Thursday, June 09, 2011

Was Judas Baptized?

John 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

John 3:26
And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

John 4:1-2
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

1 Corinthians 1:10-17
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

What I understand from this is that in first century Judea and perhaps beyond, baptism was understood to indicate that the person was a disciple of the baptizer. The disciples baptized "in the name of" another - namely at first Christ and later the Triune name, when it was revealed:

Matthew 28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

What the above would also seem to imply is that Jesus baptized the twelve (who then baptized others). But that would seem to imply that Jesus baptized Judas, who never had saving faith. Moreover, it seems readily apparent that Jesus knew Judas did not have saving faith.

Given that understanding of these texts, these texts seem to torpedo one of the arguments used against infant baptism, namely that baptism ought not to be administered to anyone who lacks faith.

One thing I've pointed out from time to time to my friends is that I don't see any specific, explicit Biblical limitation on Baptism. The Scriptures nowhere warn against baptizing folks who do not believe, for example. There may be reasons not to baptize everyone who claims that they want to be a disciple immediately (see Paul's point that he wasn't called to baptize).

Nevertheless, other times men have been baptized having known about Jesus for less than a day:

Acts 8:34-39
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

You should notice that in the above passage, Philip says that if the eunuch believes with all his heart, he can be baptized.

Acts 10:45-47
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

In the above passage, evidence of the work of the Spirit in the life of the people was sufficient grounds for their baptism.

Acts 16:27-34
And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Here again is someone who appears to have been baptized within a day. The actual order expressed here is baptism, then belief, though one supposes that he believed first. But, in any event, no discussion of any limitations on baptism is provided here.

I don't mean for this post to be an expression of a lot of conclusions about the subject, but rather some thoughts on the issues surrounding baptism. The Bible does not expressly say that Judas was baptized, or that Jesus baptized the twelve himself.

-TurretinFan

24 comments:

SK Schultz said...

Brother TurretinFan,
Firstly, why did you phrase the credo-baptist argument of not administering baptism as "to those who lack faith" rather than "to those who do not profess faith"? Judas surely "professed" faith, did he not? Whether the Lord knew of Judas' betrayal is not in question. The question is, what should our practice as Christians be or more spacifically, what should the practice of Christian ministers be? Should we baptize people because they have made a profession of faith (one that has been prooven) or baptize indiscriminately regardless of age or profession because Judas might have been baptized?

Secondly, the order of the Philippine Jailor is clearly not baptism than belief. He clearly believes and the writer tells us that his whole household believed with him (a rarity to be sure) and was thus baptized as well.

-Flogs-

ChaferDTS said...

TF, while there may be parts with which I disagree with, I still personally find it a very good intresting article. Keep up the good work.

Ken said...

That was very good and interesting; and I had never thought about that before - about Judas' baptism.

I don't think it "torpedoes" the idea that only those with faith should be baptized, and the argument against infant baptism, rather it shows that people are baptized who express and profess faith ( Judas was claiming to be a disciple and followed Jesus around and Jesus DID Chose him to be one of the 12, even though He knew he was a devil. (John 6:70-71)

Even though it does not explicitly say "Judas was baptized" those verses in John 3 and 4 would seem to certainly imply that. And yes, Jesus knows Judas does not have true faith, but He seems to have baptized him based on his claim of having faith.

And that happens a lot in ministry. Many say they truly repent and believe and yet later, show that they never were true believers.

Infants cannot claim to believe, so the parallel is not there with Judas. But that was a good try and it did cause me to think.

Matthew 7:21-23
I John 2:19
John 13:10-11; 15:2, 6

Judas is the example of that reality in ministry in Christian history.

You are a good brother and I love your materials, but as Dr. White said in his debate with Bill Shishko on Infant baptism, something like, [mind you; I am recalling from memory without having to dig it out again] "It is here where my Reformed Infant baptism brethren don't seem to have a consistent hermeneutic." ( something like that)

Did you see our friendly debate in the com-boxes in my post "Between Orange and Trent" ? at Beggar's All ? and did that play any role in your article at this time? Just curious.

