# Paedobaptism & the nitty gritty of Acts 2



## biblelighthouse (Apr 13, 2005)

I wonder why more paedobaptists don't go into more detail in Acts 2. They so often just seem to quote that the promise is to "your children", mention the idea of children's continuing covenantal inclusion, and then they skip off to some other text. But there are a lot of questions to be asked of this passage.

The credobaptists often try to make much of the phrase, "as many as the Lord shall call", assuming that the word "call" there is in reference to an effectual, soteriological call. But I disagree:

First of all, they miss the entire point of Peter quoting the end of Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:39. Peter starts quotation of the prophecy in Acts 2:17-21, and then *finishes* Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:39, to create a sort of inclusio to wrap up the whole passage. So it is not proper to try to exegete the meaning of the word "call" in Acts 2:39, in isolation from understanding the meaning of the word "call" used in Joel's original prophecy.

The Hebrew word for "call" used in Joel 2:32 is "qara'", and is also used in Joel 1:14, 1:19, 2:15, and 3:9. In no case is it a reference to God's effectual, saving call. The word is used twice in Joel 2:32, and I don't think it is in reference to an effectual saving call there, either. It certainly isn't the first of the two times, and I think that making it an "effectual" call the second time in Joel 2:32 would be special pleading.

Also, we need to remember that Luke wrote Acts, not Paul. In Luke/Acts, the word "call" (Greek "proskaleomai") is used 16 times. And in all of the 16 times, Luke *never* uses that word in the sense of a soteriological "effectual call". 

In short, I don't think the "many the Lord shall call" are the elect that God will effectually call. There is certainly some overlap there, and those called certainly include the elect. But I don't think we can fairly say that the word "call" is ever used in Luke/Acts as a technical term for soteriological effectual calling. So, if that's not what "call" means, then what does it mean?

In Joel 2:17, there is a direct covenantal reference to God's "people". I believe the reference is to God's covenantal people, and not to God's elect. Just look at all the OT references where God talks about the Israelites (both elect and non-elect) being His "people". How did they get to be God's people? By God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

When God "called" His people out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1, with the same Hebrew word for "call"), both elect and non-elect people were called. After the first dispersion (to Babylon), God called His people back to Israel. And both elect and non-elect people were called. I think the same mindset is in Joel 2. God is talking about a covenantal calling, not a soteriological one. (Though of course, all of those savingly called are also covenantally called.) I don't think an "effectual call" based on election fits the context and main thrust of Joel 2. Thus, I don't think it had that meaning when Peter quoted it in Acts 2, either.

God called the remnant of Israel into covenant with Himself. But some of those in the covenant eventually apostatize (cf. Heb. 6 & 10). 

Possible very-loose expanded paraphrase of the verse in Acts 2:
"God's covenantal promises, including blessings for covenant-keeping, and cursings for covenant-breaking, are for you Israelites here today, for your children, and for those Israelites who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call back into the covenant, according to the context of Joel's prophecy."

That's where my thoughts are at the moment, anyway. 

If covenantal inclusion of infants is already strongly and explicitly taught in the OT, then we don't necessarily have to have a strong, explicit re-teaching of it in the NT. We just need to see clues to tell us whether children are still included, or not. If not, then we would expect strong, clear, explicit abrogation of OT covenantal infant inclusion. But if nothing has changed, we would just expect to see children included in a matter-of-fact way. And that is just what Peter does. He says the promise is for you, and your children. He doesn't explain himself in detail because he *doesn't have to*. The Israelites had already known for thousands of years that their children were included in their covenant with God. However, if Peter was trying to abrogate infant inclusion in any way at all, then we would expect a very clear statement to that effect (which he does not make), and we would also expect an angry reaction from the crowd (and there is none). If Peter had taken pains to explicitly tell them that their children were in the covenant too, I think their response would have been: "Duh!" <grin>
So, "and to your children" was enough. Peter didn't have to say any more. 

Does the "call" in Acts 2 applies to "you", "your children", and to "those afar off", or does the "call" just applies to "those afar off"? --- I would argue that the "call", in *this* particular text, only applies to "those afar off". The reason I believe this is because the phrase "as many as the Lord shall call" is taken from the end of the prophecy Joel 2. This is where the "inclusio argument" seems important to me. I still recognize some "fuzzy logic overlap" here, but if forced to make strict categories, I think the "call" has to apply to the "far off" people, just as it is meant in Joel 2. Also, the "you" and the "your children" are already present in Peter's audience, so it is hard for me to see how the future-looking phrase "shall call" could apply to them. It is "those afar off" who God "shall call". 

