Paedo-Baptism Answers Acts 2:41

Status
Not open for further replies.

JH

Puritan Board Sophomore
How is a paedobaptist to interpret Acts 2:41? — "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"

This question was posed by a brother in this sub-forum 14 years ago, but I found the thread to have few posts with lackluster responses. This is often the go-to passage referred to about the promises of the covenant, and reference to baptism. But the only people I see baptized in the text are those who believed.

Will the interpretation be to not presume on the silence of the text, similar to the household credo arguments? It just seems to me, if there were any point in the New Testament where infants would be at least seemingly referred to as being baptized, it would be here in this very passage.

Blessings
 
This is my understanding: those at the temple were there for the feast of weeks. As such, it would have been only the males (Ex. 34:22-23). The women and children would have been elsewhere. Therefore, in this setting it would make sense that the only people to receive baptism would be those who believed and consented to receive the sign.
 
More later maybe, and forgive how short this is, but two things:

If you change the word “infant” for “household”, you’ll have your direct examples.

Then factor in that Abraham professed, then was circumcised, and so was his household though males only. Profession for entrance into visible church followed by the application of sign is nothing new to the New Covenant times.
 
As to the “lack of references to infants”...IF the paedo position is right, why would we need specific references to infants? It would be everywhere assumed under the continuity of the covenant. What we see is exactly what we expect, that is, references to households. Whether or not infants were present in those households (although probably a safe assumption) is actually irrelevant to our position. The point is that the household, whomever it included, is baptized. The credo position actually needs to smuggle in that either no infants were present in any of them, or that infants were excluded when the household was baptized (and that there was no uproar when all these Jews suddenly excluded their children from the new covenant sign and seal).

As to Acts 2:41, I don’t see a problem. You baptize believers, we all agree with that.
 
How is a paedobaptist to interpret Acts 2:41? — "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"

This question was posed by a brother in this sub-forum 14 years ago, but I found the thread to have few posts with lackluster responses. This is often the go-to passage referred to about the promises of the covenant, and reference to baptism. But the only people I see baptized in the text are those who believed.

Will the interpretation be to not presume on the silence of the text, similar to the household credo arguments? It just seems to me, if there were any point in the New Testament where infants would be at least seemingly referred to as being baptized, it would be here in this very passage.

Blessings
As DeJager already noted, the predominant membership of the Pentecost audience were those from all over the world who felt a duty (by Mosaic injunction) to be in attendance at the feast. These were adult males. The stresses and danger of travel, and the probability of needed domestic duties attendance and oversight, would make female Judean/Galilean resident's attendance sporadic. The difficulty would be amplified in the case of foreign residents, and these audience members are the emphatic focus of the passage. The reality is: women and children were not obligated, so their attendance would be classified as a luxury option.

The interpretation of the call to faith and baptism should be on the substance of Peter's declarations, rather than the identities of the particular respondents, and whether their recorded commitment on the occasion should set the absolute limit of baptismal inclusion per ritual. The wording of Peter's statement invokes the Abrahamic promise, to which Jake also refers above, and by so doing summons to mind not just two or three vv from the start of Gen.12; but the repetition of that promise and its ultimate issue in the life of Abraham and that of his son.

If baptism is to be regarded first and foremost ritually, rather than theologically, then by all means make the most of the descriptions of baptisms; focus on the named or stated recipients; ignore (if you will) the pedestrian observation that "household" in Scripture by definition is an inclusive term. But if baptism ought to be regarded primarily as a theologically freighted concept, with a ritual expression, then one should come to the descriptions of baptismal events with a theory respecting the proper recipients. The descriptions should not, then, contradict the theory without overturning it, forcing the theologian back to his investigations.

However, if the theory is validated by the descriptions, that will go a long way to confirming one's theology. Our theology of Christian baptism (for this age of the church) is rooted in NT topsoil, with a taproot into OT circumcision (and OT baptisms). So, when we encounter a description (Act.2) of a crowd that is mostly adult men, and we see believers among them noted as baptism recipients, that makes sense to us; nor does it invalidate what we interpret Peter to be saying--tying the NT faith to the OT promises and the former exhibits of that faith in a statement that explicitly includes the children of believers, as the OT promises did.

And, when we encounter a description of a "household" baptism, we are inclined to interpret that language consistent with 1) the original OT promise to Abraham; 2) the repetition of that promissory language in Act.2; then 3) the absence of exclusionary terms and texts that would render the previous outwardly-included parties (i.e. children) separate; and 4) the inclusive meaning of the word in Scripture. Our reasoning is thus: since Abraham was expected to apply the sign of the covenant to his "household," when we find NT "households" having the sign of the covenant applied to them, we have no inclination to see exceptions.

