Acts 2, necessary inference and infant baptism

OK, so I am back on this kick again. Infant baptism just gets under my skin. It used to be something I just shrugged off for the sake of peace among Reformed, confessional brothers but baptism is so important for the body of Christ and when it is misapplied, especially to infants, it seems to me to be an issue we need to really get some clarity on. I recognize that this is an issue that has divided the church over the years, in fact it may be the issue that is the most divisive in terms of fellowship among Christians and that the ground I am covering has been covered thousands of times before.

Let’s look again at the “proof text” offered for infant baptism in Acts 2, verse 39:

Acts 2: 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

This is the most inexplicable verse used to defend infant baptism. Taking that verse from a paedo worldview, it says that the promise is for these men and their offspring, i.e. their children, so in response they should be baptized and so should their infants. The problem is two fold. First, it doesn’t say or even imply that. Second, the surrounding context before and after doesn’t support that view. You can’t get to “…your children” and stop reading. Let’s look at the verse itself, taken in a vacuum before we look at the surrounding context.

What does verse 39 say? It says that the promise, fulfilled in the cross and described in Peter’s sermon in verses 14-36 was for them (those listening), and also for succeeding generations and for people in far away lands. Indeed the promise is for, and this is important, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself”. So the recipient of the promise are these men, succeeding generations, people in far away countries, all of whom are united by one thing: they have been called by Christ. It is no longer just a Jewish faith, it is a faith that is universal in the sense of being for all people, Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, free and slave. What unites them under this promise is their election and effectual calling. Just as Peter is not saying that people are saved merely by being in far away lands, he is not in any way saying that infants are saved or that they should be baptized because of who their parents are. We shouldn’t take Acts 2:39 to mean that we should baptize people in Thailand just because they are far away from Jerusalem nor should we baptize infants just because of having Christian parents.

Let’s look now at the preceding and successive verses that add light to verse 39 and demonstrate even more fully that Peter did not intend his statement in what we know as Acts 2:39 to advocate infant baptism. First the verses immediately preceding verse 39.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

These men were cut to the heart by Peter’s preaching of the Gospel. In response to that Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. So we have here the first of many examples of proper baptism: the preaching of the Gospel accompanied by a changed and penitent heart, a call for repentance and finally baptism. Contrast that with the paedo view: start with baptism, preach the Gospel through church and catechism and hope that they are elect. Kind of like growing into their baptism, even though countless numbers of infants that are baptized end up never being regenerate. This is the problem of making the argument of “necessary inference”. There is no need for inference here because we are already given explicit command and example of the proper recipients of baptism. Infant baptism is not a “necessary inference”, it is a reversal of the clear teaching of Scripture which tells us and shows us that the proper recipients of baptism are people who profess Christ. Not only is there no example or command to the contrary, but the writers of Scriptures go to pains to demonstrate just the opposite.

What of the verses immediately following verse 39?

Acts 2:40-41 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

So who was baptized that day? See again verse 41: “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2: 41)

Not those who received his word and their infant children. Those who received his word were baptized. It is a statement that is inclusive of those who received his word and exclusive of anyone else. This is where infant baptism falls apart in my eyes, you can go so far but no further. It is like the missing link or the lack of transitional forms in evolution. You have fossil A and current creature B, but there is no link between the two so you just make one up. Again, it certainly seems that the Scripture writers go out of their way to point out who is being baptized. Those who received his word were baptized.

There is simply no teachings at all in Scripture, NONE, that refers to, describes, commands or even infers that infants were or that infants should be baptized. So proponents of infant baptism are left with arguments of silence (well it doesn’t say we shouldn’t baptize infants) and invalid continuities between the Old Covenant community and the New. Given the importance of baptism, I will take the explicit commands and examples of Scripture over tradition and the Westminster Confession any day of the week.

(Up next, there is an online article on Jeremiah 31: 31-34 from a paedo perspective I am going to address.)