Comments on: Infant Baptism and Acts 16:31-34 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:54:00 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Daniel http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-122121 Daniel Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:14:03 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-122121 Mike, you mentioned a quote from Welty that I believe is too narrow and flawed, "...it would be quite absurd for a family of Gospel rejectors to be so excited about a family member’s salvation." Welty makes the assertion that there are only 2 responses to the Gospel: 1) Genuinely repent and believe or 2) Genuinely reject the Gospel with disdain. If this were the case, then he has a good point. However, he fails to address another response: Those who receive the Gospel with joy but that joy is temporary and their faith was not genuine. Outwardly it looks like they have receieved the Word even though inwardly they are really rejecting the Word. Jesus' parable in Matthew 13 concerning the various soils shows that the Word may fall upon rocky soil that receives the Gospel with joy but later proves that it was not genuine. So it is very possible that that could be the case. Whether he rejoiced with them that he believed or they rejoiced with him that he believed, it is quite possible that they could rejoice and still not be saved! Ultimately, there is no middle ground between receiving or rejecting Christ (Luke 11:23), but from our viewpoint, a person can surely appear to have received Christ but inside still reject Him. Mike, you mentioned a quote from Welty that I believe is too narrow and flawed, “…it would be quite absurd for a family of Gospel rejectors to be so excited about a family member’s salvation.”

Welty makes the assertion that there are only 2 responses to the Gospel: 1) Genuinely repent and believe or 2) Genuinely reject the Gospel with disdain. If this were the case, then he has a good point. However, he fails to address another response: Those who receive the Gospel with joy but that joy is temporary and their faith was not genuine. Outwardly it looks like they have receieved the Word even though inwardly they are really rejecting the Word. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 13 concerning the various soils shows that the Word may fall upon rocky soil that receives the Gospel with joy but later proves that it was not genuine.

So it is very possible that that could be the case. Whether he rejoiced with them that he believed or they rejoiced with him that he believed, it is quite possible that they could rejoice and still not be saved!

Ultimately, there is no middle ground between receiving or rejecting Christ (Luke 11:23), but from our viewpoint, a person can surely appear to have received Christ but inside still reject Him.

]]> By: Tim Etherington http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-120642 Tim Etherington Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:10:30 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-120642 Jim K, I agree, that was no strawman. Matt did some careful exegesis. That said, there are other examples of household baptisms that paedobaptists appeal to as well that are not as clear about who believe and was baptized. Jim K, I agree, that was no strawman. Matt did some careful exegesis. That said, there are other examples of household baptisms that paedobaptists appeal to as well that are not as clear about who believe and was baptized.

]]> By: Bob Isakson http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-120601 Bob Isakson Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:27:04 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-120601 The Philippian jailor may or may not have been retired but there isn't anything that I am aware of that states that he couldn't have been. One reason was the fact that Philippi was a city where retired soldiers often went to live and spend their last years. The Philippian jailor may or may not have been retired but there isn’t anything that I am aware of that states that he couldn’t have been. One reason was the fact that Philippi was a city where retired soldiers often went to live and spend their last years.

]]> By: David M. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-120566 David M. Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:47:41 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-120566 The articles mentioned seem like the ususal patchwork arguments that also include praying to Mary and compulsory sabbath observation. I'm sorry, I don't see it and I don't know how the reformers could have either. The articles mentioned seem like the ususal patchwork arguments that also include praying to Mary and compulsory sabbath observation. I’m sorry, I don’t see it and I don’t know how the reformers could have either.

]]> By: Jim K http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-120556 Jim K Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:14:07 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-120556 The "Philippian Jailer and his family" argument isn't a straw man Matt set up to easily tear down. Here are two articles defending the paedobaptist view point: http://www.crcna.org/pages/babies_baptized.cfm http://www.crcna.org/pages/baptism_new.cfm The “Philippian Jailer and his family” argument isn’t a straw man Matt set up to easily tear down. Here are two articles defending the paedobaptist view point:

http://www.crcna.org/pages/babies_baptized.cfm
http://www.crcna.org/pages/baptism_new.cfm

]]> By: Jim K http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-120555 Jim K Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:09:24 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-120555 All of the paedobaptist arguments that I've ever come across are either directly tied to, or are inferred from a flawed understanding (misinterpretation of scripture) of Israel and the church. Simplistically, paedobaptists argue that the church has inherited God's OT covenant promises to the nation of Israel because of Israel's rejection of their messiah, Jesus. Romans 11 clearly states this is not the case, "I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." Believers on both sides of the arguement have to be extremely careful to not base doctrine (and commands to obey) on inferences and presuppositions. Until we (paedobaptists and traditional baptists) all embrace a common hermeneutic, the debate will rage and confusion will reign. Without a common, agreed upon set of rules of Biblical interpretation, its like trying to compete in an athletic event, with each team playing by two different sets of rules. All of the paedobaptist arguments that I’ve ever come across are either directly tied to, or are inferred from a flawed understanding (misinterpretation of scripture) of Israel and the church. Simplistically, paedobaptists argue that the church has inherited God’s OT covenant promises to the nation of Israel because of Israel’s rejection of their messiah, Jesus. Romans 11 clearly states this is not the case, “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” Believers on both sides of the arguement have to be extremely careful to not base doctrine (and commands to obey) on inferences and presuppositions. Until we (paedobaptists and traditional baptists) all embrace a common hermeneutic, the debate will rage and confusion will reign. Without a common, agreed upon set of rules of Biblical interpretation, its like trying to compete in an athletic event, with each team playing by two different sets of rules.

]]> By: Mike http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-120550 Mike Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:35:01 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-120550 Greg Welty said it best...it would be quite absurd for a family of Gospel rejectors to be so excited about a family member's salvation. Greg Welty said it best…it would be quite absurd for a family of Gospel rejectors to be so excited about a family member’s salvation.

]]> By: Daryl http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-120545 Daryl Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:15:33 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-120545 I have a further question on the whole Philippian jailer thing. I've heard it taught that at this time in history, jailers were primarily retired soldiers. They had the experience required to contain the criminal element that the average Joe wouldn't. If that's true (the retired part) then is it not reasonable to assume that there were no little kiddies running around the house anyways? I have a further question on the whole Philippian jailer thing. I’ve heard it taught that at this time in history, jailers were primarily retired soldiers. They had the experience required to contain the criminal element that the average Joe wouldn’t.

If that’s true (the retired part) then is it not reasonable to assume that there were no little kiddies running around the house anyways?

]]> By: Allen http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/comment-page-1/#comment-120519 Allen Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:42:28 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#comment-120519 I always appreciate sound exposition, and this surely seems to be that, however, it's interesting that someone would even use this passage in support of "infant" baptism, given that the text never makes mention of an infant. Surely the word "house" or "household" does not necessarily include an infant. Once again, thanks for the thoughtful study. I always appreciate sound exposition, and this surely seems to be that, however, it’s interesting that someone would even use this passage in support of “infant” baptism, given that the text never makes mention of an infant. Surely the word “house” or “household” does not necessarily include an infant. Once again, thanks for the thoughtful study.

]]>