Faith of the parent covers the child?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silas22

Puritan Board Freshman
I recently watched a video of Bryan Chapell providing the biblical basis for infant baptism. He refers to the text in 1 Cor 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Bryan believes this text to teach that the children and spouse? of a believer are covered by their faith until they reach the age to follow Christ themselves. To that I have a few questions, which are honest and may seem basic to many of you, but I honestly would love to know more about this position.
  1. Do paedo-baptists believe that children of believers are saved by their parents faith until they can make a profession of faith?
  2. Is the unbelieving spouse made holy (saved) by the believing spouse? If so, is there a cutoff point? If so, when?
  3. What about children born to unbelieving parents? Are they assumed damned? Or do paedo-baptists have a similar "Age of accountability" belief system? If they do, then doesn't that seem to take away the significance of baptism?
I'm not seeking to be argumentative, just seeking to learn more from the paedo-baptist perspective. Here's the link to the video I referred to.
 
I will let better minds than mine answer the questions, but I do want to point out that much of your confusion may be that you are equating "holy" in this passage with "saved". Ask yourself, "How would I understand this differently if I drop that assumption?".
 
  • Do paedo-baptists believe that children of believers are saved by their parents faith until they can make a profession of faith?
  • Is the unbelieving spouse made holy (saved) by the believing spouse? If so, is there a cutoff point? If so, when?
  • What about children born to unbelieving parents? Are they assumed damned? Or do paedo-baptists have a similar "Age of accountability" belief system? If they do, then doesn't that seem to take away the significance of baptism?
The reason the below are simple answers is because the questions are simple; I expect you may ask follow-up questions.

1. No.
2. No, since you have defined "holy" there (wrt 1Cor.7:14) as "saved."
3. The Bible makes no promises whatsoever concerning children born to unbelievers. Do we assume anything about anybody? But whoever believes in the Son has everlasting life, right? Jn.3:36, but everyone continuing in unbelief remains under the wrath of God.

No one should believe in an "age of accountability." The wages of sin is death; and even those die who did not sin after the manner of Adam's example (Rom.6:23; 5:14). Children are guilty and condemned in Adam, even before their first sinful, corrupt conscious impulse
 
The reason the below are simple answers is because the questions are simple; I expect you may ask follow-up questions.

1. No.
2. No, since you have defined "holy" there (wrt 1Cor.7:14) as "saved."
3. The Bible makes no promises whatsoever concerning children born to unbelievers. Do we assume anything about anybody? But whoever believes in the Son has everlasting life, right? Jn.3:36, but everyone continuing in unbelief remains under the wrath of God.

No one should believe in an "age of accountability." The wages of sin is death; and even those die who did not sin after the manner of Adam's example (Rom.6:23; 5:14). Children are guilty and condemned in Adam, even before their first sinful, corrupt conscious impulse

Thank you for answering. I have been researching what it means for the family of a believing spouse to be made holy since I posted this thread. From what I understand, holiness does not mean that the spouse and offspring are salvifically made holy by the believing spouse/parent, but rather are granted the rights and privileges of the covenant, namely, the preached word and membership within the church. So in that sense, children born to Christian parents are made holy (advantaged) by hearing the gospel proclaimed at home and in church. Am I getting this right?
 
I think that's close to what we would say. And my response is given in the awareness that a Baptist's treatment of the terms of the passage may be quite distinct from ours. J.Gill (for example) reduces the force of the "ἅγιά-" terms to expressions of social-legitimacy (as over against bastardy). In contrast to his view, let me digress a little into exegesis of 1Cor.7:14.

One serious background concern of Paul regarding the matter of marriage (which is the formal issue of the 1Cor.7 passage) is the OT prohibitions and warnings against mixed marriages. Paul is later clear (v39) that new marriages are properly contracted "in the Lord." But many Gentiles (men and women) have been called into faith without benefit of a believing spouse. Becoming a follower of Christ means radical separation from the world; so... does this mean that our natural family relations are broken?

