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.