What about Peter's call to "repent/be baptized"? Does that mean that he expected all people to repent before baptism? --- Well, how did the OT Israelites understand the connection between repentance and circumcision? We knew that Abraham had faith *prior* to being circumcised. And his circumcision was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had" beforehand (Romans 4:11). As an adult, Abraham certainly had faith (and thus repentance) prior to receiving the covenant sign. However, as a result of Abraham's faith, his entire household came under the covenant, and the covenant sign was applied to all, whether or not they had faith yet. Isaac was circumcised at 8 days of age, signifying that he was *already* a covenant member. But I don't think Isaac had saving faith until years later. Now think about Gentiles who converted to Judaism. The same logic applied. The head of the household had to profess faith and repentance prior to circumcision. But at that point, his entire family was under the covenant, and his sons would be circumcised, regardless of personal faith. Like Isaac, infants were given the covenant sign prior to having saving faith. So, in light of these facts, how would Peter's audience have understood his message? When Peter said to "repent and be baptized", I think they would have understood it like they understood Abraham/Isaac, and like they understood proselyte conversions. They recognized that God was creating a "new Israel", if you will, and that baptism was the initiatory rite for the heads of households, and that the covenant sign would also be given to the children within the household. At least, that would be the natural assumption based on the religious background of Peter's audience. And what, if anything, did Peter say to make them think otherwise?


There are some more things to keep in mind regarding the Luke/Acts connection:

* Luke 1:15 reveals that the Holy Spirit can even be poured out on infants.

* Luke 18:15-16 says that the kingdom of God belongs to infants.

* In Luke 19, Zaccheus *alone* trusted in Christ, had faith, and repented. So, did Jesus say, "This day salvation has come to you"? No! Jesus said, "This day is salvation come to this *house*, forasmuch as *he* also is a son of Abraham." --- Zaccheus *personally* came to faith in Christ, and was therefore *personally* a "son of Abraham", and therefore salvation came to his entire *household*.

* In Acts 16:31, Paul & Silas told the jailer that if *he* believed, then he would be saved, *and* his "house". The word "believed" in Acts 16:34 is singular, not plural, and most likely refers to the jailer himself, and not to his entire family. (But if a CB disagrees, then he needs to go all the way and also deal with the household of Zaccheus in Luke 19. Addressing Acts 16 without also addressing Luke 19 is special pleading, In my humble opinion. They just feel safe skipping it because baptism isn't mentioned.)

So, where in Luke/Acts does Luke ever seem to be concerned with telling us that God now deals with individuals, not families, and that children of professing believers are no longer automatically included in the covenant? If Luke is trying to do this, he's failing miserably, and he is even including a lot of texts that contradict that point. 

Does anyone here have any deep exegetical thoughts about Acts 2 (or Joel 2), or about paedobaptism in Luke/Acts in general? I would like to learn more about Acts 2, and I am often disappointed with how quickly and superficially this passage is (usually) treated by both PBs and CBs.

In Christ,
Joseph M. Gleason


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 13, 2005)

*So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.*

What is meant by "received his word"? There is no mention of these people repenting or putting faith in Christ before being baptized, only that they glady received his word/sermon. Would it be wrong to assume Luke is telling us that these people acknowledged this promise (2:39) and were then baptized (not that they all repented, put faith in Christ, walked the aisle and then were baptized)?


----------



## pastorway (Apr 14, 2005)

that is ridiculous. Received the word but did not repent and were not saved? 

The Lord was adding to the church daily those _who were being saved_! (Acts 2:47). To receive the Word is to obey the gospel command, repent of your sins, and trust in Christ.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 14, 2005)

Both of you bring up good points.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> *So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.*
> 
> What is meant by "received his word"? There is no mention of these people repenting or putting faith in Christ before being baptized, only that they glady received his word/sermon. Would it be wrong to assume Luke is telling us that these people acknowledged this promise (2:39) and were then baptized (not that they all repented, put faith in Christ, walked the aisle and then were baptized)?



Interesting thought. I had never considered that possibility. I do lean toward believing that the great majority of these people were actually regenerated and saved, like pastorway says. But you remind us of a very good point . . . there was no way for Peter or the other apostles to know who was *really* saved, and who wasn't. Even for the adults, it was "credo" baptism, and definitely not "believers" baptism.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> that is ridiculous. Received the word but did not repent and were not saved?
> 
> The Lord was adding to the church daily those _who were being saved_! (Acts 2:47). To receive the Word is to obey the gospel command, repent of your sins, and trust in Christ.




Pastorway, I agree with you that the great majority of those people in Acts 2 were saved. But perhaps you go overboard when you say that Utopia's comments are "ridiculous". Is it ridiculous to believe that Luke was being *consistent* in his use of language? 

