Here is a summary of the main points in understanding the subject of water baptism.
1. Christ did command us who to baptize - it is not a silent issue - He clearly commanded us to baptize believers/disciples - Mt. 28:19-20, Mk. 16:15-16.
2. There's no practice of infant baptism by the church in Acts nor teaching of it in the Epistles and if they had practiced or taught infant baptism it would've violated Christ's command to baptize believers/disciples.
3. Scriptures most often cited to support infant baptism have nothing to do with baptism as baptism is not even under discussion in the texts cited. For example, Mt. 18:2-3,6 or 1 Cor. 7:11-16 or Mk. 10:13-16.
4. When one looks at the meaning of baptism and attempts to apply it to a baby it has no relevant meaning anymore.
• A baby cannot make a confession of faith - Acts 8:37.
• A baby cannot understand nor obey Christ's command to be baptized - Mt. 28:19-20.
• A baby cannot die to sin, be alive to God, and walk in the newness of life which is represented by baptism - Rom. 6:3-4,11.
• The Bible never teaches that baptism has replaced circumcision, rather baptism is an outward sign of inward regeneration - "circumcision made without hands" - Col. 2:11-12. Also, if circumcision was replaced by baptism why was that not stated with all the controversy over the subject of circumcision in the early church as recorded in Galatians and Acts 15? It would've been easy to end the argument if they simply told the Judaizers that baptism is the new covenant sign replacing circumcision. No such argument was ever made until John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, roughly 1,500 years later.
5. The nature of New Covenant membership - only those who know the Lord savingly and have received the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ belong to the New Covenant - Heb. 8:11-12. Unlike the Old Covenant in which the membership in the covenant community was by birth and circumcision (descendants of Abraham). New Covenant membership is by new birth and spiritual circumcision. It is a regenerated community of believers in Christ, not the flesh. Salvation is not hereditary.
Below is a summary statement concerning water baptism that succinctly states these truths and can be found in our church’s doctrinal statement found here (link):
We believe that baptism is by immersion (the very meaning of the word baptisma/baptizo in the Greek language) for believers only according to Christ’s command (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15-16). We see this command from Christ that those who hear and believe are then to be baptized carried out as a pattern by the New Testament Church in the book of Acts (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12-13; 8:35-38; 9:17-18; 10:43-48; 16:13-15; 30-34; 18:8). Baptism is a willful act of obedience by believers to Christ’s command (Mt. 28:19-20), accompanied by one’s confession of faith in Christ (Acts 8:37), and is a showing forth of one’s faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Savior, and illustrates our union with Christ in death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Him (Rom. 6:3-11).
Furthermore, household baptisms should be understood as the entire household heard the Word of God and believed it and thus the whole household was baptized because they believed, this evidence is explicitly stated in Scripture. In Acts 8:12 “both men and women were baptized” infants and children are not mentioned as being baptized even though the passage teaches “multitudes” (Acts 8:6) believed. In Acts 16:30-34 we have the baptism of the Philippian jailer’s household, with these words, “having believed in God with all his household” in verse 34, thus the entire household believed prior to being baptized. Also, Acts 18:8 states, “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” We see readily his entire household believed and we see again the New Testament pattern for water baptism – “hearing, believed, and were baptized.” The order is unmistakable. Infant baptism would have us to believe the order is baptism first, followed by hearing, and hopefully the infant will one day believe. This is nowhere taught nor practiced in all of Scripture and is in violation to the command of Christ to baptize those who believe, those who are already disciples (Mk. 16:15-16; Matt. 28:19), one must be of age to hear and believe before being baptized (Acts 8:12).
The primary trouble with infant baptism is twofold. First, infant baptism is nowhere explicitly commanded or taught by Christ or the apostles. However, the baptism of believers is explicitly commanded by Christ, see Mark 16:15-16, 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” The order in Christ’s command is unmistakable and spelled out in clear language - hear, believe, and be baptized. The hearing and believing precede the baptism. Also, in Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus states, 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Notice again, the one’s he is telling us to baptize are those who are disciples and of age to be able to be taught and practice all that the Lord has commanded. No infant can rightly be said to be able to be taught and practice all the Lord has commanded. According to Christ baptism is reserved for disciples and whatever we believe about the age of these disciples, we know that they are old enough to be taught and observe everything the Lord has commanded.
Secondly, the trouble with infant baptism is there are no Biblical texts showing that the church practiced the baptism of infants. However, every text concerning water baptism reveals that believers were baptized just as Christ commanded it to be. For example, Acts 8:36-38, 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” Also, consider this simple text in Acts 18:8, 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” Every Biblical text reveals belief before baptism, never baptism before belief. In the case of households that were baptized it is evident from the text that everyone in the household believed and thus everyone in the household was baptized because everyone believed. For example, Acts 16:30-34, it reads, 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” Notice the bold print, the Word of the Lord was spoken to “all who were in his house”, “he and all his family were baptized”, “having believed in God with all his household.” Notice again, they all heard, all believed, thus they were all baptized. It is not true that based on one person’s faith in the house that all were baptized. No such Biblical example exists, it would violate Christ’s command concerning baptism, who Himself was baptized as an adult of roughly 30 years of age.
We consider infant baptism to be an invalid form of water baptism because it is nowhere explicitly taught nor practiced by our Lord nor His apostles, while believers' baptism is clearly taught and practiced by them.
