Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Ken, you said in post #43,
Yes, it was so preached to them by Peter, that if they would be saved in the new covenant of Messiah, it would be through obediently receiving the new sign of baptism. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you…” (Acts 2:38) They didn’t falter. And yes, there is much that Peter said we do not have recorded: “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation.’ ” (2:40). Earlier he had included “sons and daughters...servants and handmaidens” (2:17, 18) in the manifesting of the Spirit of God among them. No doubt (there I go again!) he made it clear to them in the sermon we do not have that it was so to be – women were now to receive the mark of the covenant.
You are right, though, Ken, that some will doubt. I suppose my use of that expression is rhetorical – and I used it loosely, thinking of those with paedo leanings! Or perhaps I thought too highly of the (supposed) inexorable logic of my argument!
I suppose also that I was assuming the understanding that there would be a mixed crowd that day during the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), per Deuteronomy 16:11, where it is written of this feast,
It was to be a festive occasion, a family day, if you will, rejoicing in the goodness of God not only in giving them a good harvest, but in delivering them from Egypt (v. 12) – the which was also typical of the great deliverance from the world the Savior had now obtained for them in Him.
But thanks for calling me on that!
Steve
Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt.
Could you elaborate on the 'no doubtedness' of this statement?
Are you saying that the Jews immediately recognized that baptism was the new 'token' of the covenant? Are you assuming that there was some further teaching to this effect by Peter that is not recorded? It would seem to me that there would need to be some explaining done especially in light of the 'token' now being offered to females.
I am willing to accept your conclusion, but I don't understand how you can claim that there is 'no doubt'.
Yes, it was so preached to them by Peter, that if they would be saved in the new covenant of Messiah, it would be through obediently receiving the new sign of baptism. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you…” (Acts 2:38) They didn’t falter. And yes, there is much that Peter said we do not have recorded: “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation.’ ” (2:40). Earlier he had included “sons and daughters...servants and handmaidens” (2:17, 18) in the manifesting of the Spirit of God among them. No doubt (there I go again!) he made it clear to them in the sermon we do not have that it was so to be – women were now to receive the mark of the covenant.
You are right, though, Ken, that some will doubt. I suppose my use of that expression is rhetorical – and I used it loosely, thinking of those with paedo leanings! Or perhaps I thought too highly of the (supposed) inexorable logic of my argument!
I suppose also that I was assuming the understanding that there would be a mixed crowd that day during the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), per Deuteronomy 16:11, where it is written of this feast,
And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is in thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.
It was to be a festive occasion, a family day, if you will, rejoicing in the goodness of God not only in giving them a good harvest, but in delivering them from Egypt (v. 12) – the which was also typical of the great deliverance from the world the Savior had now obtained for them in Him.
But thanks for calling me on that!
Steve