Consider what Luke wrote in Luke 8:13 ----
"They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, *receive the word* with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away."
--- According to your statement, are you suggesting that these people who "fell away" orginally obeyed the gospel command, repented of their sins, and trusted in Christ? 

Also, how about Luke's comments in Acts 8:13 ---
"Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."
--- compared with Acts 8:21-23 ---
"Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. "
--- Simon was baptized, and was added to the number of the church. Was he regenerate?

Pastorway, maybe you are correct about the "saved" status of the crowd in Acts 2. Maybe not. (Personally, I doubt that they were *all* saved.)

At the very least, even if you disagree with WrittenFromUtopia, it is probably a little strong to say that his view is "ridiculous" especially since Luke himself spoke elsewhere of people who "received the word", and yet were unregenerate.

Respectfully,
Joseph M. Gleason


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 14, 2005)

> At the very least, even if you disagree with WrittenFromUtopia, it is probably a little strong to say that his view is "ridiculous" especially since Luke himself spoke elsewhere of people who "received the word", and yet were unregenerate.



It's okay, I'm used to it with him.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 15, 2005)

It was not a personal insult. It was a statement that to take the view that those who received the Word and were baptized thus added to the church at Pentecost were not all saved and yet God in the same chapter was adding daily to the church those being SAVED is a ridiculous argument. It makes no exegetical sense.

So I was not saying Gabriel is ridiculous, but what he posits as a possiblity of interpretation is ridiculous. It is poor hermenuetics given the context of the verses in question.

Would any other paedos declare that of those saved at Pentecost many or most were not saved? Fred? Wayne? Matt? Any of you who think that those at Pentecost who received the Word and were baptized were not all saved?

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 15, 2005)

To be honest, I think that both Gabriel and Phillip are straining in interpreting the passage in order to make it "fit" a presupposition. The text says that some received the word willingly and were baptized. Both Presbyterians and Baptists would acknowledge that this occurred upon a profession of faith. Both would acknowledge that the profession would be shown to be true by fruit. The text says nothing that allows us to make the assumption that all 3,000 were infallibly saved; it also says nothing that makes us assume they were not.

I do think that it is a warranted assumption that the great majority were - else it would have been an easy target for the Jews. And we know that Peter's sermon was not some "ordinary" sermon.

In short, I think that the point being made here is not of real interest, which is why I did not enter the discussion to start with.

Compare Calvin:



> 41. They, therefore, which willingly. Luke showeth more plainly how fruitful this one sermon which Peter made was: *to wit, that it gained unto Christ about three thousand men*. And therewithal he declareth the nature and force of faith when he saith, that with a prompt and ready 6 mind they embraced his word. Therefore, faith must begin with this readiness and willing desire to obey. And *because many do show themselves at the first very willing, who afterward have in themselves no constancy or continuance,* lest we should think that it was some sudden pang which by and by fell away, Luke doth also afterward commend their constancy, who (as he said) did willingly embrace this word of the apostles, showing that they were joined unto the disciples, or that they were engrafted into the same body, and that they continued in their doctrine. Therefore we must neither be slow to obey, nor yet swift to leap back; but we must stick fast, and stand stoutly to that doctrine which we did forthwith (without any tarriance [delay]) embrace. Furthermore, this example ought to make us not a little ashamed. For whereas there was a great multitude converted unto Christ with one sermon, an hundred sermons can scarce move a few of us; and whereas Luke saith that they continued, there is scarce one amongst ten that doth show even a mean desire to profit and go forward, yea, rather, the more part doth soon loathe our doctrine. Woe be, therefore, to the sluggishness and lightness of the world! (Calvin _in loc_, emphasis added



Lighten up everyone. Besides, don't you realize that both of you are hopelessly mired in a complete inability to understand any text?? Oh, sorry, I have been perusing RefCat too much this week.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 15, 2005)

I'd just like to point out, I never said that what I "thought out loud" was "my view" or that I thought it was true or right or anything like that. I was just "thinking out loud" and looking for some interaction. Assumptions and jumping to conclusions will usually get you nothing fruitful.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The text says nothing that allows us to make the assumption that all 3,000 were infallibly saved; it also says nothing that makes us assume they were not.
> 
> I do think that it is a warranted assumption that the great majority were



I totally agree with you, Fred. Because the text is not clear one way or the other, I was just uncomfortable with Phillip categorically saying that Gabe was being "ridiculous". That's all.

By the way, Fred, why did you say that this post was "not of real interest"? I am certainly not offended or upset.  But I did think there was some usefullness in my original post. Just this week, I had a friend mention a quote from Fred Malone's dumb book, regarding the "call" in Acts 2. Malone claims it's an effectual call to the elect. I disagree. And I had to admit that I don't know of any PB authors who really deal in-depth with Acts 2. (Maybe I've just been reading the wrong books.)

