Anti-Baptists and Citing Only Half of Acts 2:39

I was looking through my

RSS feeds today and I ran across an example of, well, the kind of sacralism, the kind of state churchism that led to the martyrdom of many

Baptists even at the hands of Protestants after the Protestant Reformation.

I am thankful that I have such a close working relationship with many of my

Presbyterian brothers, but there are Reformed individuals who will basically have nothing to do with me because I am a

Baptist. And though I fully understand the argumentation they present, having debated this subject three times, and each time

I might note I was responding to a challenge to debate, I did not offer the challenge to debate.

I have not sought those debates, but I undertook them because as a convinced Reformed Baptist, I felt that it would be appropriate to do so, and I felt that those debates were handled in an appropriate fashion between brothers in the

Lord. But I have said my piece on the subject, and I do not seek to make it some central aspect of my ministry or anything along those lines.

But there are people on the other side who will, of course, say that I'm not

Reformed, will simply not have anything to do with me ministerially, things like that.

And I find that sad, but that's their freedom, they can do as they wish. But when they start accusing me of sin, while they are only quoting parts of Biblical texts, that's what prompts this video.

Nigel Lee was quoted in the following words on the reformedcatholicism .com website, just today,

I believe, in Acts 2 .38, following, God commands the penitent, be baptized every one of you, dot, dot, dot, comma, for the promise is unto you and to your children, exclamation point, close quote.

Commented Calvin, that this passage, therefore, sufficiently refutes the Anabaptists, who deny baptism to the children of the faithful while they are still infants, as though they were not members of the church.

This gross presumption is of no profit to them. And then the writer and elder

Haas comments on this and says, in light of Dr. Lee's two -pronged scriptural, ultimate, and Reformed confessional penultimate perspective, one which has always and everywhere been maintained by all segments of the

Reformed and non -Reformed churches, the prevalence and popularity of this or that Tulip -based organization,

Tulip Baptist organization, apology, far from being a sign of the ongoing reformation of the church in the

United States is, one fears, and more rather a sign of its de -formation.

And then below, this same author made the following comment, amen to someone whose nick is sacramental piety, amen,

SV. So Westminster West should not have rented out space to the

Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies, and also the Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals, as well as the

White Horse Inn, should cease and desist regarding the affiliation with Baptists, shouldn't we say?

I find such attitudes, well, thankfully, a small minority.

And like I said, I am so thankful for the Presbyterian brothers with whom I stand in the gospel, in defense of the gospel, and ministering with them.

And so I'm thankful that this tribe is very small, and though somewhat noisy, remains small.

But it strikes me as so odd that, once again, exactly what

I said in my debate with my brother Bill Shishko of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square, New York, is fulfilled.

For in a debate that took place coming up on two years ago now, I pointed out how often it is that my

Presbyterian brothers only quote a portion of Acts 239. They don't listen to the entirety of the text.

They only hear what their tradition allows them to hear. And here's a perfect example of it.

And here's where the danger of that tradition can be seen, in this kind of hard attitude that would make the kind of commentary we saw here.

So I went back and I grabbed the comments from my debate with Bill Shishko on this text from Acts chapter 2.

You'll hear me specifically make the statement, I keep hearing Presbyterians only quote part of the sentence.

When you're quoting only part of the sentence, and you're missing out the key, you're just completely leaving out the key element of it, that is a perfect indicator of a tradition getting in the way of meaningful biblical exegesis.

And so it's disappointing to see this kind of thing. It's not unusual, but I'm glad to see that it's getting less and less, because we don't need any more of it.

That's for certain. We have real battles to be fighting in the Reformed community. And while we need to continue discussing this, this kind of attitude by this elder

Haas is something we really don't need. So here's the commentary from the debate on Acts chapter 2.

Clearly, in the first example of baptism in Acts chapter 2, verses 38 through 41,

Peter said to them, repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promises for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the

Lord our God will call to himself. And with many other words, he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, be saved from this perverse generation.

So then those who had received his word were baptized, and that day there were added about 3 ,000 souls.

Now, what do we see in this text? Well, it has been rightly said that very often, our

Paedo -Baptist brethren are so sensitive to the old covenant echoes in this text that they miss the new covenant fulfillment.

Very often, as I hear this text being discussed, what you hear is, for the promise is for you and your children.

And it stops right there. Actually, it says, for you and your children and for all who are far off.

Now, who is this? Well, there are differing interpretations. I believe that what the reference here is, for you and your children,

Jews, and for all who are far off, Gentiles. But what is the controlling phrase in Acts 2 .39?

The controlling phrase is, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.

Now, Reformed people, especially, sort of catch that word called, you know? We sort of notice that word, and we sort of zero in on that because we have here the electing grace of God.

Even if you say, well, this is just the general call, it's still something that is discriminating on the part of God in this particular text.

Now, some have suggested, well, there might be another reason why you have the children mentioned here. Remember back in Matthew 27 .25,

we have those chilling words that had been spoken only a few weeks before in this context.

When Pilate sends Jesus to be crucified, what do the Jews say? And all the people said, his blood shall be upon us and on our children.

Possibly, maybe this is an emphasis in Peter's part that, no, you may think that you've been cursed because the

Messiah was crucified under your yells and screams, but God has proclaimed forgiveness in him.

But the point to make sure you see is that when the apostle preaches the message, who was baptized?

Were households baptized in Acts chapter 2? So then those who had received his word, to receive the word of God is to receive the message of who

Jesus Christ is and what he has done. We know that they were struck to the heart.

So they've received his word, the instruction. These are the individuals who are baptized in Acts chapter 2.

So no matter what the text indicates to us, the interpretation of Peter's words were that those who received his word were baptized at that time.