Infant Baptism and Women in Communion: Equal Inferences?

Caveman posted a large reply to one of my comments on the post on doing theology. I’ve decided to reply to a part of it (for now), as this may serve as a helpful example of what constitutes a “strong” inference from a “weak” inference when doing theology.

- Well, I was simply pointing out that who may participate in one sacrament is an equally valid question in terms of Scriptural inference as who may participate in the other sacrament. If you think that the practice of including infants in the sacrament of baptism involves inference, then I would ask why is it not equally true of women participating in communion. What I’m referring to specifically is the statement: “I don’t buy infant baptism because it crosses a line I cannot cross as a theologian.” So at least in this particular part of your essay and my point in my response, I think we can agree this is not an area of simple church improvisation…but of who may participate in the covenantal sacraments. Infant baptism doesn’t involve an immediate departure from the text, and neither does the inclusion of women in communion. Within the covenantal framework of Scripture, it’s a very natural and accurate (and I argue necessary) inference. Thus, I think it’s valid to ask if you (or others who share your view) would deny women communion on the same basis that you deny infants baptism. Hope that clarifies my initial post a bit. (PS: I know you said you made jokes, but I’m not sure readers would take the line about infant baptism as being intended as joke as currently phrased…it doesn’t suggest it in the wording, at least upon my reading).

Caveman’s argument is this:

1. You believe women should partake in the New Covenant celebratory feast (“Lord’s Supper”), even though this is not explicitly affirmed in Scripture.
2. I (Caveman) believe infants should be baptized, even though it is not explicitly affirmed in Scripture.
3. We both make equally-legitimate inferences from the text.
4. Therefore, if you want to set aside infant baptism, you have to set aside the conclusion that women can/should partake in communion.

There are several problems with this argument. But, essentially, I disagree with premise 1, which leads to a fault in premise 3, which destroys the whole argument.

I Corinthians 11:23-31 says (ESV):

1Co 11:23  For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
1Co 11:24  and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
1Co 11:25  In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
1Co 11:26  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
1Co 11:27  Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1Co 11:30  That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1Co 11:31  But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

Without a doubt, the “whoever” (v. 27), “anyone” (v. 29), “you” (v. 23, 30), “we” and “ourselves” (v. 31) means “male and female Christians at Corinth.” There is absolutely no warrant for suggesting these commands by Paul are gender discriminatory. The pronouns in this text are used to mean “men and women, Jews and Gentiles, people regardless of distinction,” and Paul asserts that it doesn’t matter who you are, this is the way you need to treat the Lord’s Supper.

Thus, women partaking in communion is, in fact, explicitly affirmed in Scripture – at least to the same degree as men partaking in the Lord’s supper in this text. This is true unless it can be demonstrated that Paul is taking to and about men only in this text. Premise 1 is invalid.

Thus, premise 3 is invalid. The inferences are not equal, and I would like to add an additional qualification to show this is true.

While women partaking in the requirements and rewards of a covenant is consistent in redemptive history (i.e. Mosaic covenant, New Covenant), infant baptism is not consistent with the pattern of believer’s baptism given in the New Testament. We have (virtual) certainty that “we,” “anyone,” etc.  in I Cor. 11 that women and men are being spoke about (unless it can be proved Paul’s audience is male only). We do not have certainty whether “household” Acts 16:15, 16:33, and Acts 18:8 is referring to infants as well as adults. In fact, given that in 2/3 of these cases (16:33 and 18:8), those who are baptized also believe (meaning they are not infants), consistency demands that our inference points towards believer’s baptism and away from infant baptism.

Therefore, infant baptism is a far weaker theological/exegetical inference (if it is a true “inference” at all) than women partaking in communion.