Paul mentions the mind, reason and beliefs in that chapter and does not mention anything about it being acceptable to baptize an infant.
Paul doesn’t mention anything about baptizing infants because he is addressing adults; the clue being that he mentions the mind, reason, and beliefs in that chapter.
One must also acknowledge that if Paul had an issue with infant baptism, this chapter would’ve been an excellent time to address it. He doesn’t. And it’s not mentioned anywhere else in the bible either; that is, nowhere is it expressly forbidden.
In the OT, children of believers were included in God’s Covenant. Therefore, we can presume that Jewish converts to Christianity in the NT would have no problem understanding the idea that their children were included in the New Covenant - particularly since baptism was the new circumcision. This is important because baptism marks the child as part of the visible Body of Christ.
Circumcism was preformed only on males…is there anything that Paul said that establishes that, likewise, baptism is only for males?
It appears that you are saying the Old Covenant only applied to males because circumcision was only performed on males. But, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you realize the Old Covenant applied to males and females (i.e., Abraham’s descendants). With that in mind, your question about baptism being only for males makes no sense.
Circumcism caused a permanent physical change…is there anything that Paul said that establishes that, likewise, baptism caused a permanent physical change?
I think you’re somewhat confused about the reason Paul uses the analogy - it’s not to compare the rituals, it’s to compare the Covenants in a way that the Jewish converts can understand. Just because baptism doesn’t involve a knife and foreskin doesn’t mean that the analogy Paul is making is emptied of its meaning. Circumcision was a mark of the Old Covenant and resulted in a spiritual change - a relationship between Abraham/his descendants and God (see Gen. 17). Likewise, baptism reflects the same for the New Covenant.
Circumcism was preformed on both infant and adult males…is there anything that Paul said that establishes that, likewise, baptism can be performed on both infant and adult males?
He didn’t address it because it wasn’t an issue.
In light of the fact that the Old Covenant promises were extended to children, is there any evidence to suggest that the (greater) New Covenant promises would not also be extended to infant children of believing adults?
As a matter of fact, there is at least some support that those promises were extended to infant children of believing adults (see Acts 2:38–39).
The connection that Paul makes is that, like circumcision, baptism cut off something that was undesirable. With circumcision a foreskin was cut off…with baptism it was the sinful nature that was cut off.
This is silly. You’re saying that Paul was comparing the act of carving off the foreskin of a male penis, to baptism cutting off our sin nature? So the water is the new
izmail… and the person’s body is the new penis/foreskin? You see how silly this is, right?
Paul is trying to explain the New Covenant to Jewish converts, that’s all.
** It should be stressed, however, that Paul did not claim that baptism achieved this by itself. On the contrary, it is expressly stated that faith is involved and that God was the Agent **
Achieved what by itself? Yes, faith is required for salvation. However, as you know by now, Paul was speaking to adults! As Paul writes, God gives
each of us a certain measure of faith (Romans 12:3), and this faith is a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9). As a gift, it is not something that we can earn as a result of racking up birthdays, but we will be judged according to the gifts God has given us (Romans 12:6-24).
Assuming God withholds the gift of faith from infants, it’s worth noting that even though Abraham confessed his faith some time before he was circumcised, Isaac was marked with the covenant before he confessed his faith in God. (Gen 21:4). So, there is some evidence that when it comes to God’s covenant promises, there is no standard chronology between faith and the covenant ritual.
With that in mind it’s easy to understand why Paul doesn’t address the issue of infant baptism - he’s addressing adults who have the ability to understand, and to reason. He’s addressing adults who offend God by failing to do good (sin of omission) and who do things they shouldn’t be doing (sin of commission). Infants lack the ability to know good from evil and are therefore judged innocent by God. (Deut. 1:34-40) If judged innocent by God, then death has lost its sting. (1 Cor. 15:55-57)
Finally, let’s assume that infants are totally depraved and unbelieving creatures. Unbelievers can be saved by their Holy loved ones, and Paul says that the children of believers are set apart to God (see 1 Cor. 7:12–14).
when and where is another method described with approval?
About a quarter of the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament involve entire households, which probably included children (even if it’s a “50%” probability, those are still pretty good odds). So, baptizing entire households at one time seems to be perfectly acceptable.