Paul's answer is, "No." So different from the ordinances of the Old Covenant, one's covenant with God in the NT age is not jeopardized by the existence of marriage to an unbeliever. Instead of uncleanness attaching to the clean by the (horizontal) connection as in the past; the unclean (spouse) is--after a manner--cleansed by virtue of the grace (vertical relationship) in the believer.

To be clear: it is for the sake of the marriage relation existing that this secondary-blessing may be felt and known. If the unbeliever depart, the marriage being broken there is no residual blessing, nothing attached to the person. This "holiness" or set-apart-ness is contingent on the marriage, which is not an ultimately permanent connection (even when only death separates)

However, when it comes to the offspring of the union, there is a slightly different statement (and argument) made by Paul. In the child's case, it is not the relationship that is said to be "made holy" (a verbal idea); but the person (child) who is not unclean, but holy (a nominative idea through the adjective). It seems clear to me that Paul here assumes the federal concept: that there is "ownership" downward; and consequent blessing possessed by the seed by virtue of the senior.

Moreover, Paul clinches his argument for the blessedness (as far as the believer goes) of the marriage on the FACT that the child is holy. This is ostensibly obvious: "of course, as you well know the child is holy." [This is where the Presbyterian asks, rhetorically, "And how so? What made this obvious?"] For some cause, the Christian Corinthian-spouse knows his child is set-apart [in our view, outwardly, unto God; not simply as acknowledged by the Greek or any other authorities].

And this FACT may be read back into the marriage union which produced the child. The child could not be holy if, by virtue of corruption through the union resulting from one member being outside the covenant community, he was "unclean". But he IS holy; and this has implications for the state of the union.
What is the value, what is the nature of this set-apart-ness which, for the child, is a kind of birthright? Just because someone has a "birthright," does this entitle him to finally obtaining it? Anyone who knows the story of Jacob and Esau sees right through that assumption. Anyone who knows the history of Israel as a people are well aware of all those many many outcasts whose possession of the name "Israelite" or sign of inclusion (circumcision) did not prevent them from being disinherited, both in this life and the next.

So what value was there in being an holy Israelite, set apart to God? Rom.3:1-2, "...Much in every way."

We distinguish between two ways of being in covenant with God. There's a external, visible way or administration. [Traditionally, Baptists do not concede an "outward New-covenant administration;" whereas, we do.] And also an internal, Spirit-created administration. Ideally, these two belong together. But it does happen that people in the church visibly do not belong to God everlastingly.

The "holiness" of the child of a believer is the holiness of outward administration, of acknowledgement by God, through his church: "This one is mine." In the case of infants (say we), God says nothing today but what he ordained of Abraham (even before the Old Covenant institution at Sinai)--that he and everything that belonged to him was owned by God. Each soul must make himself that same willful acknowledgement his father made; but to begin with, God names us and ours as his, visibly separated from the world.

And in that context, we are shown all the blessings that belong to such persons who believe the promises--promises encoded in the sacraments. And we should embrace them.
 
I think that's close to what we would say. And my response is given in the awareness that a Baptist's treatment of the terms of the passage may be quite distinct from ours. J.Gill (for example) reduces the force of the "ἅγιά-" terms to expressions of social-legitimacy (as over against bastardy). In contrast to his view, let me digress a little into exegesis of 1Cor.7:14.

One serious background concern of Paul regarding the matter of marriage (which is the formal issue of the 1Cor.7 passage) is the OT prohibitions and warnings against mixed marriages. Paul is later clear (v39) that new marriages are properly contracted "in the Lord." But many Gentiles (men and women) have been called into faith without benefit of a believing spouse. Becoming a follower of Christ means radical separation from the world; so... does this mean that our natural family relations are broken?

Paul's answer is, "No." So different from the ordinances of the Old Covenant, one's covenant with God in the NT age is not jeopardized by the existence of marriage to an unbeliever. Instead of uncleanness attaching to the clean by the (horizontal) connection as in the past; the unclean (spouse) is--after a manner--cleansed by virtue of the grace (vertical relationship) in the believer.

