Household salvation -- Split from Credobaptism and Raising Families

[PuritanCovenanter]

I believe you are painting a straw man here Rich. In fact the ordinances require examination before God and also are a means of grace to the church in this quest that you are trying to illuminate.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 10:16:47 EST-----

Let me add some more thought here real quickly. The body of Christ is what is portrayed and examination is meant to help one recognize whether or not one is in Christ or not. They draw us back to Union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. It is based upon the cup of the New Covenant in his blood.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 10:21:56 EST-----

Just some scripture.

(2Co 13:5) Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

(1Co 11:18) For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

(1Co 11:19) For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

(1Co 11:20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

(1Co 11:21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

(1Co 11:22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

(1Co 11:23) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

(1Co 11:24) And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

(1Co 11:25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

(1Co 11:26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

(1Co 11:27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

(1Co 11:28) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

(1Co 11:29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

(1Co 11:30) For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

(1Co 11:31) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

(1Co 11:32) But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

(1Co 11:33) Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

(1Co 11:34) And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

In fact the Lord's supper is to help distinguish between the reprobate and the brethren in my understanding.

 

[discipulo]

That is mostly true, but is it the whole truth?
Brother I was baptized as an adult after my conversion.
Unfortunately I was not raised in a Christian family and I was an atheist till I was 19. So Paedos also believe in Credo Baptism, of course.

But Norseman, can you please answer.
Were all the Circumcised Children in the OT in the Covenant?
Were all of those God’s children?
Were all elect?
How did God see all those children?

And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols Ezekiel 16:20-21

Bill was using Agustine’s quote: the New is in the Old concealed: the Old is in the New revealed.
But the NT again and again points us to former admin. of the CoG to explain the NC.
It explains Sacraments, in your words Ordinances, in light of the former Passover and Circumcision.
If we don’t have the same Hermeneutical Approach we will never agree on this.
In my humble opinion BR introduce a Dispensational cleavage in the Oikonomia of the NC.
You mention those passages, but is it different in the NC?
But what is it New in the NC? Justification by faith? Regeneration? No
So should now children of believers be kept out of the Covenant?
A Better Covenant, extending in scope to the Gentiles, must not contract to the most «sacred unit», the family.
That is what Oikos Baptism is all about.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I believe you are painting a straw man here Rich. In fact the ordinances require examination before God and also are a means of grace to the church in this quest that you are trying to illuminate.

Can you show me where I have claimed, above, that the ordinances do not require examination?

What I stated was that the administration of the ordinance is disconnected from the New Covenant proper. The Church can, at best, approximate what it thinks the Holy Spirit has done but it is the Holy Spirit that has joined to the New Covenant prior to the ordinances and not because of them.

What do you mean by means of grace exactly?

Let me add some more thought here real quickly. The body of Christ is what is portrayed and examination is meant to help one recognize whether or not one is in Christ or not. They draw us back to Union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. It is based upon the cup of the New Covenant in his blood.

This is introspective, however, and is not due to the fact that the Covenant is in the midst of the person. For all he knows, the believer is either self-deceived or is the only true believer in the Church. The ordinance itself, then, is a memorial for him but there is no communion with any other physical person in the building.

There is a very good reason why God uses physical objects that direct our minds to spiritual realities and, I believe, without a sacramental understanding of this then the bare memorial strips away real grace and leaves the believer with introspection - looking to himself for fruit to ascertain if they are really elect. This is poison for assurance.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

That is mostly true, but is it the whole truth?
Brother I was baptized as an adult after my conversion.
Unfortunately I was not raised in a Christian family and I was an atheist till I was 19. So Paedos also believe in Credo Baptism, of course.

We are not discussing whether one should be in the church and not be baptized. Your point is mute here.

But Norseman, can you please answer.
Were all the Circumcised Children in the OT in the Covenant?
Were all of those God’s children?
Were all elect?
How did God see all those children?

He saw some in relation to Ishmael and some in relation to Isaac. God saw some in the Abrahamic covenant with civil promises and others with civil and spiritual. Look at the differences between Ishmael and Isaac. There were promises made to Abraham pertaining both in his covenant. Ishmael was not included in the Covenant of Grace as you can see in Genesis 17. God establishes his covenant with Isaac and not with Ishmael.

(Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

(Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols Ezekiel 16:20-21

I see what you are saying but I don't think it addressed the issue at hand in light of what I revealed.

Bill was using Agustine’s quote: the New is in the Old concealed: the Old is in the New revealed.
But the NT again and again points us to former admin. of the CoG to explain the NC.
It explains Sacraments, in your words Ordinances, in light of the former Passover and Circumcision.

