The problem with their use of those verses is that they are assuming into the text that it also included infant baptism. That simply is not in the text. It is by the wildest and most broad of interpretations to think the early Church practiced such. These same people would never allow a JW or a Mormon to get away with such broad and wild interpretations, and yet they will turn right around and think to use that same broadness to try and defend infant baptism?
My question to them is, how does any infant express their faith in Christ in order to legitimize the outward obedience to baptism? We can see the leap-frog jumps they're making over many other passages that speak of this topic. Then we have some out there who think that baptism is a mechanism, to salvation, which also is not true. We can see in scripture that baptism is unto repentance and unto death. Also of note:
1 Peter 3:21 The
like figure whereunto [even]
baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
It's interesting how some will overlook the key points made in the verses they use, injecting all manner of things that aren't in the text or context, and create doctrines that find no support in the texts within the confines of the most broadness of credible interpretations.
That's like the soldier who experienced an enemy bullet ripping through his leg, going to see the drunken medic at the forward hospital, and told, "No, you've been stabbed...."
MM