Calvin's argument isn't fallacious. The demand by the anabaptist for a verse for infant baptism was specious, and the suggestion that women would need the same sort of demand is a reductio.
Is it unreasonable to require a clear text laying out the command or providing an example of what it looks like? Do we obey any other commands that are of this variety? ie. two or more texts that do not not refer to the act itself, but are read and combined within a theological framework in other for it to work. I know of no other commands that bind our consciences but the kind that is stated explicitly, or an example given, in Scripture alone. it seems that paedobaptism stands out as being named as a command but is not "cut from the same block" as all other commands.
that women shall partake of the Supper answers the question: who must obey this rule? As with all commands, they are to obey it to whom it applies. We know that the command was technically given to the 12, and by extension, those who believed because of their testimony. That includes women. Inference is the means of answering this question, if not, the Bible would become nothing but a bunch of lists. In the 10 Commandments, God does not list the 12 tribes of Israel in the introduction to make sure they all know that it applies to them. If you belong to the group that the command is given to, then it applies to you. A personal command to all members would be impossible.
that believers must baptize their infant children answers the question: what must we do? This is a very different question, the answer of which must come from scripture alone, either explicitly, or by example - not by inference. This is how we determine the answer to this question in every situation of this sort. Where do find the scriptural command or example that infants are to be splashed with water?
Calvin erroneously equated these two very different question-types.
You say that the Lord's Supper is for disciples, which you then define as "comprising men and women." This definition should really come with some rigorous Scriptural support, instead of being assumed as "self-evident."
Acts 9:36, "Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity."
Who are disciples? Disciples are those who are taught the faith, being counted as citizens of the spiritual kingdom. I say the church has had disciples since the beginning. But I'll choose an arbitrary start with Abraham. "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has spoken to him." Gen.18:19 Children down to infants are disciples by any just measure in the Old Testament.
The paedobaptist is not exempt from problems with definition. Because you use verses that do not actually contain the word "disciple", you must (arbitrarily, as you admit) assign the definition of "disciple" according to your framework. You are right that children have been commanded to be taught the faith and be raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord. But technically speaking, "disciple" is a New Testament term. The best scriptural definition comes from the Great Commission. Regardless of age, a disciple is made when he/she is baptized as is
taught to obey everything the original disciples of Jesus were commanded. It is important that they are not merely passively taught the faith, but are capable of actively obeying it. There are certainly a few hints as to who is capable of being included in this set. Are infants taught the faith? how? Do infants obey Jesus' commands? how?