The antitype has come. The seed has been fulfilled in Christ. The antitypes are done away with. We have a better Covenant now. The old is passed away as it is called a ministry of death.

You might want to look at Rich's and my discussion on the Abrahamic Covenant. Remember this discussion we just had.

I know you read it.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/split-why-i-am-now-paedo-thread-41627/#post515858

If we don’t have the same Hermeneutical Approach we will never agree on this.

I understand. We will probably never agree.

In my humble opinion BR introduce a Dispensational cleavage in the Oikonomia of the NC.
You mention those passages, but is it different in the NC?
But what is it New in the NC? Justification by faith? Regeneration? No
So should now children of believers be kept out of the Covenant?
A Better Covenant, extending in scope to the Gentiles, must not contract to the most «sacred unit», the family.
That is what Oikos Baptism is all about.

You have flattened out the Covenants too much. I recommend you read Owen on Hebrews chapter 8 and consider what the scriptures say in Jeremiah 31.

(2Co 3:6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

(2Co 3:7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

(2Co 3:8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

(2Co 3:9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

(2Co 3:10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

(2Co 3:11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

(Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

(Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

(Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

(Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

(Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

(Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

(Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 11:00:21 EST-----

The Baptist has to do more, then, than simply note that an elect exists and it's called the New Covenant. Since the Old Covenant that contained types and shadows was used of God to bring people to Christ, there is a problem that there is now no Covenant that actually intrudes into time and space. That is to say that the NC is completely ideal as far as man understands but none of the ordinances can actually be said to be administrations of the New Covenant because a mixed multitude exists even in Baptist Churches.

This is the irony of baptism debates: for all the insistence that the NC is with the elect, the Baptist doesn't even believe that baptism confers membership to the NC. Thus, the activity of the Church stands, as it were, outside of direct relationship with the NC and, in fact, this present "dispensation" is "Covenant-less" with respect to the administration of the ordinances.

When one participates in the ordinances, does that necessarily mean he is a Covenant member and a Covenant child of God? Does the ordinance lose its significance and power because of the one who drinks or eats unworthily? What is a means of Grace to you? Because one who is unworthy drinks or is baptized does not render the Covenant itself null and void. It only means they trample under foot the person and work of Christ. They are blasphemers. And I believe Paul spoke to this issue in 1 Cor. 11. We do not make it a Covenant-less ordinance as you speak of. We affirm the Covenant of God by it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thank you for confirming what I just wrote Randy.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thank you for confirming what I just wrote Randy.

So Rich... Are reprobates a part of the New Covenant? I think you would say yes where the scriptures would say no.

(Eph 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

(Eph 2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

(Eph 2:10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

(Eph 2:11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

(Eph 2:12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

(Eph 2:13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

(Eph 2:14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

(Eph 2:15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

(Eph 2:16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

(Eph 2:17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

(Eph 2:18) For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

(Eph 2:19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

(Eph 2:20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

(Eph 2:21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

(Eph 2:22) In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

I do believe our hermeneutic is different. You are trying to put New wine into old wines skins. You are trying to put a new patch of cloth over old fabric and are doing harm to the material instead of recognizing that the old should be done away with as we now have a new.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You can quote the Scriptures on this point all you like. All you do is underline my point above yet again. Read: The New Covenant is with the Elect alone. Really? I guess you assume that every time you read something about the benefits of union with Christ in the Covenant of Promise that it establishes the case. It does not.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

You can quote the Scriptures on this point all you like. All you do is underline my point above yet again. Read: The New Covenant is with the Elect alone. Really? I guess you assume that every time you read something about the benefits of union with Christ in the Covenant of Promise that it establishes the case. It does not.

Well, I guess we will find out when that which is perfect is come. Aye? I still see through a glass darkly.

 

[MOSES]

Concerning Acts 2 passage.

I think that one thing that many fail to take into consideration when looking at this passage is this:

22 “Men of Israel...this Jesus,..you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men

The context of these words is set in the temple and the back drop of the OC system...now these men, Israel, guilty of murder ask this:

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?”


Well, guess what, under the OC there is absolutely nothing that these men can do. The OC does not have a sacrifice, a ceremony, a covering, etc..for those guilty of murder. They, while in the temple where sacrfices were made, ask "what shall we do?" Outside of the NC there is nothing for them to do. But, in the NC there is a sacrifice that is sufficient for them.
Thus Peter says:

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

That for which the guilty men of Israel could not be done under the OC can be done in the NC..
Thus this contrast and comparison in the context, between the OC temple system in thier midst, and the HS ministering in a "new way" in thier midst, clarifies, in my opinion, NC baptism.
And points to the sacramental nature of it.

This is far different then John's baptism...a jewish only baptism of preperation (cleansing)..
This new "Christian" baptism is set up in direct replacement, according to the context as I stated above, to the ceremonial 'temple' system which was insufficient for these men.

