Thank you for quoting that article. I found no mention of Acts 2:39 nor Jesus' Baptism. It's as if the writer is blind to or deliberately avoids verses that do or can include infants one way or another.
BTW, can you give me your answer on my question you quoted:
No rush. Take your time.
@synergy
Acts 2:39 is often cited in discussions about infant baptism, but an exegetical analysis of the verse demonstrates that it does not support such a practice.
Greek Text and Syntactical Analysis
Textus Receptus (TR):
ὑμῖν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακρὰν ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν.
ὑμῖν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία → "For to you is the promise"
ὑμῖν (dative plural) refers to Peter’s Jewish audience at Pentecost.
ἡ ἐπαγγελία ("the promise") refers contextually to the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33, 2:38; cf. Luke 24:49).
καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν → "and to your children"
τέκνοις (plural dative) refers to their descendants, but the text does not specify that this includes infants.
The term τέκνον (child/descendant) can denote both young and mature offspring, not necessarily infants (e.g., John 8:39, Rom 9:7).
καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακρὰν → "and to all those who are far off"
The phrase τοῖς εἰς μακρὰν ("those far away") corresponds to Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:13, 2:17).
ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν → "as many as the Lord our God should call"
ὅσους (relative pronoun, accusative plural) specifies the recipients of the promise—only those whom God calls.
προσκαλέσηται (aorist middle subjunctive, 3rd singular from προσκαλέομαι) emphasizes God's active calling of individuals, which is always linked to faith (cf. Rom 8:30).
Exegetical Refutation of Infant Baptism
The Promise Is Given Only to Those Who Are Called by God
The phrase ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται restricts the application of the promise to those whom God calls, which aligns with personal faith and repentance (Acts 2:38).
This calling is consistently associated with conscious faith (cf. Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Thess 2:14).
Infants cannot exercise personal faith.
The Context Defines "Promise" as the Holy Spirit, Not Baptism
The preceding verse (Acts 2:38) links the "promise" to the Holy Spirit, given after repentance and baptism.
This cannot apply to infants, as they cannot repent.
Children (τέκνοις) Does Not Necessarily Mean Infants
The term τέκνον is often used for descendants in general (e.g., Matt 23:37; Luke 19:44).
In Acts 13:33, τέκνα refers to generations, not infants.
"Those Far Off" Includes Gentiles, Indicating a Universal Scope
Ephesians 2:13, 17 identifies οἱ μακρὰν as Gentiles who believe.
The emphasis is on individuals being called to faith,
not automatic inclusion based on physical descent or age.
Faith and Repentance Precede Baptism in Acts 2
Acts 2:38 explicitly commands repentance before baptism, which excludes infants.
In every case in Acts, baptism follows belief (Acts 8:12, 10:47-48, 16:31-33).
Conclusion
Acts 2:39 does not support infant baptism because the promise is contingent upon God's calling, which is tied to faith. The term "children" refers to descendants broadly, not necessarily infants, and the inclusion of "those far off" further demonstrates that the promise is for all who believe, not an automatic application to infants.
1. Daniel B. Wallace – Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
Wallace emphasizes the significance of the subjunctive mood in προσκαλέσηται (should call), noting that the reception of the promise is contingent upon God's calling. Since calling in the New Testament is consistently linked to personal faith (cf. Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 1:9), this
undermines any notion that the verse includes infants, who cannot respond in faith.
2. F.F. Bruce – The Book of Acts (NICNT)
Bruce notes that the phrase τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν ("to your children")
does not automatically refer to infants but to future generations of Jewish believers. He points out that the structure of the verse places a restriction on the promise: it applies only to ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ("as many as the Lord our God should call").
Bruce argues that this excludes any universal application to infants apart from faith and repentance.
**3. Richard N. Longenecker – Acts (EBC, Revised Edition)
Longenecker explains tha
t "the promise" in Acts 2:39 refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33, 38) and is thus tied to repentance and faith,
not to a sacramental application to infants.
He notes that the phrase "to your children" is idiomatic for future generations rather than implying infant baptism.
**4. Eckhard J. Schnabel – Acts (ZECNT Series)
Schnabel highlights the corporate but conditional nature of the promise, which extends to multiple groups (Jews, their descendants, and Gentiles). However, he underscores that the qualifying clause "as many as the Lord our God should call" limits the recipients to those personally called by God to salvation, which presupposes faith.
This excludes the idea of baptism being applied indiscriminately to infants.
**5. John Polhill – Acts (NAC Series)
Polhill acknowledges that πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακρὰν ("all those far off") refers to Gentiles, drawing a connection to Ephesians 2:13, 17 where Paul describes Gentiles as "formerly far off" but brought near through faith in Christ. He argues that this phrase further demonstrates that the promise is not automatic or universal but conditional upon God's calling, reinforcing that faith is a prerequisite.
6. Everett Ferguson – Baptism in the Early Church
Ferguson provides extensive historical and linguistic evidence that baptism in Acts is always preceded by faith and repentance. He explains that Acts 2:39 follows the standard pattern of New Testament baptism, where belief precedes the act, and
thus cannot be used to support infant baptism, which lacks a personal confession of faith.
7. J. B. Lightfoot – Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles
Lightfoot interprets "to your children" as a reference to descendants rather than infants specifically. He points out that
Jewish audiences would have understood this as a covenantal generational statement rather than an endorsement of paedobaptism.
