Acts 2:37-39 and Paedobaptism

[JML]

Acts 2:37-39

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

I would like help understanding these verses from a paedobaptist point of view because it is usually one of the first sections that someone goes to when they are talking to me about why the church should baptize infants. To me, the verses don’t seem at all like a proof of paedobaptism although I guess it would be argued that it is truly covenant inclusion that the paedobaptist is appealing to here. I don’t really see that either. I am not asking in order to try and prove anyone wrong, I just want to be able to see what you see in these verses. The verses just seem to say that the promise (Holy Spirit and salvation) is to anyone who repents whether it be the group congregated there, their children (future generations), or those afar off. In my mind, “your children” is nothing more than Peter saying that the promise was not a temporary one for only that generation but a continual promise.

What am I missing?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do not see how you make the leap from "your children" to "future generations" (those far off). The children here are coordinated with the adults being addressed by Peter. I am skeptical that these adults are all childless. Can you support your warrant for your interpretation exegetically because I am wonderng if your presupposition is getting in the way of the plain reading of the text.

 

[JML]

Do not see how you make the leap from "your children" to "future generations" (those far off). The children here are coordinated with the adults being addressed by Peter. Can you support your warrant for your interpretation exegetically?

So let's say it is only referring to the children of the adults being addressed. The promise still seems to be that if the children repented they would receive the Holy Spirit. I am not seeing the connection to paedobaptism as this is true for anyone and not unique to the children of believers.

 

[JML]

And that's true. But it has nil to do with whether they should receive the sign or not. Whether or not Isaac had the ability to understand the Gospel or repent, etc., Abraham was to apply the sign of the Covenant . . . even to Ishmael, who clearly was not the child of the promise. The language here in Acts 2 mirrors that covenantal language God said to Abraham in Genesis 15 & 17. This passage is not intended to PROVE the practice of covenant baptism, but it is certainly an affirmation of God's dealing by way of covenant through families, etc. Abraham is told in Genesis 17 that he will become a father of many nations, and in the New Testament Administration of the Covenant of Grace, we see that coming to pass.

Thanks Josh.

Forgive my ignorance. I somewhat understand what you are saying. Two questions though:

1. Are not "those who are afar off" on equal footing in the sentence with "your children." So wouldn't that require the baptism of "all that afar off" according to the paedobaptist viewpoint?
2. Does not the verse limit the all categories (you, your children, all who are afar off) to those whom God has called? So therefore, only those who are called are in the covenant. God has not called every covenant child because not all are saved.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

So let's say it is only referring to the children of the adults being addressed. The promise still seems to be that if the children repented they would receive the Holy Spirit. I am not seeing the connection to paedobaptism as this is true for anyone and not unique to the children of believers.

You have to look at the context, Peter was addressing the hearers as the Jewish people as a whole.

Acts 2:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

We can clearly see that he is addressing them as covenant community and not as individuals, I'm sure most people listening to Peter didn't have a personal hand in crucifying Jesus yet Peter does say that "ye" as a covenant community crucified him.

That being said we can see that the context of the sermon is referring to the covenant between God and his people. Only Jews were being addressed at this point since the Apostles only understood later that the Gentiles would be included in the covenant.

Peter is not only addressing the children of the those present at the time but the children of the "covenant people" which would include their current children and future generations.

As Patrick said you have to be careful not to look at this verse through the modern credo baptist presupposition but let the text dictate the context.

 

[JML]

As Patrick said you have to be careful not to look at this verse through the modern credo baptist presupposition but let the text dictate the context.

Thanks. I think that is the problem that I am having. I am not sure how to not do so however. Things can become quite ingrained in a person over the years.

 

[DeniseM]

The verses just seem to say that the promise (Holy Spirit and salvation) is to anyone who repents whether it be the group congregated there, their children (future generations), or those afar off.

Our family was in attendance for an infant baptism just a few weeks ago. The Pastor performing the baptism brought up this text that you have cited and said that it was his personal belief that "those who are afar off" was referring to the gentiles that had not yet been brought into the visible church. He also said that others believe it could have referred to Jews that were living in various places outside of the national boundaries of Israel, but that was not this pastor's view.