Other than the clear Biblical case for believers’ baptism is the historical argument. Consider this brief historical argument: Infant baptism was added later by those propagating infant baptism as a means of securing salvation, also known as baptismal regeneration, commonly practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and Lutherans to this day. The idea of infant baptism became normalized in the 3rd or 4th century according to most church historians. Much later, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin among others came along in the 16th century and changed the meaning of infant baptism from that of saving grace or baptismal regeneration as taught by the Roman Catholic Church and Lutherans to that of covenantal baptism in which they viewed baptism as replacing circumcision and saw baptism as a sign of entrance into the covenant community and a promise of the child's salvation, etc. It must be stated that presumptive regeneration was taught by Calvin, Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva), John Knox, and more recently Herman Bavinck, and much more recently Pierre Marcel in his book, "The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism", which by many in the Reformed community has become the gold standard in defense of this unbiblical practice. We assume the child is saved until we learn otherwise but to think otherwise is to question the promise of God to them for their salvation because they are children of the covenant, or so they would say. Perhaps to illustrate the idea of presumptive regeneration a couple quotes might be helpful. From the Canons of Dort 1.17 - "godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy." Marcel in his book states, "original sin is indeed partially and in principle nullified by baptism though not totally so" (page 147) and "He has removed condemnation for the children of the covenant" (page 108). John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, said, "From this it follows that the children of believers are baptized not in order that they who were previously strangers to the church may then for the first time become children of God, but rather that, because by the blessing of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ, they are received into the church with this solemn sign" (Calvin, Institutes, 4:15:22). You can see they are all teaching a modification of Rome's teaching... don't doubt their election, original sin is nullified, no condemnation to covenant kids, they were never strangers to the church, they already belong to the body of Christ... such theological gymnastics that muddle the mind and have no Biblical grounding but reflect the same superstitions as the Roman Catholic Church. The more one considers the origins and teachings of infant baptism whether it be regenerative or covenantal, the more one realizes what is in play is not Biblical exegesis but a theological system or theological construction driving the narrative because they can't point to a single text that explicitly teaches what they claim. For example, what Scripture says, my children belong to the body of Christ or have no condemnation or are undoubtedly elect simply by nature of the fact that I am a believer and water was sprinkled on them as a sign? The danger is you end up with a lot of people thinking they are saved by virtue of their birth to believing parents and baptism into the covenant community when they are not saved and have no true faith, it is simply formulaic religion. Just as first century Jews thought they were saved by virtue of their birth and circumcision into the covenant community so that when John the Baptist and Jesus came along calling people to repent and believe they simply said we have Abraham as our father and practiced a formulaic religion apart from true faith. This has led to many churches being filled with unsaved people as they are deceived into thinking they are right with God simply because they were born to a believing parent/s and baptized for that reason, they were then catechized, and knew what questions to say yes to for their “profession of faith” and we call this conversion! It is utter deception, and a distortion of the truth. Not to mention that covenantal infant baptism is a modern invention of the 1500’s as no one ever taught nor practiced infant baptism in a covenantal sense until John Calvin came along among others and invented this practice.
In conclusion, since there is not one verse which commands us to baptize the children of believers nor one verse that shows the apostolic church baptized the children of believers then we shouldn’t practice that in our churches today. Churches that do baptize infants are not following the teachings of Christ nor the practice of the New Testament. Let us follow Christ’s command and the pattern of the New Testament church and baptize those who are of age to be believers/disciples of Christ. However, we will have fellowship with all those who believe that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation and not make this subject of baptism grounds for Christian fellowship.
We believe that marriage is the permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, and conjugal “one flesh” union of one man and one woman, intrinsically ordered to procreation and biological family, and in furtherance of the moral, spiritual, and public good of binding father, mother, and child. (Gen. 1:27–28; 2:18–24; Matt. 19:4–9; Mark 10:5–9; Eph. 5:31–33). God created humankind in His image: male (man) and female (woman), sexually different but with equal personal dignity. We support the dignity of individual persons affirming their biological sex and discouraging any and all attempts to physically change, alter, or disagree with their predominant biological sex—including but not limited to elective sex-reassignment, transvestite, transgender, or nonbinary “genderqueer” acts or conduct. (Gen. 1:26–28; Rom. 1:26–32; 1 Cor. 6:9–11). We affirm the sexual complementarity of man and woman and teach that any and all same-sex sexual attractions are to be resisted. Consequently, believers are to refrain from any and all same-sex sexual acts or conduct, which are intrinsically disordered. (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; Matt. 19:4–6; Mark 10:5–9; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–11). We conclude then that same sex marriage is not permissible in the sight of God and no such union should be allowed between two males or two females.
We believe in the sanctity of human life and that life begins at the moment of conception and as such should be protected from death when the life of the mother is not at stake. The right to life and physical integrity of every unborn human life is inviolable —it is not a concession made by society or the government but is instead inherent to the unborn human life by virtue of its creation in the image of God. (Ps. 139:13-14; Isa. 49:5; Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15).
We teach the autonomy of the local church, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations (Titus 1:5). We teach that it is scriptural for true churches to cooperate with each other for the presentation and propagation of the faith. Each local church, however, through its elders and their understanding and application of Scripture, should be the sole judge of the measure and method of its cooperation. The elders should determine all other matters of membership, policy, discipline, benevolence, and government as well (Acts 15:19-31; 20:28; 1 Corinthians 5:4-7,13; 1 Peter 5:1-4).