catholic from joining another church

Correct. And sometimes the false teacher does not realize they are teaching false. Every heresy in the history of the Church, including those that Protestants admit were heresy, were started by priests who sincerely believed the Holy Spirit was guiding them.

What should they have done, when they sincerely believe they are guided by the Spirit, but the Church tells them they are wrong? Remember, these are the founders of heresies that even Protestants admit are heresies.

The fact that the RCC and most Protestants agree on what is heresy is a good thing.

Very good. Can you show where any of these bishops and popes officially taught heresy, and were not disciplined for it? Because if they didn’t, though they did not live up to the Church’s teachings, and their actions brought scandal to the Church, this does not in any way show that they were false teachers.

You equate a sinful life with loss of Apostolic Succession. This is a common fallacy of some Protestants. Jesus’ own words show this not to be true. Even though they led sinful lives, Jesus made it clear that those who sat in Moses’ seat had authority to teach, and those teachings were to be followed.

You can disagree all you want. It just means you are wrong. Christ says if you love me, you will keep my commandments. The commandments and rules of the Catholic Church are Christ’s commandments. It is impossible to follow these commandments without having a love for Christ.

See, every bad pope or bishop that you can point to in history, I can show that they did not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yet you cannot show me even one person who followed the teachings of the Catholic Church, who did not lead an exemplary life.

So you think you can be a Christian without faith? Or maybe that it is impossible to follow the rules of the Catholic church without developing faith? What about all the folks in history who have followed the rules for political or personal agendas, yet lived wicked lives?

Since communion is never said even once to be given to women in the bible, does that mean women receiving communion, is not of Apostolic origin?

I have know idea why you mentioned this… But, Both Men and Women are believers so when the Bible say “When you come together” it is talking about both men and women.

 

[lanman87]

Now, put on your deductive reasoning cap. Why would Tertullian be advising against something, that you say did not exist? Wouldn’t the stronger argument against infant baptism be, that if it is as you say that this was not of Apostolic origin, why doesn’t he just play the not of Apostolic origin card, and be done with it? But he doesn’t, and that is telling. Furthermore, if his argument as to the reason why he advises against infant baptism is wrong, then what other reason does Tertullian give for rejecting infant baptism? None.

I didn’t say it didn’t exist. I said it started to be practiced sometime in the late 2nd Century.

In Against Heresies, Irenaeus specifically ties baptism to regeneration, and says that Jesus came so that even infants can be reborn. If Irenaeus does not believe in infant baptism, and yet he ties baptism to rebirth, how can he say that Jesus came so that infants can be reborn?

Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in the late 2nd Century. Perhaps his writings influenced the beginning of the practice.

He was a Catholic bishop. Catholics believe we become Christian, when we are baptized. You will not find a single church father who calls the unbaptized Christian. Yet that is what you are asking us to believe in the case of Polycarp. From the article found here: calledtocommunion.com/2016/02/who-is-real-christian/

No, I am saying it isn’t clear if he was baptized as an infant.

 

[Vonsalza]

The article on the Mayan Catholics indicates it has been going on for hundreds of years…
The nature of the ritual in Mayan Mexico is also troubling as it is in effect, sacrificing an animal on the alter…

All due respect, but what else can the Church do beyond authoritatively blasting it? The Papal Army hasn’t really existed since 1870, so it’s not like she can deploy troops to root out the heretics as occurred in the “days of old”.

You would also concede, I’m sure, that these heresies are fringe and do not accurately describe the majority of Catholics in Mexico, right?

I’m sorry, but what you describe sounds a lot like denominationism. The difference is that in the Protestant world consensus and cooperation define dogmatic doctrine instead of Rome.

As someone who was long-time Protestant, this authoritative reality you mention simply does not exist. Like, I don’t know how else to say it. It’s just not real. Not a part of reality. Both the “absolutely anything goes” Unitarians and the “very little ‘goes’” Amish are both valid claimants of the legacy of the Protestant Reformation. What consensus and cooperation exist between those two?

Having the same name on the door or having the same core(dogmatic) beliefs doesn’t make Catholics any more unified than Baptist are with Methodist.

You’re completely wrong here. The Baptist and the Methodist can disagree on anything they want and form a new denomination without any guilt. Usually, they experience the opposite of guilt post-schism.

As a Catholic, when something comes down from “The Chair”; that’s it. There is no room for disagreement on that specific point. To refuse is to cease to be Catholic. Thus, we are One Church in a way that isn’t even shared by Baptists among themselves; much less juxtaposed with one of the other thousands of flavors of Protestantism.

 

[Vonsalza]

I didn’t say it didn’t exist. I said it started to be practiced sometime in the late 2nd Century.

The earliest surviving references are from the late 2nd. Don’t forget, though, it was practically the start of the 2nd when the New Testament was even finished.

As Christianity didn’t go “main stream” until the 4th or 5th, it’s incredible that much has survived. I wish Paul’s epistle to Laodicea did. Imagine what would be in that.

The gap is essentially non-existent. No surprise that all Christianity practiced infant-baptism until the Reformation and then the overwhelming majority of Protestants themselves practiced it until the rise of evangelicalism in just the last two centuries.