As far a command to baptize our children is concerned, I agree with Joshua that it was given in Genesis and never rescinded. The continuance of households in covenant with God, as a whole, is seen in several NT passages. If you're looking for a compelling reason to baptize those under your care, and wishing to see the seriousness of your duty in it, I've thought that the passage in Exodus 4 vv. 24-26 shows clearly how God feels about our neglecting the application of the covenant sign to our children.

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Calvin's comments on this passage support the view that God's anger toward Moses at this time was because of his failure to circumcise his son. You don't see commands for father's to wait until their children repent and then circumcise them, but to circumcise upon the entering of the father/head of household into covenant. Ideally, the children will take hold of the covenant in faith and later apply the covenant sign to their children. Thus, the usual means God uses to continue his church throughout generations.

 

[JML]

I've thought that the passage in Exodus 4 vv. 24-26 shows clearly how God feels about our neglecting the application of the covenant sign to our children.

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
Calvin's comments on this passage support the view that God's anger toward Moses at this time was because of his failure to circumcise his son.

Thanks for your input Denise.

Yes, I am well aware of these verses. When I was attending an RPCNA church, we once had a guy from a Dutch congregation in Canada come through town and attend worship with us. When he found out from talking to others that I was not a paedobaptist, he came up to me after service and mentioned this verse. He then proceeded to tell me that God desired to kill me because I had failed to baptize my children. I found that slightly uncharitable.

 

[DeniseM]

He then proceeded to tell me that God desired to kill me because I had failed to baptize my children. I found that slightly uncharitable.

Yes, that is rather uncharitable. And, I might add a little out of place and bold for a visitor. I first really noticed this passage after we had become paedobaptists and found it rather to be a comforting affirmation that we were not being presumptuous, as some do like to claim of paedobaptists, but rather seeking to live according to God's will as we see it to be revealed. We were credobaptists most of our lives, and only came to an understanding of covenant baptism about three years ago, and that was after eight years of being in a denomination with other paedobaptists. Thank God that our friends were patient with us and didn't speak to us the way that you were spoken to. I'm not sure what our reaction would have been, if someone had approached us in such a manner.

 

[Jack K]

2. Does not the verse limit the all categories (you, your children, all who are afar off) to those whom God has called? So therefore, only those who are called are in the covenant. God has not called every covenant child because not all are saved.

Your questions about Acts 2 are valid and are good questions, I think. But this particular argument, though I find it is often made by Baptists, doesn't hold up so well. If everyone who might end up not being saved were denied baptism, nobody at all could be baptized.

No one is baptized based on us knowing that they've been saved. We don't know who's saved. Plenty of adults who're baptized end up not being effectually called, either. People are baptized, rather, based on fitting the criteria for inclusion in the visible church (or in the covenant family, if you prefer). This criteria is a credible profession of faith and an expressed commitment to Christ and his church on the part of the one baptized or (if you're a paedobaptist) that person's parents. The issue is who is part of the visible church, not who is ultimately going to be saved.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Thanks. I think that is the problem that I am having. I am not sure how to not do so however. Things can become quite ingrained in a person over the years.

I certainly understand I used to be a credo baptist myself. As I started to get a better understanding of covenant theology I tried to see if the text I was reading was referencing God's covenant as I was doing my devotionals and when studying subjects touching ecclesiology. I soon noticed it was all over the place and definitely strengthened my faith in this system of hermeneutics and also helped me to understand the conformity between the OT and NT which helped me to identify many flaws in some of my understanding of other branch of theology (especially eschatology and ecclesiology).

 

[Don Kistler]

What bothers me in all of this with these verses is that almost no one sees the extent of the promise, "as many as God shall call to Himself." That's as far as you can take the promise in this passage. "The promise is to you and your children, and all who are afar off, AS MANY AS GOD SHALL CALL TO HIMSELF."

The passage does not support baptismal regeneration or presumptive regeneration, or covenantal succession. It says what it says.

Ok, I'm ready. Blast away!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In my mind, “your children” is nothing more than Peter saying that the promise was not a temporary one for only that generation but a continual promise.