Ken said...

I see SK Schultz beat me to the punch as I was writing my comment. (true faith vs. claim of faith)

and I agree with him on the Acts 16 passage. The participle "having believed in God" is obviously in context meaning before baptism, based on Acts 16:31.

Turretinfan said...

CDTS: Thanks!

SKS:

I've heard it the way I put it.

If the argument is just reduced to "those who profess faith," that doesn't run into the same problem.

It may run into other problems (problems that can be left for another time), but it wouldn't run into that problem.

"Secondly, the order of the Philippine Jailor is clearly not baptism than belief."

It is, in the text.

"And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized (stated first in the text), he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing (stated second in the text) in God with all his house."

"He clearly believes and the writer tells us that his whole household believed with him (a rarity to be sure) and was thus baptized as well. "

Perhaps so.

Ken:

See my comments above (re: profession of faith argument).

I didn't see the debate you're referring to (or at least don't recall it).

Regarding "having believed" ... the perfect participle would be understood with respect to the main verb of the sentence, don't you agree?

-TurretinFan

runlevelfivepointer said...

Something needs to be said about Acts 8:34-39, particularly v. 37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

This verse is missing from all of the early Greek manuscripts, namely: p45,p74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. The earliest is appears is the sixth century in Codex E. Therefore, we can conclude this verse has no authority and it is rightly omitted in all modern translations with the exception of the NKJV.

Ken said...

Acts 16:29-34 -

29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,

30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” [each individual if they believe]

32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. [the others also heard the message]

33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. [they were all baptized]

34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. [they all rejoiced because they all believed, because they heard the message and believed and then were baptized.]

Turretinfan wrote:
Regarding "having believed" ... the perfect participle would be understood with respect to the main verb of the sentence, don't you agree?

Technically, yes, in isolation from the larger context and paragraph. But in my opinion, good exegesis includes the whole paragraph. The command is to believe in Christ, and the result is salvation. (v. 31) In verse 32 they spoke to the word of the Lord to him together with his whole house. The other members listened also and believed.

[ Romans 10:13-15 -

for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?

They were all baptized because they all believed and they rejoiced, having believed. Summary of the whole paragraph and context, not just verse 34 in isolation.

Turretinfan said...

"34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. [they all rejoiced because they all believed, because they heard the message and believed and then were baptized.]"

The text itself does not require that they believed first and then were baptized. It doesn't rule it out, either.

"Technically, yes, in isolation from the larger context and paragraph. But in my opinion, good exegesis includes the whole paragraph. ... They were all baptized because they all believed and they rejoiced, having believed. Summary of the whole paragraph and context, not just verse 34 in isolation."

Whether you look at the paragraph as a whole or not does not change the fact that the paragraph doesn't tell you that the believing preceded the baptism. It doesn't rule it out, either. There may even be a reason to think that the believing preceded the baptism. My point, however, is a more focused one, namely that the passage does not actually say that.

-TurretinFan

Ken said...

John 8:34 doesn't explicitly say "the human will is in bondage to sin", but that is the meaning of it.

It doesn't use the Greek words for "will" ( θελημα or βουλη ) either, in Romans 8:7 or Romans 6:6 or 6:22, but that is the meaning. (The bondage of the human will in sin is taught, even without using the exact word for "will".)

So, I think you are demanding too much from a historical narrative passage like Acts 16:29-34.

Acts 2:41 helps us - those who received his word were baptized.

Although it is true that Acts 8:37 is not in the oldest manuscripts, I wonder why a monk in the 6th century saw fit to add it in? Maybe the rest of the NT was rolling around in his head - Matthew 3:4-6; Acts 2:41; Acts 10:43-48 (they heard the message and then received the Holy Spirit and then were baptized) Verse 43 teaches faith for forgiveness of sins; Acts 2:38 commands repentance; so it seems sound exegesis and a more complete systematic exegesis demonstrates believers/credo/disciple's baptism. See also Ephesians 1:13 - baptism is a sign and seal of an inward reality - we would not seal up a jar unless we put the marmalade or canned vegetables in first, right? At least we should wait for profession of repentance and faith in Christ before baptism.

