# I Cor. 7:14



## JM (Oct 4, 2007)

> Q. Doesn't I Cor. 7:14 teach that children of believers are covenantally set apart and thus eligible for baptism?
> 
> A. No. The term "sanctified" that describes an unbelieving spouse of a believer and the term "holy" that describes the children of believers are based on the same root word in Greek. Therefore, whatever holiness the children have is also shared by an unbelieving spouse. Since an unbelieving spouse is not in the covenant, one cannot use this passage to establish that the children are. Paul's whole argument is grounded in the similarity of the two cases. If unbelieving spouses and children of believers do not share the same type of holiness, the difference between the two cases invalidates Paul's entire argument from the holiness of the children to the holiness of the unbelieving spouse. In fact, Paul's argument actually implies an argument against infant baptism. If the children in Corinth were baptized but unbelieving spouses were not, then the Corinthians would never have accepted Paul's argument that the holiness of the children implied the holiness of unbelieving spouses.



The argument is elaborated.

Any thoughts?


----------



## non dignus (Oct 4, 2007)

If the unbelieving spouse has the very same status as the child, why didn't Paul just say that the spouse is 'holy' too?


----------



## JM (Oct 4, 2007)

Why didn't the council in Acts just say 'baptism replaces circumcision' and be done with the sect that wanted to continue the practice? 

Brother David, I don't know.

What do you think of Dagg's response?


----------



## non dignus (Oct 4, 2007)

I don't know. 'good thread though. I hope it takes off.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 4, 2007)

From Charles Hodge's commentary on 1 Cor 7:14:



> 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
> 
> “The proof that such marriages may properly be continued, is, that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing; and the proof that such is the fact, is, that by common consent their children are holy; which could not be, unless the marriages whence they sprang were holy; or unless the principle that intimate communion with the holy renders holy, were a correct principle.
> The assertion of the apostle is, that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in virtue of the marriage relation with a believer. *We have already seen that the word (agiazein), to sanctify, means, 1. To cleanse. 2. To render morally pure. 3. To consecrate, to regard as sacred, and hence, to reverence or to hallow. Examples of the use of the word in the third general sense just mention, are to be found in all parts of Scripture. Any person or thing consecrated to God, or employed in his service, is said to be sanctified. Thus, particular days appropriated to his service, the temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priest, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. * What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common,” Acts 10:15. Every creature of God is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving, “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer,” 1 Tim. 4:5. This use of the word is specifically frequent in application to persons and communities. The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. “If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches,” Rom. 11:26. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children. Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of god, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were nonetheless conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2:3. When therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connect with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, Matt. 23:17, 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though it’s internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus the pagan husband in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother were children of the covenant.
> ...


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Oct 4, 2007)

Um, where in the text did Paul said the children and their unbelieving parent have the same status of holiness? Did I miss it?

Also, Paul is using "your children are holy" in a as-a-matter-of-fact way, he was basically saying, "you know your children are holy, therefore...", but how did the Corinthians know their children are holy? Is it because they know their children are included in the legal covenant with God, just like the children of Israelite did, and therefore set apart from the world? Or is it because they knew their children are unregenerate, unrepentant, unbelieving children of wrath, therefore they knew their children are holy? Interesting thread.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 4, 2007)

> Um, where in the text did Paul said the children and their unbelieving parent have the same status of holiness? Did I miss it?



Its here: 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the *unbelieving husband is sanctified *by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were *your children *unclean; *but now are they holy*. 

Note Hodge's explanation:



> We have already seen that the word (agiazein), *to sanctify*, means, 1. To cleanse. 2. To render morally pure. 3. *To consecrate*, to regard as sacred, and hence, to reverence or to hallow. Examples of the use of the word in the third general sense just mention, are to be found in all parts of Scripture. *Any person or thing consecrated to God*, or employed in his service, is *said to be sanctified*. Thus, particular days appropriated to his service, the temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priest, the whole theocratical people, *are called holy*. Persons or *things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean*. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it.





> Also, Paul is using "your children are holy" in a as-a-matter-of-fact way, he was basically saying, "you know your children are holy, therefore...", but how did the Corinthians know their children are holy? Is it because they know their children are included in the legal covenant with God, just like the children of Israelite did, and therefore set apart from the world? Or is it because they knew their children are unregenerate, unrepentant, unbelieving children of wrath, therefore they knew their children are holy? Interesting thread.



The letter to the Corinthians does not go into all the things Paul taught while there. It would appear that he expected them to know this. It should also be noted that the Corinthian church was made up of both Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:1-6). The Jews in that church would have understood this. Especially Crispus the ruler of the synogogue (or mostlikely former ruler after he converted).