I think that, instead of thinking "in your mind" about what "you and your children" means Biblically, it might help to study that prhasing from a Biblical Theological perspective. Is the term "your children" used elsewhere in Scripture and how is it used with respect to other Promises of God. It doesn't necessarily seal the issue but proper hermeutics at least demands what the term meant by the original speakers and what the original audience would have inferred by it. If, for instance, it can be shown that a Jewish man, at the dawn of the New Covenant's unfolding, understood something by "you and your children" with respect to Promise, it will establish what they would have understood by these words. If you think that Peter had some other meaning than what the Jews would have understood by this then one needs to explain why he might not provide some sort of explanation by the term so as not to confuse them.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

What bothers me in all of this with these verses is that almost no one sees the extent of the promise, "as many as God shall call to Himself." That's as far as you can take the promise in this passage. "The promise is to you and your children, and all who are afar off, AS MANY AS GOD SHALL CALL TO HIMSELF."

The passage does not support baptismal regeneration or presumptive regeneration, or covenantal succession. It says what it says.

Again the same thing apply to this comment, you are not taking the whole context of the chapter in consideration and trying to interpret these verses independently from the rest of the text, and here lies the problem. See my previous comment when Peter was addressing them as "all the house of Israel".

God called "Israel" as a people to himself, yet Paul said "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Romans 9:6). Being "called" does not always mean "chosen" for salvation. How would you explained the verses talking about apostasy if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology if you interpret that called is always the same as saved?

 

[Peairtach]

Acts 2:37-39

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

I would like help understanding these verses from a paedobaptist point of view because it is usually one of the first sections that someone goes to when they are talking to me about why the church should baptize infants. To me, the verses don’t seem at all like a proof of paedobaptism although I guess it would be argued that it is truly covenant inclusion that the paedobaptist is appealing to here. I don’t really see that either. I am not asking in order to try and prove anyone wrong, I just want to be able to see what you see in these verses. The verses just seem to say that the promise (Holy Spirit and salvation) is to anyone who repents whether it be the group congregated there, their children (future generations), or those afar off. In my mind, “your children” is nothing more than Peter saying that the promise was not a temporary one for only that generation but a continual promise.

What am I missing?

Why would the Apostle bother to mention their children in this context? The "promise is for believers", and believers alone, of any age, according to the Baptist schema. The Apostle Peter is multiplying words needlessly.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The passage does not support baptismal regeneration or presumptive regeneration, or covenantal succession. It says what it says.

I don't know if there's any need for me to blast away at this valid warning. I don't think the passage, in itself, should form the grounds for any of those things.

I think your note is a good reminder not to make a passage say more than it says. When we understand the entire theological backdrop to Promise then there is a manner of speaking about things from a Biblical perspective. When we read passages like this, we can either detect whether or not they continue to flow in what seems to be the already establish stream of thinking about them or whether it seems to abruptly change that direction.

For example, if all we had was the Book of Acts, we might wonder why Peter is pitching a fit about eating certain things that the Lord puts before Him in the vision before he's invited to Cornelius' house. Understanding the stream of Biblical theology, however, we can fully understand why Peter would refuse. Then, even though it is a narrative portion of Scripture, enough explicit information is given about the baptism of Cornelius and his household as well as Peter's explanatory connection to what the Lord says about it, that we can now see that the Lord has introduced an explicit discontinuity in the Book of Acts with respect to the Promise - it includes the Gentiles now.

I'm saying all of this not to point this out to you but to point out what I introduced myself about terms of art "you and your children". There is a well established pattern of Biblical thinking heretofore when we get to Acts. Paedobaptsts don't say: "Well, whatever came before makes no difference, we need to look at Acts 2 as if nothing has ever happened in redemptive history with respect to Promise." Consequently, it is reasonable for us to look at what Peter says and conclude: "With respect to children no apparent discontinuity is introduced here". Thus, we may reasonably conclude that the "structure" of Promise that includes households is still intact. I would appeal to my prior example of Cornelius to point out the lengths to which Christ used to clearly demonstrate discontinuity with respect to Gentile exclusion. Such would also be necessary to get the Jews to understand that a radical discontinuity in the administration of the Promise of God to Abraham had just been introduced here in Acts 2:37-39 in excising children from the administration of the visible covenant.

