D
DavidFilmer
Guest
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?
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?