Thus, in my opinion, the denying of this 'ceremonial' 'sacramental' aspect of NC baptism is one of the mistakes that many in the "baptist" camp make.
The OC ceremonial system was not instituted as a way of "active" outward obedience by men when they felt compelled...it was instituted as a mandatory corporate administration of the covenant.
Thus, baptism too should be administered in the same madatory corporate way...
As Peter say's

be baptized every one of you acts 2:38

This is not a compelling of one to "active" participation in the NC...no more then the OC system did not compell. This is a commandment in regards to the Covenant's administration.

I don't think the independent, active, self obedience, type nature of American Baptist culture, is really what is in view in this text. But rather, the passive CORPORATE administration of the covenant (albeit, in a "new way")

 

[discipulo]

You have flattened out the Covenants too much. I recommend you read Owen on Hebrews chapter 8 and consider what the scriptures say in Jeremiah 31..

Thank you brother for the references. My meagre

Doesn't Hebrews 8 mentions the megas and the mikros

in my opinion it is no flattening, that’s a nice word, brother, only progressive revelation. now and not yet, and more now so to speak.
So progressive revelation, and Christ, Gen 3:15 protoevangelion, the Rock in the Desert, etc, bringing the fulfilment of the Kingdom.

Oscar Culmann Christus und die Zeit

Herman Ridderbos The Coming of the Kingdom.

Dr. Richard Pratt explains how Jeremiah 31 only has its fulfilment in the Eschaton

JEREMIAH 31: INFANT BAPTISM IN THE NEW COVENANT

The Antithesis is never between Administrations of the CoG, as Luther thought of the OT. It is between Law and Grace (this has no Antinomianism / Legalism bias) so the Second Adam Christ, as our Federal Head, fulfilled the perfect obedience to the Law.

The NC abolishes the Cerimonial Law that is the Hebrews 8 – 10 context.

Hebrews 8 and Owen, why do I have the feeling that you’re into James R. White

Owen is always welcome

So Rich... Are reprobates a part of the New Covenant? I think you would say yes where the scriptures would say no.

You must agree that to maintain the Persvrc.of the Saints (as I know you do) in a narrowed covenantal scope NC, only to adult professed believers (one should avoid regeneration mentioning then) the scriptural admonitions against apostasy and covenant breaking become a difficult exegetical exercise. I would say.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I know little of James White. I have only read one book by him on the KJV controversy and listened to his series on the New Paul Perspective. I have discussed your understanding with others on the board. I disagree with your presuppositions. And no I don't think that Covenant breaking is difficult. I am divorced. And apostasy has been discussed here as well. I have no problem with it any more than the parable of the seeds.

The text in Jeremiah says it all. They are forgiven and he remembers their sins no more. It isn't like a Covenant He made with their fathers. There is a different Covenant Head and mediator. It is new.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 03:57:06 EST-----

BTW, Either you are not reading what I am writing or you are negligent in how I have discussed the covenants and how they administer or minister.

 

[Herald]

Well, guess what, under the OC there is absolutely nothing that these men can do.

If you're referring to the codified Law -- correct. But God was as much a God of mercy and grace during the OC as He is during the NC.

2 Samuel 12:1-13 is a perfect example of a sin that there was no remedy for under the Law. David threw himself on the mercy of God. This is not the only example. To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.

 

[MOSES]

Well, guess what, under the OC there is absolutely nothing that these men can do.

If you're referring to the codified Law -- correct. But God was as much a God of mercy and grace during the OC as He is during the NC.

2 Samuel 12:1-13 is a perfect example of a sin that there was no remedy for under the Law. David threw himself on the mercy of God. This is not the only example. To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.

Yes...I was speaking of the "codified" law; specifically the ceremonial system itself, in saying:

The OC does not have a sacrifice, a ceremony, a covering etc..for those guilty of murder

To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.

Note: appealing to the "limitations of the Law" is something that the NT writers do quite often; formulating entire doctrines.
I personally believe that the ACTs 2 passage begins as an example of this "appeal" process (in a way)...and thus does not exceed the intent, but is part of the intent.

 

[Herald]

Well, guess what, under the OC there is absolutely nothing that these men can do.

If you're referring to the codified Law -- correct. But God was as much a God of mercy and grace during the OC as He is during the NC.

2 Samuel 12:1-13 is a perfect example of a sin that there was no remedy for under the Law. David threw himself on the mercy of God. This is not the only example. To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.

Yes...I was speaking of the "codified" law; specifically the ceremonial system itself, in saying:

The OC does not have a sacrifice, a ceremony, a covering etc..for those guilty of murder

To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.