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Oct 4, 2007)

> 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.



I think I got that, but the question is, is there a difference between "is sanctified" and "are holy"? If they are the same, then both the children and unbelieving spouse should either be baptized together or not baptized, for they have the same status, as the first post is arguing for.

But Paul didn't say "your spouse is holy", which would have settled the question "does my unbelieving spouse make me unclean?". Instead, Paul went on detour and argue from the fact that "you know your children are holy", to "therefore your spouse are being santified", why the detour if he could have said "you know your unbelieving spouse is holy"?


----------



## JM (Oct 4, 2007)

Thanks folks for presenting the Reformed understanding of this passage but what are the problems with Dagg's view?



> A great deal of confusion has arisen over this passage because interpreters have failed to consider the nature of Paul's logic in the passage. The common baptist and paedobaptist views both understand Paul to be making a cause/effect argument. In their view, Paul is arguing from the presence of a known effect to the presence of its cause or necessary condition. The argument can be stated in the form of a syllogism:
> 
> Major premise: Sanctification of the unbelieving spouse is necessary for the holiness of your children;
> 
> ...


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 4, 2007)

Regarding Dagg's view of parallel versus cause/effect, I would tend to go with the cause/effect in that it is the believing wife that sanctifies the unbelieving husband. But I'm no greek expert so hopefully someone else might be able to chime in.



> I think I got that, but the question is, is there a difference between "is sanctified" and "are holy"? If they are the same, then both the children and unbelieving spouse should either be baptized together or not baptized, for they have the same status, as the first post is arguing for.



To sanctify is to make something holy. I believe this is Hodge's argument as well as Dagg's.

Regarding their status and baptism, we need to remember a very important point; Both Baptists and Presbyterians agree that a credible profession of faith is required before an *adult* can be baptized. Presbyterians do not baptize unbelieving adults. Regarding infants a credible profession is also required from a parent. This is what Hodge is getting at when he states, "So the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism and to all the privileges of the church, so long *as he is represented by his parent*; that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound to act for himself. Then his relation to the church depends upon his own act. The church is the same in all ages."


----------



## elnwood (Oct 4, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> Um, where in the text did Paul said the children and their unbelieving parent have the same status of holiness? Did I miss it?
> 
> Also, Paul is using "your children are holy" in a as-a-matter-of-fact way, he was basically saying, "you know your children are holy, therefore...", but how did the Corinthians know their children are holy? Is it because they know their children are included in the legal covenant with God, just like the children of Israelite did, and therefore set apart from the world? Or is it because they knew their children are unregenerate, unrepentant, unbelieving children of wrath, therefore they knew their children are holy? Interesting thread.



aleksanderpolo, I think you are right in that the important question is why are the children are holy.

I think that neither of the two choices that you listed (legal covenant with God, their state of unregeneration) are reasons that can be gleaned from the text.

When the text says "otherwise, your children would be unholy," what is keeping this statement from being true? It appears that the fact that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse is the reason to believe that the children are not unholy but holy.

This can be reconstructed in one of two ways.

1) Santification of the spouse is a NECESSARY PREMISE. If the unbelieving spouse were not sanctified, the children would not be holy because they need two sanctified parents to be holy. In other words, the children are made holy via the believing spouse and through the sanctified unbelieving spouse (whose sanctification is by the believing spouse).

2) Santification of the spouse is a PARALLEL ARGUMENT. In the same way that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse, the children are made holy by the believing parent.

I think 2) is the preferred interpretation, but in either case, what makes the children holy is the influence of the believing parent.

What is the reason for the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse? Influence of the believing spouse. So the source of the sanctification of the spouse and the holiness of the children are the same.

Therefore, I think whatever status of holiness is applied to the children should also be applied to the sanctified unbelieving spouses because that status draws from the same source.

There is no indication in the text that the children instead draw their holiness from a legal covenantal status, and even if this were read into the text, it doesn't adequately explain why, if the unbelieving spouse weren't sanctified, the children would then be unholy.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Oct 4, 2007)

Don, while your view is consistent with your baptistic position, the text said "your children are holy" not "your children are sanctified" and "your unbelieving husband/wife is sanctified" not "your unbelieving husband/wife is holy". So, I don't think you can apply the "influence" argument on both of them in the same sense. 

"Your children are holy" is simply not the same as "you have a sanctifying influence on your children". 



> it doesn't adequately explain why, if the unbelieving spouse weren't sanctified, the children would then be unholy.