This is why I have such a problem with an approach that it is anachronistic to conclude that anyone listening to Peter would have thought anything other than that the Promise belonged to their childen. In fact, if Peter had not recapitulated the wording of the Scriptures with respect to Promise, the absence of that terminology could not even be rightly inferred to exclude children. The reference to Joel itself in the announcement of the Promise would have been enough for a Jew (who didn't read Scripture by Chapter and verse numbers) because the prophecy begins by commanding that these things be told to their children and their children after them! The importation of a mindset that can divorce Promise from ingrained centuries of "household thinking" is what I believe is necessary in order to infer that "your children" can be easily dismissed from the Jew's working definition of Promise.

Now, someone may accuse me of making an argument from silence. It's only an argument from silence if God had not already well ingrained the principle of Promise as being to you and your children. Since that is well established, it is reasonable to conclude that God has not abrogated the terms of the Promises of the CoG unless he explicitly articulates this in a manner equivalent to what He did to teach the Jews to include the Gentiles. Nothing less would be necessary for the Jews to start thinking that Promise now means that children are now excised from the visible covenant. Let me use a modern example, if you read me use the word marriage, it is not an "argument from silence" to conclude that my working definition is the union of a man with a woman.

 

[JML]

Why would the Apostle bother to mention their children in this context? The "promise is for believers", and believers alone, of any age, according to the Baptist schema. The Apostle Peter is multiplying words needlessly.

Not if "your children" refers to future generations (which would have included the children of those who heard (possibly living at the time) + the generations down the line). But I digress on that point.

 

[JML]

The issue is who is part of the visible church, not who is ultimately going to be saved.

This is a great point. I do understand the paedo view of the visible church and it is a very good argument.

 

[JML]

Thank God that our friends were patient with us and didn't speak to us the way that you were spoken to. I'm not sure what our reaction would have been, if someone had approached us in such a manner.

I would like to add that the members of the RPCNA church that we attended were very loving and patient and never treated us in the manner that this visitor did. I miss those saints daily.

 

[sevenzedek]

This is, by far, the best quote I have ever had the pleasure of reading that speaks to the mindset of the Jews regarding their children during this time period in Acts. As bonus, I was also delighted to find a fine answer to the"argument from silence" objection. Consider it copied and pasted in my Olive Tree Bible app. And thanks!

The passage does not support baptismal regeneration or presumptive regeneration, or covenantal succession. It says what it says.

I don't know if there's any need for me to blast away at this valid warning. I don't think the passage, in itself, should form the grounds for any of those things.

I think your note is a good reminder not to make a passage say more than it says. When we understand the entire theological backdrop to Promise then there is a manner of speaking about things from a Biblical perspective. When we read passages like this, we can either detect whether or not they continue to flow in what seems to be the already establish stream of thinking about them or whether it seems to abruptly change that direction.

For example, if all we had was the Book of Acts, we might wonder why Peter is pitching a fit about eating certain things that the Lord puts before Him in the vision before he's invited to Cornelius' house. Understanding the stream of Biblical theology, however, we can fully understand why Peter would refuse. Then, even though it is a narrative portion of Scripture, enough explicit information is given about the baptism of Cornelius and his household as well as Peter's explanatory connection to what the Lord says about it, that we can now see that the Lord has introduced an explicit discontinuity in the Book of Acts with respect to the Promise - it includes the Gentiles now.

I'm saying all of this not to point this out to you but to point out what I introduced myself about terms of art "you and your children". There is a well established pattern of Biblical thinking heretofore when we get to Acts. Paedobaptsts don't say: "Well, whatever came before makes no difference, we need to look at Acts 2 as if nothing has ever happened in redemptive history with respect to Promise." Consequently, it is reasonable for us to look at what Peter says and conclude: "With respect to children no apparent discontinuity is introduced here". Thus, we may reasonably conclude that the "structure" of Promise that includes households is still intact. I would appeal to my prior example of Cornelius to point out the lengths to which Christ used to clearly demonstrate discontinuity with respect to Gentile exclusion. Such would also be necessary to get the Jews to understand that a radical discontinuity in the administration of the Promise of God to Abraham had just been introduced here in Acts 2:37-39 in excising children from the administration of the visible covenant.