To be clear: it is for the sake of the marriage relation existing that this secondary-blessing may be felt and known. If the unbeliever depart, the marriage being broken there is no residual blessing, nothing attached to the person. This "holiness" or set-apart-ness is contingent on the marriage, which is not an ultimately permanent connection (even when only death separates)

However, when it comes to the offspring of the union, there is a slightly different statement (and argument) made by Paul. In the child's case, it is not the relationship that is said to be "made holy" (a verbal idea); but the person (child) who is not unclean, but holy (a nominative idea through the adjective). It seems clear to me that Paul here assumes the federal concept: that there is "ownership" downward; and consequent blessing possessed by the seed by virtue of the senior.

Moreover, Paul clinches his argument for the blessedness (as far as the believer goes) of the marriage on the FACT that the child is holy. This is ostensibly obvious: "of course, as you well know the child is holy." [This is where the Presbyterian asks, rhetorically, "And how so? What made this obvious?"] For some cause, the Christian Corinthian-spouse knows his child is set-apart [in our view, outwardly, unto God; not simply as acknowledged by the Greek or any other authorities].

And this FACT may be read back into the marriage union which produced the child. The child could not be holy if, by virtue of corruption through the union resulting from one member being outside the covenant community, he was "unclean". But he IS holy; and this has implications for the state of the union.
What is the value, what is the nature of this set-apart-ness which, for the child, is a kind of birthright? Just because someone has a "birthright," does this entitle him to finally obtaining it? Anyone who knows the story of Jacob and Esau sees right through that assumption. Anyone who knows the history of Israel as a people are well aware of all those many many outcasts whose possession of the name "Israelite" or sign of inclusion (circumcision) did not prevent them from being disinherited, both in this life and the next.

So what value was there in being an holy Israelite, set apart to God? Rom.3:1-2, "...Much in every way."

We distinguish between two ways of being in covenant with God. There's a external, visible way or "administration" [traditionally, Baptists do not concede an "outward New-covenant administration;" whereas, we do]. And also an internal, Spirit-created administration. Ideally, these two belong together. But it does happen that people in the church visibly do not belong to God everlastingly.

The "holiness" of the child of a believer is the holiness of outward administration, of acknowledgement by God, through his church: "This one is mine." In the case of infants (say we), God says nothing today but what he ordained of Abraham (even before the Old Covenant institution at Sinai)--that he and everything that belonged to him was owned by God. Each soul must make himself that same willful acknowledgement his father made; but to begin with, God names us and ours as his, visibly separated from the world.

And in that context, we are shown all the blessings that belong to such persons who believe the promises--promises encoded in the sacraments. And we should embrace them.

Thanks you for taking the time to explain this. My big hang up was failing to understand the external/internal covenant understanding. What books would you recommend on this subject?
 
This is from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (20th century):
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/dual-aspect-covenant/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof

Berkhof aims at fairly fine precision; and so he offers some distinctions from his conclusions that we might temptingly call "quibbling over words." That is to say, you cannot simply take the several alternative views he describes as entirely at odds with his positive summary. Some seem less-than acceptable--for example in (A.), Blake's position is described in weaker terms than van Mastricht's.

In (B.), we have described from Olevianus and Turretin what to this day is an abiding and critical distinction between substance (or essence) and administration; but again, Berkhof finds weakness which he means to shore up by the end of the section. I might argue that in light of where modern issues have taken us in the last century, the old formulae aren't so weak after all.

http://rscottclark.org/2015/12/what-is-the-substance-of-the-covenant-of-grace/
https://heidelblog.net/2013/07/three-ways-of-relating-to-the-one-covenant-of-grace/

The point is to remember that Berkhof's ST (now almost 100yrs old) is combining and distilling 400yrs of covenant theology for the sake of his comprehensive presentation. He is not generally set-against the Reformed men he makes reference to, but at the narrow point he takes exception with that formulation. So read Berkhof carefully, according to the analytical intent of the work; read him as a technical theologian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top