I think it does, and it actually implies more. In the Old Covenant, those within the covenant marrying outside of the covenant community are made unclean by their unbelieving spouse, and their children are unclean. Now, how did the Corinthians view their children with unbelieving spouse? Do they view the children as unregenerate, unrepentant, unbelieving children of wrath? If so, then Paul's argument will fall apart. But Paul said, because you know your children are holy, therefore you know you are sanctifying your unbelieving spouse. Paul is using a if A -> B, then !B -> !A, where A is "You unbelieving spouse is making you unclean", and B is "your children is not holy".


----------



## elnwood (Oct 4, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> Don, while your view is consistent with your baptistic position, the text said "your children are holy" not "your children are sanctified" and "your unbelieving husband/wife is sanctified" not "your unbelieving husband/wife is holy". So, I don't think you can apply the "influence" argument on both of them in the same sense.
> 
> "Your children are holy" is simply not the same as "you have a sanctifying influence on your children".



If you are sanctified, then you are holy. You make it sound like they are two different words, but they have the same Greek root. It's the difference between the same word being used as a noun and as a verb.



aleksanderpolo said:


> > it doesn't adequately explain why, if the unbelieving spouse weren't sanctified, the children would then be unholy.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it does, and it actually implies more. In the Old Covenant, those within the covenant marrying outside of the covenant community are made unclean by their unbelieving spouse, and their children are unclean. Now, how did the Corinthians view their children with unbelieving spouse? Do they view the children as unregenerate, unrepentant, unbelieving children of wrath? If so, then Paul's argument will fall apart. But Paul said, because you know your children are holy, therefore you know you are sanctifying your unbelieving spouse. Paul is using a if A -> B, then !B -> !A, where A is "You unbelieving spouse is making you unclean", and B is "your children is not holy".



Now I'm really confused. I thought your point was that there was a continuity in the covenant of a believer's children being in the covenant. Now you're saying that covenant children were unclean if there was an unbelieving spouse in the picture, and it's different in the new covenant?

How, then, are you able to make an argument based on covenant continuity? How could the Corinthians make the basic assumption that the children were holy if that was not the case in the Old Covenant?


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Oct 4, 2007)

Don, cleaning and clean are from the same root too, but I believe that "I am cleaning the dish" and "the dish is clean" have two different meaning, In my humble opinion.

I am not claiming that the Old Covenant is completely identical to the New covenant because of covenant continuity, that's not what we are saying. New Covenant is the better, final fulfullment of the Old Covenant. Better in what way? In the Old Covenant, the children from the marriage of believing+unbelieving parent are unclean and excluded from the covenant promise. In the New Covenant, the children from the marriage of believing+unbelieving parent are holy, and the covenant promise belongs to them. Now, how can you say that a New Covenant that exclude the children of believer from the promise and sign/seal a better covenant than the Old? Paul doesn't seem to argue this way, In my humble opinion.

And hey, did you move to a new church? How are you doing over there?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 4, 2007)

I think the difference in views here is expressed by the word used in the original question: "eligible". Those who baptize their children do not talk about being eligible for baptism; they talk about whether it is right to refuse them baptism. Just because they are without their knowledge partakers of condemnation in Adam, so also they can be partakers of righteousness in Christ without their knowledge. 

1 Cor. 7 talks about the holiness of the children as a given, which cannot be be case if the unbelieving spouse is the cause of their being unholy. In other words, the argument in the OP is putting the children on the side of the unbelieving spouse, when in fact Paul's argument is that they are on the side of the believing spouse. He's talking about the unbelieving spouse, and he's using the assumed holiness of the children as his point of argument. He is saying that the children of such a marriage are on the side of the believing spouse, and that because of the children the unbelieving spouse is not to be deemed as the spoiler of that holiness. For the sake of the believing spouse the children are included, and the unbelieving spouse is not an excluding element to that holiness. 

Because those who baptize their children have a different view of what baptism means than those who baptize only those who can confess faith there is also a comensurate difference in the question that they ask themselves as a result of this text. It is not whether children are eligible, but whether baptism may be refused them.


----------



## MW (Oct 4, 2007)

JM said:


> Why didn't the council in Acts just say 'baptism replaces circumcision' and be done with the sect that wanted to continue the practice?



Because the issue did not concern the sign of the covenant per se, but the necessity of the sign for salvation. If they had have said baptism comes in the place of circumcision, the conclusion would have been that there is no salvation without baptism.


----------



## MW (Oct 4, 2007)

The lexical argument is ill-grounded that "sanctified" and "holy" mean the same in both cases. The apostle teaches that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified for the very purpose that the children of the believer might be holy. In other words, apart from the consideration of the children, the unbelieving spouse is not to be regarded as sanctified.