Putting the seal on the infant before the reality of repentance and faith is at least expressed makes no sense.

runlevelfivepointer said...

Just to clarify, my point in citing the textual evidence against v. 37 was not to argue pro or con infant baptism. My intention was merely to show that regardless of the position you take, Acts 8:37 is irrelevant to the argument.

Turretinfan said...

Ken:

a) I'm taking the position that it doesn't say it or mean it. The wording of the text (both what it says and what it means) is consistent with both positions.

b) The hermeneutic of saying that a text doesn't mean what it says (but more than what it says) is a dangerous hermeneutic.

c) I'm not demanding anything of the passage. I'm just letting it say what it says and mean what it means. You seem to want to press it into service for a particular purpose. My point has been that it doesn't actually say what you alleged (Him: "the writer tells us that his whole household believed with him (a rarity to be sure) and was thus baptized as well" Thee:"I agree with him on the Acts 16 passage" and Thee:"[they all rejoiced because they all believed, because they heard the message and believed and then were baptized.]")

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

runlevelfivepointer:

Too late. We have reported you to the deacons as a crypto-presbyterian.

(just teasing you)

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Ken:

If we apply your argument about baptism to circumcision, the result would seem to be the same. This should illustrate that there's something wrong with your argument.

Of course, true baptism is inward just as true circumcision is inward.

As for the "seal," think the wax seal on an old document, not a hermetic seal to keep out germs.

-TurretinFan

Ken said...

If we apply your argument about baptism to circumcision, the result would seem to be the same. This should illustrate that there's something wrong with your argument.

I disagree because the church is not like Israel in that sense.

Of course, true baptism is inward just as true circumcision is inward.

Agree.

As for the "seal," think the wax seal on an old document, not a hermetic seal to keep out germs.

But the document has something written on it first, they didn't put a wax seal on a blank document. That is what infant baptism is like, putting the seal on a blank parchment with no writing or evidence or even profession of repentance or faith.

natamllc said...

Ken,

isn't baptism likened to "putting on Christ"?

And, just a digression, tell me, have you ever been washed with His Blood, and by so being washed, your sins were washed away?

And while we are at digressions, I came across this while listening to my Audio Bible in the ESV:

1Ki 22:37 So the king died, and was brought to Samaria. And they buried the king in Samaria.
1Ki 22:38 And they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves in it, according to the word of the LORD that he had spoken.


Would you say that that was a foreshadowing of Christ and His Blood's powerful affect upon our souls as Isaiah prophesied, here:

Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
Isa 1:20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."


Oh, and just so it is clear what I believe, I practice paedobaptism and whenever anyone fully of age wants to be baptized, I practice credobaptism, too. :)

Turretinfan said...

I wrote: "If we apply your argument about baptism to circumcision, the result would seem to be the same. This should illustrate that there's something wrong with your argument."

You responded: "I disagree because the church is not like Israel in that sense."

I don't follow this. Would you please elaborate?

Ken said...

Turretinfan wrote:
I wrote: "If we apply your argument about baptism to circumcision, the result would seem to be the same. This should illustrate that there's something wrong with your argument."

You (Ken) responded: "I disagree because the church is not like Israel in that sense."

I don't follow this. Would you please elaborate?

I should have asked you first, what you meant by “the result would seem to be the same”. I apologize; I should have explored what you meant first better.

I will try to explain mine. In trying to answer you, I realized that in trying to explain what I meant, I realized that I did not fully understand your point. Please forgive me for my haste.

But I attempt an answer anyway -

The shortest answer would seem to be this:

“. . . entry into the old covenant people of God was by physical birth, and entry into the new covenant people of God is by spiritual birth.” (Piper, Brothers, we are not professionals, p. 133 in his chapter, 18 – “Brothers, magnify the Meaning of Baptism”.