This is why I have such a problem with an approach that it is anachronistic to conclude that anyone listening to Peter would have thought anything other than that the Promise belonged to their childen. In fact, if Peter had not recapitulated the wording of the Scriptures with respect to Promise, the absence of that terminology could not even be rightly inferred to exclude children. The reference to Joel itself in the announcement of the Promise would have been enough for a Jew (who didn't read Scripture by Chapter and verse numbers) because the prophecy begins by commanding that these things be told to their children and their children after them! The importation of a mindset that can divorce Promise from ingrained centuries of "household thinking" is what I believe is necessary in order to infer that "your children" can be easily dismissed from the Jew's working definition of Promise.

Now, someone may accuse me of making an argument from silence. It's only an argument from silence if God had not already well ingrained the principle of Promise as being to you and your children. Since that is well established, it is reasonable to conclude that God has not abrogated the terms of the Promises of the CoG unless he explicitly articulates this in a manner equivalent to what He did to teach the Jews to include the Gentiles. Nothing less would be necessary for the Jews to start thinking that Promise now means that children are now excised from the visible covenant. Let me use a modern example, if you read me use the word marriage, it is not an "argument from silence" to conclude that my working definition is the union of a man with a woman.

 

[augustacarguy]

Thank you.

 

[Rayn]

Helpful arguement, Brother Rich. I've been leaning towards the paedobaptist position for some time, but I've always questioned why this passage was cited in a sort of "prooftext for infant baptism" fashion. If I understand you right, it isn't that it's a prooftext for infant baptism as such but more like another little building block in redemptive history, at a crucial point mind you, suggesting that nothing has changed in the application of redemption in the grand scheme of things. If that's true, then we need to be aware of quoting this passage without building the right kind of covenantal theology around it, correct?

 

[Andres]

Helpful arguement, Brother Rich. I've been leaning towards the paedobaptist position for some time, but I've always questioned why this passage was cited in a sort of "prooftext for infant baptism" fashion. If I understand you right, it isn't that it's a prooftext for infant baptism as such but more like another little building block in redemptive history, at a crucial point mind you, suggesting that nothing has changed in the application of redemption in the grand scheme of things. If that's true, then we need to be aware of quoting this passage without building the right kind of covenantal theology around it, correct?

I'm obviously not Rich but I would say you are correct that this passage isn't a prooftext for paedobaptism. In fact, I don't know if you'll find one. A question most often asked by those unfamiliar with infant baptism is “where does the bible command children to be baptized?” and the short answer is that it never does explicitly. But in reality the question isn’t a very good one simply because it assumes that which scripture does not. Asking where the bible commands children to be baptized first assumes that children were no longer to receive a covenant sign.
Another way to think of it is, instead of asking where Scripture explicitly teaches infant baptism, instead ask the question, “Where does the bible reverse God's command to Abraham to administer the covenant sign and seal to children of believing parents?”

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Helpful arguement, Brother Rich. I've been leaning towards the paedobaptist position for some time, but I've always questioned why this passage was cited in a sort of "prooftext for infant baptism" fashion. If I understand you right, it isn't that it's a prooftext for infant baptism as such but more like another little building block in redemptive history, at a crucial point mind you, suggesting that nothing has changed in the application of redemption in the grand scheme of things. If that's true, then we need to be aware of quoting this passage without building the right kind of covenantal theology around it, correct?

You pretty much summarized what I was trying to note. That said, I wouldn't say that Peter's primary purpose in what he told them was to speak specifically on who was/wasn't still included in the visible administration of the Covenant of Grace. He's answering a direct question and then recapitulates the Promise.

What one might see in the recapitulation of that Promise, however, is a broader understanding of what God meant when He promised Abraham that, in him, all the nations of the world would be blessed to qualify this a little more than they might have understood (all those who are far off). In that he recapitulates the fact that the Promise is to "you and your children" that aspect of the Promise remains unchanged. In other words, there's certainly no obvious discontinuity introduced right here in terms of the administration of how the Promise related to the people he was addressing.

