Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Hello Chris,

A brief (for me) remark on your OP.

Those listening to Peter were both local Jews and "foreign" Jews, some with family present, some without. There would have been some women, for we know that a company of women were with Peter and the apostles that day, and likely others not of their number were present.

The announcement of the Promise fulfilled -- in Peter's sermon -- included women as recipients ("I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit..." Acts 2:17, 18); and this inclusion of women as direct recipients was remarkable.

And what was the Promise received? In essence it was union and friendship with God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham. This commencement of the New Covenant promise was dramatic and in the power of Jesus' resurrection, in order to jar His elect from the corrupted religion: "Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation!" (2:40).

These were Jews, newly believing in the Seed, their Messiah, now themselves the spiritual seed of Abraham as well, so when Peter commanded them to be baptized, "every one of you" (38), "for the promise is unto you, and to your children..." it was clear that baptism was the mark (the "token", Gen 17:11 KJV) of submissive obedience to the administration of the New Covenant, without which one would not be counted a member, nor a friend of God.

It was not a new thing for it to be given the male infants / children; what was new was for it to be given to the girls / women! These were Jews, you would sooner tear their hearts from their bodies than tear their children from the Covenant of their God through disobedience to the ancient and irrevocable law, changed in token but not practice.

Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt. The women as well? No doubt. Had the children been denied, the newborn church would have aborted that day, for it would clearly not have been in continuity with the covenant and promise of Abraham.

About the baptized infants partaking the Lord's Table; when the infants and children were circumcised in Abraham's household, were they of a sudden weaned and begin to eat meat? Did they then join the men in the business of adults? Of course not! Neither did the babies newly circumcised with "the circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11 ff.) of a sudden commence upon the business of men! They did not "continue in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts 2:42), nor did they eat the food the adults did at the table, neither did they have the wherewithal to join "in prayers" with the men and women. They were babies! New Covenant babies! Marked with the holy token of God's covenant people. Respectfully I must remark that Baptists would have been run out of Jerusalem that day! Salvation came to houses in the economy of God, not Lone Ranger individuals as we have in abundance today.

Yes, there were covenant breakers, who renounced the covenant (and its seal) their parents had sought to bless them with -- in both stages of the Covenant of Grace, the old and the new.

It is a strange thing to me, to see a fervent defense of the paedo position turn into its opposite, and the erstwhile defender become a detractor. For the paedo is of ancient time, built on the foundation of God's grace to a family, and to all the families of that spiritual line. It is an anomaly.

But I must present this caveat: The Baptists have walked in such godliness, and defended the Faith with such brilliance of intellect (as fruits of the Holy Spirit), that they have immeasurably enriched the church of God. And me personally, I owe my spiritual health to the Lord's ministry through the Reformed Baptists in general -- and Al Martin in particular -- in no small measure. And so I will own in this matter, as I do with respect to those who differ with me in textual matters, that many are the Baptists who are better disciples of our God than I.