The verse itself can only be explained on the supposition that in an ordinary situation, where both parents were believers, the children were considered holy as a matter of course. Were it the ordinary practice in Corinth to consider the children of believers as unholy, no difficulty would have arisen with regard to the children of a marriage in which only one person was a believer.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 4, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> Don, cleaning and clean are from the same root too, but I believe that "I am cleaning the dish" and "the dish is clean" have two different meaning, In my humble opinion.



Yes, but why is the dish clean? What if I said "The bowls are cleaned by the dishwasher, otherwise, the dishes would not be clean, but as it is, the dishes are clean." What would you conclude about how the dishes are made clean?



aleksanderpolo said:


> I am not claiming that the Old Covenant is completely identical to the New covenant because of covenant continuity, that's not what we are saying. New Covenant is the better, final fulfullment of the Old Covenant. Better in what way? In the Old Covenant, the children from the marriage of believing+unbelieving parent are unclean and excluded from the covenant promise. In the New Covenant, the children from the marriage of believing+unbelieving parent are holy, and the covenant promise belongs to them.



But this contradicts your earlier claim that the Corinthians implicitly knew that the children were holy because of the Old Covenant. You wrote:



> Paul is using "your children are holy" in a as-a-matter-of-fact way ... but how did the Corinthians know their children are holy? Is it because they know their children are included in the legal covenant with God, just like the children of Israelite did, and therefore set apart from the world?



So which is it? Your view is self-contradictory.



aleksanderpolo said:


> Now, how can you say that a New Covenant that exclude the children of believer from the promise and sign/seal a better covenant than the Old? Paul doesn't seem to argue this way, In my humble opinion.



A "better" covenant does not mean there are more people in it. Otherwise, God should have made an even "better" covenant with every person, Christian or non-Christian.

No, what makes the New Covenant a "better" covenant is that there is a greater correlation between the signs (baptism and the Lord's Supper) and seal (the promised Holy Spirit) and what those signs and seal signify: regeneration.



aleksanderpolo said:


> And hey, did you move to a new church? How are you doing over there?



Actually, I didn't move, the old church moved. But I am doing well. Interestingly enough, I was visiting a church in Northridge recently, and one of the women there recommended your church. I think one of her relatives goes there.


----------



## Davidius (Oct 4, 2007)

elnwood said:


> If you are sanctified, then you are holy. You make it sound like they are two different words, but they have the same Greek root. It's the difference between the same word being used as a noun and as a verb.



I haven't learned enough Greek to look at the original, but in English "sanctified" and "holy" are neither nouns nor verbs. One is an adjective and the other is a participle being used as an adjective.

And identical roots do not necessarily imply identical meanings. Is a butterfly a flying stick of butter?


----------



## elnwood (Oct 4, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The lexical argument is ill-grounded that "sanctified" and "holy" mean the same in both cases. The apostle teaches that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified for the very purpose that the children of the believer might be holy. In other words, apart from the consideration of the children, the unbelieving spouse is not to be regarded as sanctified.
> 
> The verse itself can only be explained on the supposition that in an ordinary situation, where both parents were believers, the children were considered holy as a matter of course. Were it the ordinary practice in Corinth to consider the children of believers as unholy, no difficulty would have arisen with regard to the children of a marriage in which only one person was a believer.



So are you saying that, if there were no children, then the unbelieving spouse is NOT sanctified? I don't think that's correct.

To put the verse in context, the occasion of this was to teach against divorce. The reason for not divorcing is because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified.

[BIBLE]1 Cor. 7:10-14[/BIBLE]

If you're saying that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified if there are no children, wouldn't you have to conclude that it is all right to divorce a non-believer if there are no children?


----------



## MW (Oct 4, 2007)

elnwood said:


> So are you saying that, if there were no children, then the unbelieving spouse is NOT sanctified?



No, there was nothing conditional in my statement. The unbelieving spouse *is* as a matter of fact sanctified regardless of whether the marriage has issue or not. But the reason why the unbelieving spouse is sanctified, subordinating means to ends, is for the sake of the issue.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Oct 4, 2007)

Don, I do not know enough Greek either to make a good judgment. So I will leave it to the expert. But my point is, how can Paul speak of their children's holy status in a as-a-matter-of-fact way, especially considering that in the Old Covenant under the same situation, their children are considered unclean. Unless there is something that they know for sure, for example, just maybe, that their children have received the covenant sign?