Now, it should be granted that Acts 2:37-39 is not the final word on this. In fact, one can see Acts unfolding the command of Christ at the beginning of Acts to move outward from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. What is instructive as far as this conversation goes about Jewish expectation and the patterns of thinking is that every group that was once excluded from visible Covenant participation (Eunuchs, Samaritans, Gentiles) are clearly identified as now belonging to the "circumcision" where they had once been visibly cut off. Once again, I would argue the "how much more" argument regarding children. If God is explicit to spell out who is now included and how the visible Covenant has now dramatically expanded then a specific point of contraction (children being excised) would need to be explicit for us.

Another way of looking at it is this: God says "...this Promise is to you and your children" in the OT and there is no question that everyone understood that meant one's own children. When has God now said "...but now it does not include your children."? If God was wont to say the former over and over and over again in the OT, then I expect anything contrary to that expectation to be a public declaration. Claiming that the Promise now "spiritualized" doesn't answer this because it assumes a division of visible administration from spiritual development in the mind of a believing Jew. One did not circumcise his son because he thought he was simply performing a physical act but that act placed that child in the community of faith. It committed the father and mother to fear and trembling as they raised their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. What did every Israelite hope for: not kids who were mere physical offspring but that they would see their children's children call upon the name of the Lord!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

And, the Abrahamic promise contains an explicit reference to "all the families of the earth," Gen.12:3. In other words, there is an element of the base-promise that is oriented to the ones "afar off," a promise for them through the agent of the promise.

Again, Peter is preaching a marvelous realization of the ancient promise to Abraham in and by the Lord Jesus, and he's updating it in terms that correlate the new eschatological age to the previous promissory age. As Paul puts it later on, those Gentiles who were once "afar off have been brought near," Eph.2:13.

 

[Peairtach]

Why would the Apostle bother to mention their children in this context? The "promise is for believers", and believers alone, of any age, according to the Baptist schema. The Apostle Peter is multiplying words needlessly.

Not if "your children" refers to future generations (which would have included the children of those who heard (possibly living at the time) + the generations down the line). But I digress on that point.

I just think that if Peter was a credo Baptist, as you posit, it would have been more natural for him to say, "The promise is for all who believe "

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[The Conductor]

I had just watched this yesterday. James White makes an excellent case, I think.
Anti-Baptists and Citing Only Half of Acts 2:39 - YouTube

(The reason that it refers to anti-baptists is because he was talking about people who would refuse fellowship with him over this topic, not paedobaptists in general.

 

[Peairtach]

I had just watched this yesterday. James White makes an excellent case, I think.
Anti-Baptists and Citing Only Half of Acts 2:39 - YouTube

(The reason that it refers to anti-baptists is because he was talking about people who would refuse fellowship with him over this topic, not paedobaptists in general.

Touche.

But the bit about "children" being mentioned because of the curse that had been called down on them by the crowd before Pilate sounds like Baptist special-pleading.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.(Acts 2:41)

Any children that belonged to the adults who believed would have been included of course, because in covenantal infant baptism, the child is baptised on the basis of the professed faith of the adult.

So the silence about children of professed believers in Acts 2:41, doesn't faze Presbyterians.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Preface by saying: I have immense respect for JamesWhite, generally, and frequent his blog several times a week. I once had "making it our ambition to be pleasing to Him," 2Cor.5:9, in my PB signature partly inspired by his use of the same on his website.

I had just watched this yesterday. James White makes an excellent case, I think.
Anti-Baptists and Citing Only Half of Acts 2:39 - YouTube

(The reason that it refers to anti-baptists is because he was talking about people who would refuse fellowship with him over this topic, not paedobaptists in general.

Now, apart from several of JWhite's own anti-paedobaptist inferences from the text, and his allegation that many paedobaptist interpreters of Act.2:39 just "skip" or "drop" the latter half of the verse...

(who are these "many," and how would they respond to the accusation that they are "avoiding" that portion of the text?--what is their reply?--has he ever sought one?)​

I can't think of any principled disagreement with the essential historic conclusion he draws from the text. In other words, there's no reason why I as a paedobaptist would disagree with his final declaration, drawn from v41, which is that "those who received his word were baptized at that time."

