4 Reasons Acts 2:38–39 Does Not Imply Infant Baptism

Fifty days after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit and led by Peter, ignited a gospel movement that spread from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the world. Acts 2 records the riveting historical account of timid followers of Jesus leaving their hiding places and boldly preaching to crowds gathered from across the Roman Empire.

A natural reading of the text would uncover no references to the later practice of infant baptism. Yet, proponents of infant baptism cling to Acts 2:38–39 as biblical warrant for this tradition.


Six Reasons Colossians 2:11–12 Does Not Allow for Infant Baptism

Nowhere in the New Testament do we find either a command to baptize infants or even an instance of babies being baptized. No verse hints at this practice in the first century church.1 So, Christians who hold to this ritual try to forge a link between Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism. The lone New Testament passage they can find that could possibly be read to make this connection is Colossians 2:11–12.


Why Not Grandchildren? An Argument Against Reformed Paedobaptism


“In this article I offer a further objection to the Reformed paedobaptist argument. It is situated within the Barth-Jewett “similar but not identical” tradition of argumentation, agreeing with them that baptism and circumcision, while “standing in a similar place,” should nonetheless not be strictly equated.” - Themelios


Why I’m Still a Baptist: John 1:12-13 and Believer Baptism

Some of my best friends and my most admired heroes of the Christian faith believe in the practice of baptizing infants and bringing them into the membership of the church apart from any profession of faith. My love and respect for these dear brothers and venerable men of God has on more than one occasion inclined me to reconsider whether they’ve got it right and I’ve got it wrong.