Now, I'm not going to suggest that a Baptist of the contrary view doesn't have his own theological lens through which he provides reasonable alternative answers and explanations to the same facts. What we've hopefully been able to observe is how having different starting points and progress (instead of the idea that we all start off in the same basic position and "get off track" somewhere) leads to the very different conclusions we come to.

In the Act.2 passage, your chief focus is on on the act of baptism and the recorded participants. Those are the elements in this passage that are teaching you about baptism. That's fine, if you are a Baptist. It's not going to satisfy a Presbyterian. But it is where you seem to be starting in the passage, and it colors your conclusion. So, if you can see how a Presbyterian starts somewhere else, maybe you can see how it just sounds strange to me that you think this baptismal passage (with its mention of children) is "silent."

Peace.
 
Thank you Bruce, you left me with some stuff to chew on. After perusing Henry's commentary on the originally mentioned text, I personally found his explanation most plausible.

They are said to be three thousand souls (which word is generally used for persons when women and children are included with men, as Gen. 14:21, margin, Give me the souls; Gen. 46:27, seventy souls), which intimates that those that were here baptized were not so many men, but so many heads of families as, with their children and servants baptized, might make up three thousand souls. These were added to them. Note, Those who are joined to Christ are added to the disciples of Christ, and join with them. When we take God for our God, we must take his people to be our people.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:"

That is, the heads of the families present that believed upon the gospel.

"and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
That is, the remainder of each particular family.
 
Thank you Bruce, you left me with some stuff to chew on. After perusing Henry's commentary on the originally mentioned text, I personally found his explanation most plausible.

They are said to be three thousand souls (which word is generally used for persons when women and children are included with men, as Gen. 14:21, margin, Give me the souls; Gen. 46:27, seventy souls), which intimates that those that were here baptized were not so many men, but so many heads of families as, with their children and servants baptized, might make up three thousand souls. These were added to them. Note, Those who are joined to Christ are added to the disciples of Christ, and join with them. When we take God for our God, we must take his people to be our people.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:"

That is, the heads of the families present that believed upon the gospel.

"and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
That is, the remainder of each particular family.
I find MH's interpretation reasonable and suitable to my theological bent.

However, in preaching myself through Acts, and upon this portion (not-quite 3yrs ago), I did not dwell on the possibility of ending up at 3000 added to the church (as MH seems to) through the addition of family members.

As I preached vv42-47 I said words to this effect in introducing the next message:
That moment of extreme anguish was, for about 3000 of them, that very day assuaged, as they responded to the gracious invitation of the Heir to be reconciled.​
So, now that you’ve been reconciled, brought back into covenant relation to God via the promises to Abraham, through the generosity of Him who now possesses everything, what is going on? What needs to happen for 3000 newly sworn citizens of a reconstituted elect genus i.e. kindred (or a holy nation, Peter uses both terms in his epistle, I.2:9), and their children (their families, for the Abrahamic promise was not shortened as it was held out to them)? I’ll tell you: there must be an immediate effort at integrating and organizing for a new community.​

So then, I did not reduce the converts on that day (being present) from 3000, but increased the number theoretically beyond the throng of adherents just acknowledged. Either way, MH's view (3000 is a final tally inclusive of households) or mine (3000 are the new members, who have houses soon to be gained), the church was burgeoning in the early days.
 
How is a paedobaptist to interpret Acts 2:41? — "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"
Well, I begin with noting the whole sentence rather than just the first half of it. So I include Luke's point that "there were added that day about three thousand souls." In this way, I note that Luke connects being baptized with joining the community of faith.

Now, let's suppose that even if most men were at the temple alone, some of them did have family members in town with them, including young children. It takes an awfully individualist mindset to imagine that these men joined the faith community and started eating together in each other's homes, etc., but they left their kids out of this because the kids were not yet old enough to profess faith for themselves. Is this the Bible's picture of Christian community? It's far more likely, don't you think, that the kids were brought along and made part of this Christian community? Is this difficult to imagine? It is implausible?

So, if the second half of the sentence might easily include children, why is it difficult to imagine children also included under the first half of the sentence? If we assume children probably received Christian community, why not assume they also received baptism—especially when Luke mentions these two blessings in one breath?

That's the argument I would make.
 
My 'off the cuff' answer, would intitally be that these verses are 'descriptive' (simply describing what took place at that specific moment - we do not necessarily need to 'gladly recieve the word' to be baptised, or a candidate for baptism.) rather than 'prescriptive' (an actual directive set down for all time etc) - but then I would go away and research! Looks to be the context is important etc. I'll now be reading the above replies to sharpen up myself! To me, the overal doctrinal consistency of covenant theology (fleshed out thoughout the bible) bring such verses into harmony in my case thus far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top