You are a form of reformed.
The problem here is that you seem to believe the Old Testament and New Testament are entirely different when in fact the New only confirms what the Old told us would happen. The old covenant isn’t different from the new covenant, it is only extended beyond Israel.
What an outlandish or careless statement! Then you need to read the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews, among other books. Among other things under the Mosaic covenant,
law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:12-13)
And
verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (Hebrews 9:1) Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:9-10)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)
For the New Cov. is distinctly said to be,
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:9)
In addition are 32 differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant listed here (http://www.christiantruthcenter.com/difference-between-the-old-covenant-and-the-new-covenant)
The old covenant came by Moses while the new covenant came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17)
The old covenant leads to death (kills) while the new covenant gives life (2 Cor 3:6)
The old covenant was ended by Jesus Christ (Roman 10:4) while the new covenant was established by Jesus Christ (Heb 8:6)
The old covenant enslaves (Gal 5:1)while the new covenant makes man free (gives freedom) (John 8:32. 36)
The old covenant leaves man imperfect while the new covenant leaves man perfect (Heb 7:19)
The old covenant exposes sin (Gal 3:19) while the new covenant covers sin (Rom. 4:1-8)
The old covenant cannot give life (2 cor 3.7) while the new covenant gives life (Gal. 3:11, 6:8)...
cts 2:38-39 confirms this position when Peter commands new believers to be baptized. He stated clearly that the promises made by God via baptism were not only for believers but for their children also. This is no different than the old covenant,
This is more wresting to Scripture, as the promise is to their children not by baptizing infants, , which Peter does not tell them to do, but by receiving it the same way they did, by repentant faith, which is confessed in baptism!
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:2)
And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. (Acts 5:32)
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:14)
Under SS you are supposed to compare Scripture with Scripture, and in so doing we only see the promise of the Spirit received by faith, and nover any infants being either baptized or born again under the New covenant.
Instead you have to force circumcision into having a correspondence to baptism beyond what it written, so that instead of both signifying being under the covenant of God, who ignore the distinction under what condition each requires to be under that covenant.
Again, under the OC circumcision is distinctly commanded for infants , and is recorded, while under the New repentance and faith is distinctly commanded for baptism, and no where is infant baptism recorded, despite many instances of baptism, and with believing preceding it wherever more than a just a statament of baptism is provided.
they would have instantly recognized the connection between baptism and circumcision.
As do i, and being told they the requirements they would have instantly recognized the distinction in application.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)
In Acts 16:15 Lydia and her household were baptized. In Acts 16:33 the Philippian jailer and all his family were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul tells us that the household of Stephanas was baptized.
Which is all you have, and in which nowhere is there any mention of infants being baptized, despite this being such a cardinal practice, and despite the Holy Spirit providing many records of believing coming first, and which He gives as a prerequisite. The absence is conspicuous, and inconsistent with how the Spirit provides for other basic practices, while He stipulates repentant faith for baptism.
This mirrors Genesis 17 which taught that Abraham’s household was circumcised.
Only by reading that into the text, as in Genesis 17 it is distinctly stated "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (Genesis 17:12) Nor faith is required, in contrast to Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..(Acts 2:38)
In addition, Christ admonishes those that would keep children from him in Mark 10:15-16. Those who deny the children of believers a place in the covenant are specifically violating Christ’s command.
Now you are really resorting to Cath. type methods. No one is keeping infant from the kingdom of God by not baptizing them, and as with Caths, baptizing them gives them a false confidence that they are already Christians, children of God
. An uncircumcised infant did not go to Hell or miss Heaven if he died any more than a circumcised one did, and both needed to believe if they would be spiritual saved, though circumcision made him a sanctified member of the physical theocratic covenanted community in which he was given more grace towards salvation.
Baptism signifies being in the spiritual community which is by faith, not via a ritual! Baptizing your guiltless infant does not make him born again any more than not baptizing him will send him to Hell if he dies, but as with Lot's family, the presence of one believing spouse sanctifies the whole family, including an unbaptized spouse.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14)
But as at least in old times (before kids at 5 had ipads and TV for baby sitters) the wive and kids followed the decisions and faith of their father, so it could be said that if the father believed, so would the household. That is what needs to be the focus, not getting infants wet and giving them false confidence that they are already children of God.
Like I said, you don’t have a proper understanding of the connection between the Old and New Testament covenants. Circumcision is forward looking, it looks to Christ. Baptism looks to the work of Christ which has already been done.
Your problem is that you view baptism as a meaningless ritual which is why you discount the several occasions when scripture says the entire household or family was baptized. You get so close when you cite 1 Cor. 7:14 because that passage teaches us that even the children of one believer are blessed. Paul is clearly teaching that even in families where only one parent is a believer, those children are entitled to admission into the covenant via baptism. You’re denying children Christ by denying them admission into God’s covenant.
(Not sure, Daniel, why you reference infants as "guiltless" in a Biblical world that recognizes original sin passed down generation to generation)
Even the Psalmist recognized infants were far from "guiltless" (see Psalm 51:5; 58:3) ...
I've had to take Mormons to task on this matter quite often...and I'd hope you'd be one who wouldn't be siding with the Lds on this matter.