Conclusion from These Sources
The Greek syntax (especially the subjunctive προσκαλέσηται) makes it clear that the promise is only for those whom God calls, which is consistently linked to faith and repentance.
The term "children" (τέκνοις) refers to future generations rather than infants receiving baptism apart from faith.
The inclusion of "those far off" in the verse shows that baptism is based on an individual's response to God's calling,
which contradicts any automatic application to infants.
The broader biblical pattern in Acts always ties baptism to personal belief (Acts 2:41, 8:12, 10:47-48, 16:31-33), which directly opposes the concept of infant baptism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churches that practice infant baptism often hold that baptism is how a person receives the Holy Spirit. They base this belief on Peter’s words in Acts 2:38: “
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.”
According to many paedobaptists, baptism sets the child apart and secures salvation. They also cite household baptisms in the New Testament as evidence that whole families were saved and baptized (assuming that children and babies were included), and not just adults (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16).
But this assumption goes beyond what the text of the Bible says.
Neither infant baptism nor adult baptism can save a person.
We are saved by grace through faith and not by works (Romans 3:28; 4:5; 5:1; Ephesians 1:13; 2:8–9; Galatians 2:16; 3:24; Philippians 3:9). It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling—
if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is insufficient to save.
If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, a baby dedication service is appropriate,
but there is no biblical mandate or example of baptizing a baby. Whether an infant is dedicated or baptized or both, he or she will, at some point in the future, still have to make a personal decision to repent of sin and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation.
. Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD) – Explicitly Opposed Infant Baptism
Tertullian, often called the “Father of Latin Christianity,” was the earliest known writer to argue against infant baptism.
His main concern was that baptism required conscious faith and repentance.
Quote from On Baptism (De Baptismo), Chapter 18:
"According to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if it is not so urgent—that the sponsors also should be thrust into danger, being themselves also bound to be faithful and understanding persons? For no less reason should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded, and in such as have lost their consorts; until they either marry or be confirmed in continence. They who understand the weight of baptism will rather dread its attainment than its delay." (De Baptismo 18)
Analysis:
Tertullian clearly opposed infant baptism, arguing that it should be delayed until a person is able to understand its significance.
He links baptism with faith, understanding, and moral responsibility, which infants lack.
His concern also extends to godparents (sponsors), fearing they could be burdened with the spiritual responsibility of children who may later fall away.
2. Origen (c. 184–253 AD) – Confirms That Infant Baptism Was Not Universal
Origen, while not explicitly opposing infant baptism, acknowledges that it was not apostolic but a later development.
Quote from Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 (c. 244 AD):
"The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)
Analysis:
While Origen supports infant baptism,
his statement implies that it was a later tradition, not an apostolic command.
If it had been explicitly commanded by Christ or the Apostles, he would not need to justify it as something "received" later.
This shows that the practice was not universally accepted in the earliest church period.
3. Hippolytus (c. 170–235 AD) – Suggests Baptism Required a Confession of Faith
Hippolytus wrote extensively on church order and the process of baptism.
Quote from Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. 215 AD):
"Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." (Apostolic Tradition 21)
Analysis:
Hippolytus permits infant baptism but still emphasizes confession of faith, suggesting that if a child can speak, they should personally affirm their faith before being baptized.
This suggests that infant baptism was not assumed as a universal rule but an exception, while personal confession was the norm.
4. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD) – Disagreed with Delaying Infant Baptism
Cyprian defended infant baptism, showing that the issue was controversial even in his time.
Quote from Letter to Fidus (Epistle 64:2–6, c. 253 AD):
"If even the worst sinners, after they have believed, receive the forgiveness of sins, and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more ought we to shrink from keeping an infant back who, being newly born, has done no sin except that, born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death?" (Epistle 64:5)
Analysis:
Cyprian argues for infant baptism, but his need to justify it proves that it was not universally practiced.
If infant baptism were the apostolic practice from the beginning, there would have been no debate on this issue.
5. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390 AD) – Encourages Delayed Baptism
Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, advised waiting until a person could understand baptism.
Quote from Oration 40: On Holy Baptism (c. 381 AD):
"Do you have an infant child? Let not sin thereby enter his soul; let him be sanctified from childhood. Let him be consecrated by the Spirit. But for those who can hear and understand, let them be made responsible for themselves." (Oration 40:17)
Analysis:
Gregory supports early dedication and sanctification of children,
but he reserves baptism for those who can "hear and understand."
This suggests that he did not see infant baptism as necessary but rather an option.
Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD) explicitly opposed infant baptism and advised waiting until a person could make an informed decision.
Origen (c. 184–253 AD) implies that it was a later tradition, not an apostolic command.
Hippolytus (c. 170–235 AD) emphasized confession of faith before baptism, making infant baptism an exception rather than the rule.
Cyprian (c. 200–258 AD) supported it, but his need to defend it shows it was not a universal practice.
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390 AD) advised delaying baptism until a person could understand it.
These quotes demonstrate that infant baptism was not the universal practice in the early church and that opposition or skepticism toward it existed among major church figures.
I spend a lot of time on this and promised I would answer you brother-read carefully, thoughtfully, critically and analytically.
God bless.
Johann.
en.wikipedia.org
"
