# Acts 2:41



## Pilgrim (Dec 18, 2007)

> Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.



This is a question primarily directed to the paedos since the credo position on this passage is obvious. 

On this board I've seen some paedobaptists argue that infants were there and were baptized while others said there weren't any there at all. Regardless, I have long thought it to be one of the stronger verses in the credo arsenal and seldom if ever see it dealt with by paedobaptists.


----------



## Stephen (Dec 18, 2007)

Chris, you raise an interesting question I have never heard asked. I agree with you that this passage is a strong defense for infant baptism. I often use the Acts 2 passage, especially for those from traditions that argue against infant baptism. Those present at Pentecost were Jews who journeyed to Jerusalem for the feast days. Jews would have brought their families, including circumcised children to the feast. It would have been strange for Peter to tell these Jews that their children were not to be baptised, especially when he said the promise is for you and your children. A first century Jew would have believed that children were part of the covenant community. No where in the New Testament is the inclusion of children resended.


----------



## Seb (Dec 18, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> > Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see it as "one of the stronger verses in the credo arsenal" If you look at the whole passage it seems there were only men in attendance. You wouldn't expect unbelieving grown men to be baptized, only those "who gladly received his word". 

The Paedo position is not "Paedo only". If you were never baptized and you were converted as an adult (like the men in the verses) you would be expected to follow through with believer's (Credo) baptism even in a church that practices Paedobaptism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 18, 2007)

Although it is likely that there were a few full families in Jerusalem for the feast, since the law of Moses commanded all adult _males_ to come, it is more probable that there were very few non-Jerusalem-native women or children present. Most of the gatherings for the Passover (and the same for the second-month passover, held barely three weeks before Pentecost) were probably exactly what we find in the Upper Room--13 men or so, gathered round a table.

Not only were women not required to come, and would have no doubt been minding their homes and children if youthful, at Passover time *fully 1/4 to 1/3 of them would have been ceremonially unclean and thus forbidden to partake.* Perhaps we do not have enough information to tell if women were allowed to partake, but it is absolutely certain that they were neither expected, nor required at the feast. If the requirement to be circumcised is taken in its most literal sense, then they may well have been _excluded_ entirely.

If any haven't considered these facts before, it gives new force to Paul's dictum: "...neither male nor female...," hmmm? Not merely regarding circumcision-baptism, but Passover-Lord's Supper is affected as well.

The passage concerning Jesus' first visit to Passover (Luke 2), is noteworthy not only for his examination by the elders, but also would mark his bar-mitvah, or becoming a full covenant-society member. He would be expected to come henceforth to all the feasts as an adult male. And by the way, the mention of both parents going to Jerusalem for the feast annually 1) may be a general reference, and might not mean that Mary accompanied Joseph every single time, but did make it a more often than not; 2) says nothing at all about _whether, on one or another grounds,_ Mary might have been excluded; 3) could be an argument that she had no other children still by this time; and 4) might be noteworthy not for its commonality, but for its less-than-common incidence.

To bring this back to the thread topic, I don't think that the crowd held a high percentage of women or children. The Greek indicates "hoi" for "those", a masculine (rather than neuter, which we might expect of a mixed-gender multitude), along with an additional masculine plural participle: "welcomed" or "received".


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 18, 2007)

Seb said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > > Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
> ...



Thanks for the response. I know some have argued that only men were there but other paedos have argued otherwise. However, Rev. Buchanan has made a good argument here that it was likely a male only crowd. 



> The Paedo position is not "Paedo only". If you were never baptized and you were converted as an adult (like the men in the verses) you would be expected to follow through with believer's (Credo) baptism even in a church that practices Paedobaptism.



With the exception perhaps of the unspeakably ignorant, is there really anyone who thinks that the Paedo position is Paedo only?


----------



## Seb (Dec 18, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> With the exception perhaps of the unspeakably ignorant, who says that the Paedo position is Paedo only?



I don't know about the "unspeakably ignorant" part. But I've met some members in a "Paedo" church that are so used to all their members having been baptized as infants that they (the members, not the consistory) don't realize that their Church also baptizes adults.

Concerning my previous comment of "The Paedo position is not "Paedo only..." Since this is a somewhat "public" board I was trying to add a little clarity - more than add a substitutive point to a debate. 

Before I studied the Reformed Padeo position, I easily could have thought they were Paedo only, but at that time I didn't "have a horse in the race" so I really didn't know much about it.


----------

