Part 2–Q. If infants were circumcised, why shouldn’t they be baptized?

A photo of an adult male being baptised by immersion.
Only those who can make a profession of their faith should be baptized. Public Domain found on Wikimedia

A. In Part 1, I explained that those who teach infant baptism base their practice on their claim that circumcision and baptism are just two outward signs of the same thing. They say, if infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, they can be baptized now because baptism is the New Testament continuation of circumcision. I pointed out that this is a false assumption because the Bible teaches that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, is the antitype of circumcision. Further, baptism is not an antitype of anything but a sign publicly declaring that God has spiritually circumcised or regenerated the sinner. Now, let’s look at some of the proof texts that infant baptizers use and see how these Scriptures are really no proof for infant baptism at all.


Acts 2:39 and Infant Baptism

For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:39

The proponents of infant baptism seem to use this Scripture as if it were a cornerstone of their doctrine. Almost all books and articles supporting infant baptism include this verse. But does Acts 2:39 support infant baptism or does it teach just the opposite?