Where does it say infants cannot be married? Would Rome count that as a valid marriage if the parties had no say so in the matter, and before it was consummated (and the Biblical basis for annulments is an issue itself).
Regardless, an argument from silence may be reasonable in the light of countervailing evidence such as conditions, and the requirements given in the Bible for baptism are things which an infant cannot do, namely repentance and wholehearted faith. (Acts 2:28; 8:36-38) The apostles commanded then men should repent, but never commanded infant baptism, which, considering the implications (ensuring all kids are born again), would be a most conspicuous absence is that were the case.
In addition, in the infirmity of the subject in the oft invoked example of proxy faith (Mk. 2:2-12) was physical, not cognitive. 1Cor. 7:14 is perhaps the best verse, but as in the Old Testament whole households were blessed due to one believer (even Lot's) , while circumcision, which is a type of baptism, did not make one saved, while in the N.T. salvation requires regeneration. And as that is evidenced by manifest heart and life changes, i believe empirical evidence of baptized kids versus unbaptized, other things being similar, is wanting as regards showing such.
Does not Paul mention “whole households” being baptized? Would that not include children? Did not the early church baptize infants?
Yes to all three, but simply children is not the issue. It should not take as much to save children once they are at the age in which they “know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,” (Is. 7:15) to bring them to realize Jesus loves them (He does) and their need and means of salvation. Which can happen anywhere. What is lacking is any example or reference that infants were baptized, or that they need to be. I am of the persuasion here that children to a certain indefinite degree of maturity are not culpable, and will not be punished, due to inherited guilt (2Ki. 14:5-6; 2Chr. 25:4; Jer. 31:29-30; Eze.18:20) Adam's sin did lead to condemnation, that of his own and his progeny due to man having and yielding to his a sinful nature, (Gn. 4:7) and he also and suffers the temporal effects if Adam's sin, but the final judgment is based upon one's own works. (Rev. 20:12). 24:16; Rev. 20:12-14. They may be not be said to be righteous, that of having tested virtue, but they can be considered innocent.
“no one can enter the kingdom of God without first being born of water and Spirit” as a couple of examples.
Then you have a whole household being born again, having received the same Holy Spirit and baptism as the apostles, before they touched water or had hands laid on them. (Acts 10:43-47; cf. 11:18; 15:7-9) That being said, baptism normatively is synonymous with the effectual decision to believe, as saving faith in one that is confessional in nature. (Rm. 10:9,10) and baptism is like a “sinner's prayer” in body language.
But the contrast between the flesh and the Spirit in Jn. 3:3-7, consistent with John's constant juxtaposition, best corresponds to physical birth versus spiritual birth, rather than water baptism, which Jesus did not do himself and Paul distinguished it from preaching the gospel, (1Cor./ 1:17) his prime duty in birthing souls into the kingdom of God and body of Christ. And whose members are only those who are born again, and who are baptized into it when one is born again. (1Cor. 12:13; cf. Eph. 1:13; Acts 15:7-9) To the glory of God.
Where does Jesus say one must be married to enter heaven? Jesus says baptism is necessary for salvation; as far as I know he never said you had to be married. But I suspect you probably know that.
"baptism normatively is synonymous with the effectual decision to believe, as saving faith in one that is confessional in nature"
Well, that's your interpretation. I interpret it that Jesus said baptism is necessary for salvation; He did not say you had to be 18 to be baptized. As One Who was very clear about His love for children, I cannot imagine Him saying "no baptisms under the age of reason; if you die before then, well tough luck!".
I would think it would be obvious that those that were converting in apostolic times were adults, as Christianity was just beginning. The only infants would be those included in the "whole households". Were infants mentioned? No, but neither were teenagers, pre-teens, or anyone else. Nor were infants excluded. Does your bible say "the entire household, except the infants"?
I agree that adults must repent before they are baptized. In the early church, most of those becoming Christians were adults (although whole households are mentioned). So of course they would repent, since they were able to.
Well if you want to “read into” whole households that there were no infants, you certainly can; I choose to believe that some of those whole households included infants.
I think we also differ on “being born again” and “being baptized”. To me they are the same thing. It appears to you they are two things.
No, the early church baptized infants; it has been the teaching of the Church throughout the ages, there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it.
The crux of the issue, as is most disagreements between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, is whether the written Word is the only authority.