Dan, I want to thank-you for the post.  It is was an excellent to the Padeobaptist view. 


Dan Gunter <dgtulip@...> wrote:


julian kennedy wrote:

> Jack-if the promise does not refer back to the 'primeval' promise to 
> Abraham and his children then what does it refer to?
>
Julian, this is exactly what Jack is objecting to in your exegesis of 
this passage. We never have the right to see a word such as "promise" 
and then conclude it must be referring back to the Abrahamic covenant. 
That is a bold assumption based on your theology, not on the text. 
Exegesis must ask the question, "to what was Peter referring when he 
spoke these words?" Now, in the text, the subject of Abraham and the 
covenant promise made to him is not mentioned at all in Peter's sermon. 
Therefore, for Peter to simply blurt out, "the promise is for you and 
your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God 
will call to himself," would be quite out of the ordinary and make no 
sense if it meant what you insist it must mean. Exegesis requires that 
our answer make sense within the text. So we first look within the 
context and as if we can answer our question from the context. The 
answer is quite evident in the text.

In verse 4 we see the issue that caused all the attention being placed 
upon the disciples. "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and 
began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."

The commotion and message by Peter that ensued was all about answering 
the charge found in v. 12-13 "And they all continued in amazement and 
great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But 
others were mocking and saying, "They are full of sweet wine."

Point of focus is the first question asked "What does this mean? That 
is what Peter answers by his sermon. He first refutes the charge of 
drunkenness and then proceeds to show that the outpouring of the Spirit 
is a fulfillment of prophecy or a PROMISE fulfilled that was spoken of 
in the OT prophets. (V. 16)

Peter then shows that the prophecies are connected to the coming and 
death of the Messiah and that now that the Messiah has indeed ascended 
to the Father, the PROMISE of the Spirit has now come as PROMISED by the 
prophets and Christ Himself. We see this so clearly pointed out by Peter 
in v. 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and 
having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has 
poured forth this which you both see and hear."

Can you see that Peter clearly has not changed subjects? He is still 
answering the first question asked, "What does this mean?

Then comes the punch line for Peter. He is in essence saying, "You asked 
what this means? I'll tell you, it means that because the promised 
Spirit has just been poured out and because it is in connection with the 
man you crucified. It is irrefutable proof that the one you crucified 
was the Son of God...you killed the Messiah.!!!!

Now, it is clear that this is exactly what was meant by this discourse, 
because the people filled with dread cried out "Brethren, what shall we do?"

The answer Peter gives is wonderful news, Repent and be baptized and YOU 
will receive the PROMISE. What is he saying? He is telling these people 
at Pentecost that if they will repent and be baptized they TOO will 
receive the PROMISE of the HOLY SPIRIT just as the others have. He then 
says for the PROMISE (of the holy Spirit) is for you, and your children, 
and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call. (A 
direct reference back to the prophecy of Joel wherein the Spirit is 
promised to be poured out on all mankind i.e. you, your children and all 
who are far off, as many as our Lord calls.) BTW, this just punched 
major holes in your peodobaptism. :-)

Now, we ask, is this accurate? Absolutely, for we know that there has 
never been, nor will there ever be anyone who is called, has repented of 
their sins, and embraced Jesus Christ as Lord that has not received that 
exact promise of the Holy Spirit. Every born again believer since 
Pentecost has received that promise. So that is the true meaning of the 
promise in Acts 2. Your attempt to put it back into an OT context does 
great damage to the New Covenant and is a great regression as to 
promises made. Can you see this?

I may be going out on a limb, but I think Jack would agree with my exegesis.

> And this promise was the institution of the Abrahamic covenant which 
> encompasses the line of his generations.I believe that leads on to 
> God's clear dealings with families and if God's covenant encompasses 
> believers and their seed then Christ is the mediator for all of them 
> (who are elect).
> Julian
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
The truth often gradually works on the mind, removing prejudices,
till it is discerned in its beauty and glory; 
whereas at other times it is at once brought home to the conscience, 
not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the Word of God.

James Haldane--Commentary on Galatians

**************
Daniel L. Gunter
**************




Jeff