Baptism has been understood and practiced different ways within Christianity. I have felt, and this is just feelings without complete scriptural backing, that baptism is an act of obedience. It is to be done after a person trusts Christ. It is not a means of salvation, not that the regeneration cannot occur simultaneously, but I personally feel (again, feel not know) that there is a true baptism on the spirit or heart and this work is done by the Holy Spirit. Those who are saved by grace through faith are to be baptised to show their faith publicly, because it is commanded.
I do not believe infant baptism hurts anyone, but do not believe it is necessary. I was baptised at a very young age (baby or toddler) and later trusted Christ. Because I had been baptised Lutheran and at a young age (I recall it, recall crying…so I think I had to be older than an infant) I decided to be baptised later as an adult to publicly show my faith. Christ was baptised, so no Christian should be above the act of water baptism.
I believe, unless there is a physical reason why not, that a person should be immersed. It was how Christ did it. Baptism represents a cleansing, and I believe it’s best shown through actual dunking. Sprinkling is not wrong in my opinion, I just think the dunking is a better way.
So, how’s that for clear as mud? I want to study baptism again. I know that I went through it in college because some guys from the Church of Christ were stressing the need for baptism for salvation. I recall coming out of those talks with the belief that the water baptism was for obedience as a symbol of our cleansing, but that those who trust Christ and are saved by grace through faith have a baptism that is from the Holy Spirit and not only of water. There is no magic in the act, no magic in the water. Of course, I also have heard Charismatic people claim tongues etc as a sign of Holy Spirit baptism and I say that is hogwash (respectfully, of course).
Anyone want to give a scriptural reason for baptism…either dunking wholly…sprinkling…infant…after trusting Christ…or whatever variation thereof. I know there is a right way, a right true answer about baptism. I know God knows. I just want to be clear about it myself.
I have been in contact with a Lutheran on this issue of baptism and have not been satisfied with infant baptism. I was told it has been a tradition through the ages to baptise infants…but why is this not modeled in Acts?
I am a C...I am a CH...I am a CHRISTIAN 
Baptism is an act of obedience just as circumcision was. Abraham believed and was circumcised. He was instructed to apply circumcision to his children henceforth.
So, the act of obedience in baptism comes when a first generation believer obeys God and is baptized. The obedience after that fact comes from believers also applying it to their children, just like Abraham.
When Peter said in Acts 2:38 (speaking to a primarily Jewish audience very familiar with the place of children in the covenant) “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of CHrist for the forgiveness of your sins…” He could not have meant “Repent and be baptized JUST ADULTS” He meant “every one” just as he said. That would include covenant children.
Think about it. If children had been included in the covenant sign (circumcision) for 2000 years prior to the time of Christ, then not allowed to participate in the “new” covenant sight (baptism) there would have been 1000 questions to the apostles as to why the radical change. Instead, the absence of any such questions in the epistles seems to argue there was no controversy. The first generation Christians understood the unity between the covenant people before Christ and after Christ.
Baptism is about what God promises and has done for us. It is a picture of His initiative and grace while we are passive.