Fred, what stance do you personally take on the "call" in Acts 2? Was it effectual? Or is it a more general call? I agree that most of Fred Malone's arguments are bad. But what is the best biblical response you have to the credobaptist argument that Acts 2:38-39 is only talking about effectually called people (the elect)?

Thank you for your thoughts.

In Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## pastorway (Apr 15, 2005)

so all discussions aside, I say that a view is ridiculous based on interpretation and am accused of all sorts of evil intent, and then it is posted about a book 



> Fred Malone's dumb book



What is the difference between ridiculous and dumb???

I see Fred's point but assume that they were all saved based upon the fact that this was an extraordinary event, Pentecost. And the Lord was adding to the church daily those who were saved, and then baptized.

I will lighten up now.....

Phillip


----------



## strangerpilgrim (Apr 16, 2005)

The Difference? Are both a bit harsh? Yes. Should we think before applying either of these terms to a Christian brother, or his position? Of course. (Does that mean they can never apply? No.) But...

Ridiculous: Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly. 
[From Latin rdiculus, laughable, from rdre, to laugh.]

Dumb: Unintelligent

All in all, I'd rather be dumb.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 16, 2005)

Either way one believes on that passage, I don't think for one second that Pastorway was assaulting Gabriel's person here at all. 

If I understand a thing a certain way, right or wrong in terms of absolute truth, yet "clear" in my thinking and someone opposes it - my natural reaction to it will be one of astonished incredulity. That's all, not personal attach.

People today are almost too sensative so as to neuter ANY debate. 

lh


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Either way one believes on that passage, I don't think for one second that Pastorway was assaulting Gabriel's person here at all.
> 
> If I understand a thing a certain way, right or wrong in terms of absolute truth, yet "clear" in my thinking and someone opposes it - my natural reaction to it will be one of astonished incredulity. That's all, not personal attach.
> ...




Larry I agree. When one has the armor of Christ on, they should be able to take criticism. We should choose our word wisely and clear. And it always depends on the spirit one has while debating


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 16, 2005)

I think Pastorway's position is ridiculous.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think Pastorway's position is ridiculous.



Gabriel, have you given thought to Fred's point? This passage just may well not be one that can really shed that much light on the issue from either side.

Furthermore, even if you disagree, and still think the text itself points toward your interpretation, your post above adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Obviously you both disapprove of the other's position in general, and that is nothing new, and frankly your comment is an unnecessary redundance that does nothing to further understanding on either side or to promote charity.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 16, 2005)




----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 16, 2005)

I knew I'd get that response. This board is so biased and hypocritical it is beyond disheartening.

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## turmeric (Apr 17, 2005)

I was responding to ALL of yous! Not just you, Gabe. :bigsmile:

What's the bias, Credo-baptism? I don't THINK so! As far as hypocrisy goes, you're dealing with a bunch of sinners, what can one say? 
[Edited on 4-17-2005 by turmeric]

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 17, 2005)

I'm speaking of Chris' post.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 17, 2005)

well then you should apologize to him. He was doing his job as a moderator, and doing it quite well. 

Your attitude is troubling and your statements about this forum in general are really judgmental. Most of us here are very edified by the discussions and interaction. 

You have taken my comments in this very thread much too personally and perhaps need to step away from discussions of baptism for a while. They seem to get you worked up and frustrated. We should be able to discuss without anger or stress. And discussions that focus on the Word and understanding it better should edify, even when opinions and interpretations other than our own are put forth.

No one here has arrived. No one is in a place where they do not need to be taught and grow in grace. No one is infallible in their theological knowledge. And no one here wants people to be put down in the discussions, but to be edified.

Now apologize to Chris and the board for your unwarranted comments, please.

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 17, 2005)

Gabe, my point was not that you cannot think Phillip's position is ridiculous, since as I said that is just as natural as his thinking yours is in light of your differing perspectives - but my point was simply that you interjecting that already-known statement when you did with no further elaboration served no purpose. So before dismissing my admonition as bias, keep in mind that I ultimately agree with your position on baptism.

Does anyone else have some further thoughts on the original passage itself?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think Pastorway's position is ridiculous.



This is a useless post; period. It should never have been placed. 

Gabriel,
You left the board a month or two ago because of frustration. If I can quote you, you said, "I'm outta here". Well, you returned. We didn't throw that in your face; you were welcomed back; no questions. Now you say the board is biased. Pastorway's position is ridiculous and the board is erroneously biased. 

You have been warned before to control yourself. The moderators are doing their jobs as they have been directed. I suggest that you remain out of the CT discussions as you have not yet learned to temper your discussions on the subject. It is not the hill to die upon, Golgotha is!


----------