You would have disagree with this and still think Paul is saying that their parents are having sanctifying influence on their children. Let's assume this to be true for a second, but how did they know? Under the Old covenant, under identical situation, their children would have been considered defiled or made unclean by their unbelieving parent. How can Paul said so as-a-matter-of-factly, that "you know your children are holy" (whatever that means), and use this as a basis to argue that the believing spouse is sanctifying the unbelieving spouse?

We certainly have different standard of what "better" means, let's not get into that then. And hey, interesting coincidence regarding your friend, although I must say that our church is not Reformed.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 4, 2007)

Bruce (ContraMundum) posted this on the Cook/Manata Debate thread #290:
{Bold type my emphasis}

_"I do not subscribe to the principle, that what or who is holy for that reason ought to be baptized. But, I would plead that the question posed could be read as affirmative of the rationality of baptism for the "holy".

Of course, the verse says two similar, but different things: one about the spouse of a believer, another about a child of a believer.

Regarding the spouse, the verbal description focuses on the relationship that is effected through the marriage. As one comment put it, the contrast to the old defilements couldn't be more plain. No more did a pagan marriage defile a believer, instead the pagan experienced some sort of incidental blessing. *And as clincher, Paul offers the statement about the children. Here the language is not verbal-relational, but a descriptive noun. It is stative. This is a quality that inheres in the child.* How could the child be "holy" if the pagan had defiled the Christian? It's an argument then, from greater to less. Since the child IS holy, your marriage is also a blessed union.

So, I fail to see how the stative aspect (which does not "prove" infant baptism, merely "affirms" in consonant terms what is held on other grounds), requires the conclusion that anything true about something "constituently holy" must also be true about something "relationally" holy? *Therefore, even if it were demonstrable that the "holiness" of the child meant he was a fit candidate for baptism, it wouldn't follow (based on this linguistic argument) that a spouse was thereby made fit as well, if different limitations applied to the different relationships.*
No Reformed paedo I know of thinks of this holiness as "salvific".

Clearly, there are some who might go ahead and baptize a "willing" but unbelieving spouse. Honestly, though, how many of us paedos have ever had to deal with this outside of "far-fetched hypothetical"? And how many people would conduct such a service, and not preach the gospel there and then, with warnings of consequence for 1) rejecting the gospel, and 2) partaking in this sacrament (of baptism) unto condemnation?"_
__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
Presbytery of Michigan-Ontario, OPC
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 29, 2007)

I think I am repeating some of non-dignus' argument but perhaps adding a little more will help...

Consider this passage in the ESV...

"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."

So there, both the unbelieving spouse and the children are called holy. However, the Baptistic interpretation of this verse cannot stand. 

First of all, the meaning of the word 'holy'...The biblical use of this word (both in this context and the word itself) does not allow for a view that this merely means that marriage is legitimate. The word 'holy' as used in the Bible means something that is set apart for God (to be simple). The legitimate marriage between two pagans is not something the Bible would construe as 'holy'. (though not a sin, the word 'holy' does not apply, the marriage of two unbelievers does not set them apart to God any more than before they were were married).

Notice, it is the unbeliever that is made 'holy' because of the believing spouse. This should be enough to seriously question the argument that all we have in view here is the legitimacy of the marriage. Rather what we have here is the ground for which the marriage is considered legitimate. 

Literally in the verse, the unbelieving spouse is made holy 'IN' the believing spouse (in the Greek). That is, apart from the believing spouse, the unbelieving spouse is in no way 'set apart'. So what on Earth does this mean? It means that the unbelieving spouse, married to a believing spouse, is within the covenant of marriage and within that union is considered holy (because of the matrimonial union with a believer). Again, this only speaks of the unbeliever's standing as it relates to the marriage covenant which has brought about union with a believer. Within, and only within, this relationship, the unbeliever is called 'holy'. As an aside, I see this as an expanded blessing of the New Covenant.

There is no sense where the unbelieving spouse is considered holy apart from the union they have with the believing spouse; therefore, there is no warrant here to baptize someone's unbelieving spouse.

But with the children it is not so. They are 'holy' as a result of having been born to a believing parent. They are not holy 'in' the believing parent, but are themselves called 'holy'. They are set apart by God and are to be seen as members of the church and baptized.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 29, 2007)

Hi:

The argument against the passage would state that neither the spouse nor the child has any status in the Church. Thus making the passage meaningless, and implying that Paul is just babbling here.

Paul does not use the same word for both people. Because the same root word is used does not mean that the same meaning is implied. I could use the terms "age" and "ageless" and though they have the same root word I could mean different things.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------

