Please read Col. 2:11-12, wherein Paul uses circumcision as a parallel to baptism. Since circumcision was only performed on infants, and rarely on adults, it stands to reason that he would not have used that parallel if he intended to exclude infants from baptism.
Also John 3:5. Jesus states that no one can enter his kingdom unless he is born again of the water and the Holy Spirit.
Circumcision and baptism are similar because they are both outward seals of their respective covenants. The Old Covenant was based on the nation of Israel. If you were born into that nation, you were therefore expected to be circumcized as a sign that you were bound by the covenant.
The New Covenant is not based on your ancestry, but based on belief. Baptizing an unbeliever would be pointless, for without belief the baptism symbolizes nothing. I don’t think infants or small children can really grasp what is required of them for belief.
” Please read Col. 2:11-12, wherein Paul uses circumcision as a parallel to baptism. Since circumcision was only performed on infants...”
If circumcision is parallel to baptism, where does this place infant girls with baptism?
And infant boys at that! So where did that leave the girls? They get bupkis? Circumcision in the OT was a sign of a covenant with the Lord. Water baptism is a sign also of a covenant with the Lord, but it is a public act that a new believer undergoes to testify to this act of faith and a desire to "walk in newness of life". No place in scripture says any outward act is necessary for salvation. It is by grace through faith that we are saved.
What makes you think "water" means baptism?