Note: appealing to the "limitations of the Law" is something that the NT writers do quite often; formulating entire doctrines.
I personally believe that the ACTs 2 passage begins as an example of this "appeal" process (in a way)...and thus does not exceed the intent, but is part of the intent.

Agree to disagree. In my humble opinion within Acts 2 appealing to the limitations of the Law, in the manner you have prescribed, is not supported by the text.

 

[MOSES]

Agree to disagree. In my humble opinion within Acts 2 appealing to the limitations of the Law, in the manner you have prescribed, is not supported by the text.

Herald
I hope you don't mind if I take a shot at stating my position here in an attempt to lessen our disagreement.

If a scripture commands someone to do A) and B) for the forgiveness of sins, and A and B is not in exact accordance with the law...then consequently there must be a limitation in the law that is being appealed to (though perhaps not directly), but only IN REGARDS TO the original audience, which in the Acts 2 case was devout jews.
Note: this same appeal would not apply to us being we are not under the ceremonial law. But it does fit with the context as well as Peter's direct audience.

again, these jews were commanded to do something for the forgiveness of sins. That something was not prescribed in the ceremonial law. Therefore, in this case, the law is limited, and the one doing the commanding of that which is new (Peter) is by consequence appealing to the limitation of the law (in an indirect way).


Would you perhaps agree that there is at least a sort of "indirect" appeal to the limitation of the law in this portion of scripture? Or perhaps that this text could justify a sermon on teaching the insufficiency of the law in this regard?
OR..do you see no limitation, no appeal to the limitation, on the law at all in this scripture?

Thanks

 

[Herald]

Would you perhaps agree that there is at least a sort of "indirect" appeal to the limitation of the law in this portion of scripture? Or perhaps that this text could justify a sermon on teaching the insufficiency of the law in this regard?
OR..do you see no limitation, no appeal to the limitation, on the law at all in this scripture?

Shawn, I do not believe Peter's sermon directly or obliquely deals with the limitation of the Law. We can extrapolate that the sin of murder had no remedy under the Law, but that was not the intent of Peter's message. I wrote earlier that while there was no remedy under the Law for murder, there was the appeal to God's mercy. I used David's sin in ordering the murder of Uriah, and his subsequent repentance, as an example.

Brother, while you can certainly "lift" out of the passage some good preachable material (i.e. the limitation of the Law), the intent of the passage is to A) Expose the sin of the Jews (2:36) ~and~ B) Call on them to repent and believe (2:21, 38, 40, 47).

In my lengthy dialog with Cesar (discipulo), I repeatedly brought the discussion back to the clear teaching of the text. In my humble opinion some participants in this thread are imposing their covenant continuity construct over this passage and conflating that with the plain normative meaning of the text. If you take the time to catch up on the thread, you'll see that much of the argument is coming full circle.

Blessings.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't think we can ignore the desperation of the pleas in Acts 2.

The "Men and Brethren, What shall we do?" is a desperate question. These men realized they had just put the Son of God to death. Whether or not there is remedy under the Law for the murder of a man is debatable (I believe Psalm 53 actually demonstrates that David's forgiveness is not strictly forgiveness based on the strictness of the Law but upon grace).

What cannot be argued, however, is that there is a remedy under the Law for the murder of the Son of God. Whatever else you want to draw from Acts 2, I think we need to keep straight why the men were so cut to the heart on this point. How would you react if you realized you just denied the Son of God, put Him to death, and mocked Him while you were doing so? Given the time between Passover and Pentecost (as well as their requirement to be there for the former), these men were around for the Passover and couldn't have missed the News. I believe the reason that these hearers believed that day was, in no small part, the intercession of Christ for them while suffering on the Cross.

 

[Herald]

I don't think we can ignore the desperation of the pleas in Acts 2.

The "Men and Brethren, What shall we do?" is a desperate question. These men realized they had just put the Son of God to death. Whether or not there is remedy under the Law for the murder of a man is debatable (I believe Psalm 53 actually demonstrates that David's forgiveness is not strictly forgiveness based on the strictness of the Law but upon grace).

What cannot be argued, however, is that there is no remedy under the Law for the murder of the Son of God. Whatever else you want to draw from Acts 2, I think we need to keep straight why the men were so cut to the heart on this point. How would you react if you realized you just denied the Son of God, put Him to death, and mocked Him while you were doing so? Given the time between Passover and Pentecost (as well as their requirement to be there for the former), these men were around for the Passover and couldn't have missed the News. I believe the reason that these hearers believed that day was, in no small part, the intercession of Christ for them while suffering on the Cross.

Rich, I concur. My response to Shawn had to do specifically with the intent of the text in relation to the limitation of the Law.