But, I add some more -
There are similarities between the OT people of God and there are also dis-similarities – Hebrews 8:11, quoting Jer. 31:34 is key is showing how the New Covenant is different. But also, John 3:1-18 and how the new birth is an internal thing from Ezekiel 36:26-27. So, in that sense the people of God in the NT/New covenant are different than the people of God in the Old covenant.

Piper writes, “But who are the spiritual sons of Abraham who constitute the people of God in our age? Galatians 3:7 says, “know then that is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham” The new thing, since Jesus has come, is that the covenant people of God are no longer a political, ethnic nation, but a body of believers” [I add: in all the nations] (ibid, Piper, p. 134)

Ken said...

Natmallc wrote:

isn't baptism likened to "putting on Christ"?




yes, in Galatians 3:27

And, just a digression, tell me, have you ever been washed with His Blood, and by so being washed, your sins were washed away?


Yes, by trusting in Christ and His atonement, (Romans 3:24-26) “washed in His blood” means His bloody death atoned for my sins – the holy violence of God against sin, the holy and just anger of God against sin – “blood” is a metonym for “the violence of God against the innocent victim who was caused to bleed to death”

I honestly have never heard of that interpretation of I Kings 22. The NASB, which I use more, doesn’t have that take on it. I don’t think that is a foreshadowing of Christ’s death, no. It is historical narrative of God’s judgment on Ahab. If the NT had made that connection, that would be evidence for your question; but I don’t see it, because the NT does not make that connection. But I confess I have not looked into the textual issues and the Hebrew text as to why there is such a difference between the NASB and ESV on those verses in I Kings 22.

natamllc said...

Ken

thank you for your superb response to my comments.

As I have said, in my Church group, we believe it is correct to baptize infants.

I agree with TurretinFan's take on those verses that both are implied in them and not the specific form you come back with in your response of "believe" first, "respond and be baptized, second".

It is interesting that the very same identical "reaction" or "response" is recorded happening in the earlier verses there from Acts 16:

Act 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
Act 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.


Of course, in this instance it seems it was a "matriarch" that was the leading proponent for being baptized so that all her house were baptized with her? I just go with the Scriptures and it says she said:

"...if you have judge "me"...".

Another reason why I tend to favor TF's position is the reality I experience within my home Church; as well as the insight I gain from these verses from Psalms 78:

Psa 78:1 A Maskil of Asaph. Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
Psa 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old,
Psa 78:3 things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us.
Psa 78:4 We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders that he has done.
Psa 78:5 He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children,
Psa 78:6 that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children,
Psa 78:7 so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments;
Psa 78:8 and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.


to be continued:::>

natamllc said...

In my Fellowship, of which I have been an active member since 1975, I have seen a lot of babies born into our Fellowships from existing members. We have our own "private" Christian education programs for our children. Even before that training begins we begin training them in the Word of God and getting them actively involved in singing and playing instruments as early as two years old. No member of our Churches is "required" to put their children through our School programs. Parents are free to send their children to other "Christian" or "Private" schools or enroll them in the public school systems.

In fact we have some "Elders" whose children have never attended our "Church" Schools. We have many many members of our Fellowships, though, who make up the second and now third generation of families with a number of them presently in leadership positions. Of these second and third generations, all have been baptized as infants or as little children. It is the parent's call. Most all of these infant baptized children have gone through our Christian education schooling, our privately developed education programs developed from us parents of our Fellowships; and, consistently "all" of them score far higher than the State averages on SAT tests that are given the students every year.

