Typical Baptist playbook....go to all the passages of Scripture which DO NOT TEACH BAPTISM AND/OR DO NOT MENTION CHILDREN....then extrapolate Baptist assumptions and presuppositions into it. Bad hermenuetics. Contrariwise, for example, if I were to teach a class on Election, I would go to Eph. 1 and 2 and Romans 9; I would not start my study with the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.
This discussion is not about baptism (although that IS the point at which we are saved). This discussion is about whether or not children can, or even need to, be saved.
When we study salvation, we begin with all the verses that discuss salvation. Then we narrow that down to just the verses that talk about salvation from sin. Then we search those verse to find the requirements we must meet in order to receive the gift of salvation. The first and most frequently mentioned requirement is belief/faith. Faith/belief is the foundation upon which all other requirements for salvation rest. If we do not believe, doing all the other things mentioned in Scripture in relation to salvation are meaningless. But when we believe the other things have value.
It seems to me the best starting point to determine if the NT allows children to be baptized is to go to the passages of Scripture that teach baptism and mention children. Do they allow the practice? We only have two such texts in the NT....the Great Commission and Acts 2:38-39. I shall only deal with Acts in this post.
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Here we have two categories of individuals to be baptized. Adults who must repent and children who do not have to. And in the case of infants....it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to repent. Scriptures are replete with commands that only apply to adults....Helping widows, giving alms, feeding the poor, preaching the word, defending the faith, studying scripture do not apply to infants, broke bread, praying, shared their belongings, selling their possessions, and distributed the proceeds to those in need, confessing the faith and repenting. These are activities that infants of believing parents clearly could not participate in.
You seemed, in previous posts, to be arguing in favor of infant baptism. But now you are demonstrating that it is not only not necessary, but completely pointless and ineffectual.
But you are correct in this post, baptism is only for adults; only for people who have faith; only for people who understand that they are lost in sin with no hope to save themselves. Salvation, which is received during water baptism requires belief, repentance, and verbal confession of Jesus as Lord.
So why do Paedobaptists baptize infants who CAN NOT repent? It is the promises that are attached to baptism...the forgiveness of sins an the gift of the HS. Most Baptists have real difficulty here as they believe baptism contains no promises....it is purely man's work.
The promises attached to baptism are extremely important those that baptize infants as as baptism is seen as an instrument for the remedy of original sin....all born with imputed guilt. The promise of the "forgiveness of sins" destroys the curse and "gift of the HS" brings Christ to the infant. Pure monergism.
There is no imputed guilt of the original sin in infants. Children are born with a nature that causes them to sin, but I do not believe that they are not born lost.
No Trinity, No Creation, No Resurrection, No Hope, No Judgment, No Prayer. No Eternal life, No going to be with Jesus after death? No need in hearing God's word? No Church? No Lord's Prayer. No Baptism. No Lord's Supper. No ten Commandments. Your listing to too minimalistic for my liking. There is tremendous person to person variability what must be taught children with your listing.
Most of the things you list here are either included as details in "belief in Christ" or are not necessary to receive salvation.
Believing in the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit is part of belief in Jesus. If you don't believe He is who He said He was, then you don't really believe in Him.
Believing in Creation is part of belief in the Bible as the Word of God. If you don't believe in Creation, then you don't believe God's Word is without error or conflict, and so don't really believe in God.
Belief in the resurrection is central to belief in Jesus. As 1 Cor 15:17 says, if you don't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, then your faith is in vain and there is no salvation.
Everyone will go through Judgement, the righteous will be on the right (having already been in Heaven for the wedding celebration of the Church to Christ (Rev 19:11-20:7), and the unrighteous will be on the left and be sent to Hell. But everyone will be there for Judgement.
Eternal life is the reward we are saved to experience. You don't have to believe that it is there, but it is the hope we have.
There is no belief in Christ without hearing the Word of God preached (Rom 10:14).
The "Lord's Prayer" is not a special prayer we must recite. It is a pattern, a principle of prayer that we should emulate.
The Lord's Supper is not for the lost. It is only for those who understand Christ and the Church, because eating and drinking it without proper understanding results in further condemnation.
The ten commandments are part of the Old Covenant, and have no validity in the New Covenant.
Scripture gives no guidance in what is to be taught to children. But what about historical guidance? What about teaching children the content of the Creeds! The content of the Christian religion is all there in each of the articles which is closer to my listing than yours. The Nicene Creed is the summation of the Christian Faith here at CF.
There is no "creed" mentioned or listed in Scripture. I have never read all of the nicene creed (having never heard of it until the last couple of years), but I probably know and believe most all of what it teaches. Teaching some creed is teaching the Word of God second hand. It is better to go to the source, not someone else's interpretation of the source.
What about a new Christian who has children? How do new convert adults teach the content of Scripture to their children. We use historical guidance here also.
New Christ followers are still babes in Christ, and so still need to be fed themselves. So the teacher who brought them to Christ (or someone who supports the teacher) should still be there to continue deepening the roots of the new Christ follower and his/her children. You do not send children to feed, educate, and lead other children. Nor should you send babes in Christ to feed, educate, and lead those who are not yet in Christ to Him.
What about a Catechism? Martin Luther wrote his Small Catechism for just such purpose in which the sub-title states: As the head of the family should teach them in a simple way to his household.
Having never really studied any "catchism", I cannot speak to the value or benefit of such a thing. But having read a little bit of one just now, again I find that the best answers are in Scripture, not in someone else's interpretation of what they think of what the Scripture says. The answers in some catchism may or may not be consistent with what Scripture teaches.