See, neither JWhite nor myself are in apparent disagreement that v39 has a wider reference than those who are physically present. As his presentation seemed to state, we appear to agree about who "you," and "your children" (Jews), and "those who are afar off" (Gentiles) are referring to. I don't agree that Mt.27:25 has significant isolated bearing on the phrase "your children," not nearly as much as the great weight of covenant-solidarity overall in the OT-conditioned minds of Jews generally; but I don't think that my dispute on that point is especially pertinent.

Thus, simply pointing out that day's historic terminus as the basic outworking of Peter's sermon--of which vv38-39 are only the concluding words--hasn't adjudicated the contrary inferences that are taken by either side from vv38-39 in light of the wider contexts (Acts-> NT-> Bible) in which the passage is situated. No paedobaptist writer or preacher I'm familiar with takes the line that there had to be households baptized in the conditions described.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well noted Bruce.

I'm friends with James and materially support his ministry. It's important to note that his approach is a broader hermeneutical one. In other words, he's bringing in an interpretive grid into the particular text in what he emphasizes and how he understand "...and to your children". That's how interpretation works but it's simply illustrative of how interpretation works. One interprets particular texts in light of Biblical theology as well as systematic and historical theology derived from the Scriptures as a whole.

As Bruce noted, nobody is "avoiding" the rest of the text. One does not need to "italicize" the phrase as many as the Lord shall call in order to remind paedobaptists of election. There is, after all, no denial of election in paedobaptist thinking. The imported assumption here is the idea that effectual call and family solidarity in the visible Covenant are somehow at odds with one another. He can place emphasis on any portion of the text in Acts 2 and we already view each of the clauses as part of the understanding of the CoG.

After all, who are the paradigmatic people with respect to election in Paul's point about election in Romans 9? Jacob and Esau. The whole point of that discourse is to answer the question to the reader about whether God's Promises might fail and so Paul gives an example of twins to demonstrate that God's purposes have always been according to election. Both were visible heirs to the Promise, both received a sign in their flesh that signified that Promise. Yet only one of them possessed the reality of what that sign signified. We don't make the mistake of assuming that the signs of the Covenant mean that one is elect in the OC administration and we believe that the New Covenant continues the same paradigm. Sign and the thing signified are related but not in such a way that simply possession of the sign implies possession of the reality.

In fact, any cursory study of our theology will note that receipt of the Covenant Sign does not imply that one possesses election. It signifies the Promise. It signifies all the benefits of union with Christ but the grace signified is only the real possession of those who are elect. It's not a theological "oops, we forgot that election is according the the Sovereign work of God" when we baptize our children but we believe that the Covenant signs of God have always been according to the pattern that possession of the sign of the Promise does not necessarily mean that one possesses the reality of what the Promise signifies.

In my estimation, the argument appeals more to what credo-Baptists might think that paedobaptist theology is avoiding rather than understanding the system of Covenant theology. God's sovereignty in election is established at the very beginning. Family solidarity and election are not at odds with one another anywhere in the text of Scripture. Consequently, "as many as the Lord shall call" is not a point of discontinuity in the stream of Covenant theology but a point of continuity with what is revealed throughout the Scriptures in the administration of the Covenant of Grace.

I would also like to point out that the interpretation offered that the children are mentioned simply as a referent to Matt 27:25 to be wanting for two reasons:

1. It's, again, not either they are concerned about the wrath due to blood on their heads and the heads of their children or that Peter is recapitulating the Promise to them. After all, there is no escape from wrath without salvation.

2. There is nothing in the text that allows a differentiation of the indirect objects of the Promise.
ὑμῖν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακράν, ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν.

In the text, "as many as the Lord shall call" includes not only "to your children" and "to those far away" but "to you". All are indirect objects of "The Promise". In other words, the Promise is:
a. to you
b. to your children
c. to all who are far off
...as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.

Thus, "as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself" includes "you", "your children", and "all who far off".

There is nothing in the text that allows us to pause at "to your children" and say: "But that's only a reference back to Matt 27:25." That is not only a theological assumption imported into the text but one that violates the very text here to insist there is any differentiation between any of the indirect objects of the promise.