On infant baptism, you guys are the “new kids on the block”. Not us. :nope:

Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in the late 2nd Century. Perhaps his writings influenced the beginning of the practice.

Perhaps. But very, very likely not.

No, I am saying it isn’t clear if he was baptized as an infant.

We often see what we want, even when the truth is in-your-face obvious. Reminds me of my Baptist days when I was positive that Baptism played no role at all in the process of salvation. The Stone-Campbell Restorationists assured me I was wrong. We read the same bible.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The earliest surviving references are from the late 2nd. Don’t forget, though, it was practically the start of the 2nd when the New Testament was even finished.

As Christianity didn’t go “main stream” until the 4th or 5th, it’s incredible that much has survived.

The gap is essentially non-existent. No surprise that all Christianity practiced infant-baptism until the Reformation and then the overwhelming majority of Protestants themselves practiced it until the rise of evangelicalism in just the last two centuries.

On infant baptism, you guys are the “new kids on the block”. Not us. :nope:

Perhaps. But very, very likely not.

Not just the new kids on the block, but these particular denominations are the extreme minority as many Protestants also see value in infant baptism and practice it themselves.

If there is some sort of age of reason and requirement of repentance first, how come all the other Protestants who read the same bible don’t see it that way?

 

[Vonsalza]

Not just the new kids on the block, but these particular denominations are the extreme minority as many Protestants also see value in infant baptism and practice it themselves.

If there is some sort of age of reason and requirement of repentance first, how come all the other Protestants who read the same bible don’t see it that way?

Ah, the “age of accountability”.

Chalk it up as another entrant in the long list of common Protestant (specifically evangelical) beliefs that enjoy virtually no scriptural support (even less than infant baptism, anyway) yet still remains a core-belief of many who superficially confess “sola-scriptura”.

 

[adf417]

…how come all the other Protestants who read the same bible don’t see it that way?

A question that can and should be asked about so many Protestant differences.

Peace!!!

 

[Duane1966]

If I am seeking to be restored in my relationship to God then my pastor is a guide. However, He cannot speak for God.

Then what you said here is not true, as bishops have Christ given Divine Authority to bind and loose us.

Of course, we call our bishops elders or pastors but the role is the same.

You have just definitively shown that the role is not the same. You admit, that your pastor cannot bind you, he can only guide you. In reality, the one you submit to is yourself. You make your interpretation of the bible what binds you.

The same thing that keeps an excommunicated Catholic from joining another church.

From calledtocommunion.com

And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matthew 18:17.)

Jesus had just said in Matthew 16 that He would build His Church, a singular thing. Now here, in Matthew 18:17, through what He says about Church discipline, He shows us that the Church has a visible hierarchy, something to which we can tell things, and (perhaps more importantly) to which we can listen. This verse shows that the Church can excommunicate those in sin. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5.) But since communication is a visible thing, only a visible hierarchy can excommunicate those in sin. For an “invisible church” to be able to excommunicate, communion would also have to be invisible.

**Furthermore, the imperative to excommunicate makes little sense in the denominations-are-mere-branches ecclesial view, since an excommunicate can simply go down the street to the next church agreeing with or tolerating his doctrine or moral conduct. This ability runs against the Church’s duty to “deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”**30 The visible Church therefore must have one visible hierarchy. There is no small irony in the Protestant notion of discipline as a “mark of the Church,” when discipline requires precisely the hierarchical unity that Protestantism lacks.

He may fool himself into believing he is joining another Church, but Christ founded only one Church. You may not agree that it is the Catholic Church, but that one Church with the ability to deliver a juridical decision that is binding here, and in Heaven, must exist somewhere. You’ve already admitted above that your pastor cannot bind you. For any Christian to attend a church that they do not believe has the authority to bind them, should be troubling to that Christian.

The fact that the RCC and most Protestants agree on what is heresy is a good thing.

You are not answering the question though. What should those heretics, who sincerely believed they were being guided by the Holy Spirit have done, when the Church told them they were wrong? Remember, Protestants agree these were heretics.

So you think you can be a Christian without faith? Or maybe that it is impossible to follow the rules of the Catholic church without developing faith?

Again from calledtocommunion.com

In the Protestant paradigm, anyone who has true faith in Christ is ipso facto a member of the one Church that Christ founded. This Protestant paradigm does not acknowledge that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body.1 By contrast, the Catholic Church for 2,000 years has believed and taught that the incarnate Christ founded a visible, hierarchically organized Body. In the Catholic paradigm, **faith in Christ is not sufficient by itself to make a person a member of this Body; a believer is incorporated into this Body by valid baptism, **but is removed from this Body either by heresy, apostasy, schism, or excommunication.

What about all the folks in history who have followed the rules for political or personal agendas, yet lived wicked lives?

If they led wicked lives, they were not following the rules of the Catholic Church. **Again, I ask you to show me one bad pope who was following the rules of the Catholic Church. **

I have know idea why you mentioned this… But, Both Men and Women are believers so when the Bible say “When you come together” it is talking about both men and women.

Well, it’s not mentioned that women receive communion. You are reading something into the text. But Scripture never says women received communion.

5Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

How does an unbaptized infant enter the kingdom of God?

If infants are not to be baptized, is it not easier to enter the Old Covenant, than the New?