Yes, because similarly to circumcision, members of the covenant are to be marked out for ownership by the Lord.Even if this were to be true, does it follow that they are to be baptized?
Good thoughts. We agree that the sign has indeed changed. But what is the nature of that change? Has it been made more restrictive, or less restrictive? A less restrictive assessment would favor including infants since they were included before.I read the comments by Rich above with much interest, perhaps I have been guilty of using 'circumcision is nothing' verses as a sound bite in the past. However, even if you say that baptism is a replacement for circumcision, don't we still have to admit that the sign has changed? One sign was a surgical act performed on male children, the other something done with water done to both males and females. So given that the sign has not gone completely unaltered between the Old and New Testaments, why is it so unbelievable that God would change the timing of its application as well?
To the timing of it, I suppose infants may be baptised earlier than the previous 8 day limit. Again, this would be an expansion.
Why does saying children are in the covenant seem to mean necessarily that they must be baptized?
One reason is the command in the great commission in which discipleship and baptism go together.
Thanks for a great discussion, Mark!