About Biblical Baptisms 

One of the most aggravating things about the false doctrine of baptism is the fact that the world promotes infant baptism, even television promotes infant baptism. People have all this faith in God, yet have everything completely wrong because they go by what they are told rather than by seeing or learning the truth for themselves through the Bible. Many groups of Christians sprinkle or pour water upon infants and call it baptism. Some teach that it is necessary to save a child from hell while others see it only as a dedication to God and a way to add to the "covenant" community. There are many good reasons why infant baptism is wrong:

Infant Baptism is Unnecessary
Many feel that if infants die without baptism they will go to hell and thus baptism is the means to remove original sin and save them from hell. However, if that were the case then why do those who are baptized need to be later "confirmed" in personal faith? Apparently, after baptism they still possess a sinful nature, they still sin and they still die which are all the consequences of being related to Adam and original sin.

Infants have no ability to rationally discriminate between right and wrong and therefore they will have no sin held against them if they die in that state. Moreover, those who are cast into hell are said to be judged "every man" according to their "OWN WORKS." Hence, eternal punishment is a consequence for PERSONAL sins rather than for the singular "sin" of Adam. Hence, the Bible clearly teaches that eternal punishment by God is strictly "according to the works done in the flesh." Hell is a consequence of INDIVIDUAL and PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY for the wrong works performed in their OWN body. Hence, Scripture is silent about eternal punishment of infants, but it is not silent about the God's preservation of infants from "sheol" as in the case of Korah's children and it is not silent about the future of dying infants as in the case of David's son.
 
When God cast Korah and all his family into "hell" He preserved Korah's children. What a clear picture we have in the preservation of Korah's children. "And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: and they became a sign. Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not." - Numbers 26:10,11.

When David's infant child died he clearly expressed hope to see him again. The Bible clearly tells us that God does not punish the children for the sins of their fathers but only for their own sins. "And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." - II Samuel 12:18-23.

It is not silent about children suffering for the sins of their fathers (they do not). It is not silent about the basis for eternal punishment in hell, "according to their own works" and dying infants are without such works. If baptism was necessary to procure the eternal safety of infants from hell we should not only find clear and unambiguous commands in scripture for parents to baptize their children, but we should be able to find many examples as well because what can be more urgent and more appealing to the hearts of parents than to procure the safety of their children.

Infant Baptism is Not in Scripture
There is not one verse in Scripture that commands infants to be baptized. There is not one example found in Scripture where any infant was baptized. Some imagine or suppose infants may have been included in the "household" baptisms in the book of Acts. Do these scriptures say that? No! One can just as easily suppose no infants were baptized in these cases and be more in keeping with what the Bible does tell us about such household baptism.

If we are going to imagine anything about these household baptisms there is far more evidence to reject infant baptism than to justify it. Some believe that Matthew 18 where Jesus commanded to let little children come to Him supports infant baptism. However, this is a "dry" text as no baptism whatsoever is mentioned. Secondly, these "little" children were old enough to come to him by their own choice as the disciples were attempting to keep them away from the Master. Some argue that baptism is like circumcision as circumcision was performed on infants under the "old" covenant in order to add them to the "covenant" community. Hence, some reason that we should baptize infants in order to add them to the "new" covenant community.

However, there is a vast difference between the "old" covenant and "new" covenant. The Bible is very clear that those who make up the new covenant community are those who are capable of knowing God. "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." - Jeremiah 31:33,34.

Hebrews quotes this very passage and identifies this covenant as the "new" covenant, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." - Hebrews 8:10-13.

The New Covenant community is made up of those whom God has down in inward work of grace in their minds and hearts so that they are able to KNOW God from the "least" to the "greatest." Hence, there is none in this covenant community that is not capable of KNOWING God for themselves without someone else teaching them. Babies would have to be taught by someone else. Circumcision was only performed on male infants and it was a picture of those repentant believers "born again" children of God under the new Covenant. Conclusion: Hence, baptism of infants is unnecessary and it is wholly unbiblical and those who practice it have no command or example of Scripture to teach and practice infant baptism.

Infant Baptism is Anti-Biblical
Infant baptism is not only unnecessary and unbiblical, but it is also contrary to Scriptures in many ways. It is an anti-biblical doctrine and practice. First, the scriptures require personal faith in Christ as the necessary prerequisite for baptism, meaning that baptism is for believers only. Every command to baptize in the Scriptures is preceded by the condition of repentant faith in the gospel. Second, those who claim to baptize infants distort the Biblical design and picture that baptism is meant to portray. Baptism is intended to publicly IDENTIFY one with salvation in Christ under the "new covenant." Remember, the new covenant community of saints are those capable of knowing God apart from anyone teaching them. This excludes infants. Furthermore, infant baptism distorts the intended picture that baptism is designed to identify the believer with. Baptism identifies the believer with the death, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ. The Greek New Testament has terms for "sprinkle" (rantizo) and "pouring" (epicheo) but such terms are never used for this ordinance. The only term used for this ordinance is "baptize" and it has the consistent historical meaning of "immerse, dip, plunge under." It is the only mode that can portray a burial or resurrection.

Infant Baptism Teaches False Doctrine
Both baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbolic pictures of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They both portray aspects of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Lord's Supper emphasizes his death by his shed blood and broken body. Baptism emphasizes the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What is the significance of a symbol? The ONLY significance is found in correctly portraying the truth they are designed to picture.

When a symbol is distorted then so is the truth it is designed to reveal. In this case we are talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ. How does infant baptism distort the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ? It does so in many ways. First, it identifies the gospel of Jesus Christ with someone who has not personally repented of sins and believed it. Thus it pictures the salvation of unbelievers in the gospel. Hence, it distorts the proper object of salvation. Second, it distorts the gospel by omitting the BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ for which it was designed to portray. It is a serious error to omit the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ from any symbolic enactment of the gospel. When an infant is sprinkled, poured or immersed another gospel is being preached by symbolic enactment. How serious is it to "preach another gospel", if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

In conclusion, it is unnecessary, unscriptural, perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it identifies you historically with those who were the greatest persecutors of God's people. All of these are good and solid reasons to leave such a church and find and join a true New Testament Church were the gospel is preached clearly in both the pulpit and in the ordinances as without scriptural baptism there can be no scriptural church. If you are not a member of one of Christ's churches and you are yet without scriptural baptism, you have been deceived and just got wet.