Evidence for God from Science

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:What ritual did baptism replace? Circumcision (as per Paul in Col. 2:11—12). Who was circumcised? Infants.

You are falsely equating baptism with circumcision. The fact that baptism replaced circumcision does not mean that baptism takes place in the same way or under the same circumstances as circumcision (it certainly did not).

Where in scripture does it say infants cannot be baptized? Nowhere.

That is an argument from silence, a classic logical fallacy. The point is that baptism was only undertaken by informed believers. Both understanding and faith are necessary for baptism, so babies are right out.

The arguement from silence is an arguement from the covenental perspective. Colossians 2:11, 12 do connect baptism and circumcision and it also demonstrates that circumcision was meant to be a spiritual sign. In Galatians 3, New Testament believers are linked to Abraham in the context of a discussion on those who are of the true circumcision.
Just as the Lord's Supper displaces the Passover, Circumcision moved over for Baptism.
The key is the starting point of the inquiry. Baptism is a sign of God's work rather than my response.

Blessings,
MC