When I contemplate the meaning of the local "Church", the local ekklesia, the "calling out" of people to separate from the world system and what the Holy Spirit teaches there, cited above, from Psalm 78 and "see" how deep He goes to the second generation into the womb, two dimensions "within" the womb and the error of the heart He speaks about in verse 8 , I begin to believe that the Holy Spirit has the power to begin "writing" with His finger the Truth of the things of God on the hearts of infants forming in the wombs of our mothers so that when we baptize them as infants outside the womb, there is a fair amount of Spiritual writings that have gone on already on their hearts by the time they are baptized, "putting on Christ" as a seal that they, too, were called and elected, as a True Believer, before the foundation of the world. Eph. 1: 1-12.

For me, connecting the dots, you might say, goes to the key words in the verses TurrentinFan draws from above from Matthew's Gospel, chapter 28.

The key words "making disciples", to me, implies a spiritual work is done by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They, (Jesus and the Holy Spirit), simply are not limited to start making a disciple from a person, or a child, of full cognitive ability seeking to be baptized after believing. It seems my understanding goes beyond this idea of one first "believing" the salvation message of sin and death and seek forgiveness after to receive the Resurrection and the Life, that full package of one's inheritance that Paul writes about there in those verses from Ephesians 1 or others write about, like Peter, 1 Peter 1:4, or the writer of the book of Hebrews, chapter 9 verse 15.

In my Fellowship, whenever one wants to be baptized, we baptize them. The parents have to request for their infants to be baptized before we would baptize them, of course.

As for those verses in 1 Kings 22, after reviewing about 21 various translations, it's about a 50/50 split where the idea of the harlot/prostitute washing in that pool of Samaria is used. Of those maybe a fourth of that 50% indicate the prostitutes actually washed in the pool with Ahab's blood already present while the others simply indicate that the pool is where the harlot/prostitutes washed which is indicative of the Church, us, being washed "outside" the camp; the Church being set apart using that rhetorical form of a metonymy.

That interpretation is just my own and took liberty to add it to the comments for consideration.

Ken said...

Thanks Natmallc,
Yes, we are to teach our children - Deuteronomy 6:4-7 - Psalm 78 certainly points to that; and Matthew 28:18-20 includes that in "making disciples".

Psalm 78:4-8 - yes

5 d "That they should teach them to their children,

6 that the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, that they may arise and tell them them to their children"

It seems the emphasis here is on teaching the children, and if we teach our children, they will then teach their children. (the grandchildren to the current generation) I don't see where it means God some how puts understanding in their hearts while in the womb.

I would like to research the subject more about the New England Puritans in history. Why did they loose their children? I have read some things, but not enough to my satisfaction. Why did the next generations drift and "fall away" and did not know the Lord and today it is an area full of Liberalism, Unitarianism - Universalism.

Like Judges 2:10, it seems.

I wonder if they were not diligent in teaching their children; but relied too much on their infant baptisms to "stick" to them ? I don't know honestly, I am just asking the question.

Why is western Europe so nominal today? Could it be that they relied too much on their "infant baptisms" in the past generation?

I am glad your church is diligent to teach the children; and I highly respect Presbyterian and other paedo-baptist churches that are diligent to teach their children.

Proverbs 22:6

natamllc said...

Ken,

I will share with you something which brings me to conclude why I believe Psalm 78 needs to be interpreted the way I suggest and infant baptism is a correct thing to do if parents want their children baptized at such an early age.

As we both would agree, abortion is a terrible thing. It is the killing of a human being while in the womb.

The being growing inside the womb is a child in the various stages of development forming to the degree they will be born a living soul.

I have dealt with some who aborted a child over the years seeing the terrible reality it wrecks upon the soul of both the male and the female who came together that produced a human being or twins or more who were then aborted. They were then left with the raw reality of the knowledge of this killing or killings weighing on their soul; it remains with them.

I believe once a life or lives come into being, theirs is connected directly to the spirit, soul and body of their father and mother.

Because of that belief, that there is a direct spiritual connection to both the male and female, when my wife informed me she was pregnant with our firstborn, we began to daily lay hands on her belly and speak audibly to the child the Word of God. We also picked out one "spiritual" song that we sang daily to the child.

Once my son was born, he never left my arms or my wife's for the first 48 hours of existing outside the womb, except for that brief time when they took blood and printed his feet on the certificate.

During his early life in my arms during that first 48 hours I simply quoted to him verses or sang that song. As he grew, in the first months, every single time that particular song was sung in Church, if he was awake, you would see him focus and "listen" intently as we sang that song.

We did the very same thing with our second son, this time we changed the song so from the very first moments of being conceived in the womb we laid hands on my wife's belly and prayed for his soul, read him Scriptures and sang to him that different song.

The very same reaction occurred with him as with our firstborn son. Whenever the Church sang that song that we sung to him daily his entire life within the womb, whenever he was awake in Church when we were singing that song we noticed he too focused and listened more intently than with other songs being sung.

My conclusion is this. We are spirit beings. When we are born again by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Christ then comes to dwell inside of us and we literally are conjoined to His Spirit, spirit to Spirit so that when, by His Faith, we "spiritually" minister to the life of our child within the womb this way, He imparts by the very same Holy Spirit we were born again with His Word and when we sing a particular spiritual song to the child, there is a spiritual impression of it that forms within them so much so that when they are born and come into the world and "hear" that same song, it is calling to a deeper more spiritually formed place within their physiology.

This for me is what I have come to realize when reading Psalm 78. I ask myself why the Holy Spirit would have the Word of God, the very law that is written on our hearts, the New Covenant, describe the life of children inside of wombs inside of wombs when as yet they are not even conceived in the womb? I believe God wants us to think about the future generations of children inside the womb and think about their children inside their womb when, as yet, neither of them are conceived in the womb so that we realize our predestination and election and calling were before as yet there was even a present heaven and earth?

For me, this spiritual reality of my predetermined divine nature teaches me that infant baptism has just as much a powerful affect and accomplishes the very same thing spiritually as when a child fully conscious of their baptism or a young person or an adult are after hearing the Gospel and they want to be baptized.

Ken said...

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2864

Just to encourage you, Turretinfan - I really appreciate this article you wrote in 2008 - I never noticed it before - I was trying to find Dr. White's pictures of P 72 and the Granville Sharp Rule and your article also came up.

Very encouraging.

May the Lord bless you and keep giving you strength and grace to produce excellent articles!

natamllc said...

Ken,

not to pile on to much, I would, though, want to refer back a few Psalms, to Psalm 71, to continue my Biblical position in hopes you would consider or reconsider why infants can be and should be, in my view, baptized:

Psalm 71:

Psa 71:6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.


...


Psa 71:9 Do not cast me off in the time of old age; forsake me not when my strength is spent.

...


Psa 71:17 O God, from my youth you have taught me, and I still proclaim your wondrous deeds.
Psa 71:18 So even to old age and gray hairs, O God, do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation, your power to all those to come.
Psa 71:19 Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens. You who have done great things, O God, who is like you?

...

Psa 71:23 My lips will shout for joy, when I sing praises to you; my soul also, which you have redeemed.


And, also, something Jesus said to Peter. Jesus makes a clear distinction for some of His spiritual heads, who have been appointed to be out front in every generation with the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Consider the "three" questions Jesus asks. And the "three" answers in these following verses from John' Gospel:

Joh 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
Joh 21:16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.


One question goes to the care of the "lambs". The second question goes to the work of making disciples. And, undoubtedly the third question just gets down and dirty in the dirt of humanity when Peter is told to feed sheep.

I liken this this way. The first gives us opportunity to baptize infants. The second give us authority and a charge for the care of training up God's anointed disciples. And third, we who are strong ought to bear with the weaknesses of those without strength seeing to it that they do not come short of the Grace of God as we see written about in the book of Hebrews, here:

Heb 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Heb 12:15 See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;

...

Heb 13:9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.


Well, it's been a pleasure going back and forth with you Ken. I greatly appreciate the humility of Christ that is clearly apparent with your comments in the blogsphere!

Bless you!!