# 1Cor 7:14



## Steve Owen

A number of brothers have based their adherence to paedo-baptism to their understanding of 1Cor 7:14, which seems to them to indicate that the infant children of believers are "˜holy´ (NKJV) so as to be in some way in covenant with God. I thought it might be helpful to take a closer look at this verse in context to see if it really will bear that interpretation.

1Cor 7:14.*´For the unbelieving husband is sanctified (Gk. hagiazo) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : otherwise your children were unclean, but now they are holy (Gk. hagios).* We may see at once that the "˜sanctification´ of the unbelieving spouse is the same as the "˜holiness´ of the children. The same word root is used, although the NKJV translates them differently. 

Yet Calvin sees a massive difference between the spouse and the children. Writing of the adults, he says:-


> A believer (in the circumstances envisaged by the verse) may, with a pure conscience, live with an unbeliever"¦"¦.[who] is sanctified, so as not to infect the believing party with his impurity. Meanwhile this sanctification is of no benefit to the unbelieving party; it only serves thus far, that the believing party is not contaminated by intercourse with him, and the marriage is not profaned.



Fair enough. I don´t think Baptists would have any problems with that. But when Calvin reaches the part of the verse dealing with children, there is a huge change in his tone:-


> This passage is a noteworthy one, and based on the profoundest theology. For it shows that the children of believers are set apart from others by a certain exclusive privilege, so that they are regarded as holy in the Church.


According to Calvin, then, the sanctifying effect on the unbelieving husband or wife is a relatively small matter; "˜of no benefit´ as he puts it. But when the child comes into view, suddenly it is "˜the profoundest theology´! Surely this is nothing else but inconsistency and special pleading? He continues:-


> "˜"¦..There is a universal propagation both of sin and condemnation in the seed of Adam. All, therefore to a man, are included in this curse, whether they spring from believers or the ungodly, for not even believers beget children according to the flesh so that they are regenerated by the Spirit. Accordingly all are in the same natural condition, so that they are subject not only to sin but also to eternal death. But the fact that the apostle ascribes a special privilege to the children of believers here has its source in the blessing of the covenant, by whose intervention *the curse of nature is destroyed, and also those who were by nature unclean are consecrated to God by His grace"¦"¦"¦.In view of the fact that the children of believers are made exempt from the common condition of mankind, in order to be set apart for the Lord, why should we keep them back from His sign [of the covenant]?* If the Lord admits them to His Church by His word, why should we deny them the sign?



This is going even further than the church of Rome! Calvin is asserting that all the children envisaged in 1Cor 7:14 should be baptized because they are holy, the curse of nature (that is, presumably, the effects of original sin) having been removed because they were born of a believing parent. Is this what members of this board believe, that the children of believers are free from original sin because they are connected by blood to an unbeliever? Surely not! Moreover, if Calvin´s claim for the children is true, why does the same not apply to the unbelieving husband?

James Bannerman also wrote on this verse:-


> The infants are to be accounted clean, or fit for the service of God and the fellowship of His church. The holiness of the one parent that is a member of the"¦..church, communicates a relative holiness to the infant, so that the child also is fitted to be a member of the church, and to be baptized"¦"¦to translate the phrase into ecclesiastical language, the child is entitled to church membership because the parent is a church member.´



Leaving aside the temptation to adapt the question so often asked of Baptists; "˜How do you know that the parent is a true believer and what difference does it make if he/she isn´t?´, this quote is a totally unjustified deduction from a verse which says nothing whatsoever about baptism or church membership. 


Before turning to look at the text in-depth, I want to draw attention to a particular point in the writing of 1Corinthians. Paul writes to the whole church (1:2 ) and addresses them in the Second Person plural- "œyou", occasionally joining himself to them by using the First person, "œwe" (eg.6:14; 8:4 ). However, when he writes specifically to a section of the church, he uses the Third Person; for example, 3:4; 4:1; 6:16; 7:36 etc. It is important to keep this in mind as we approach Chapter 7. 

It is clear from 7:1 that in this section of the letter, Paul is answering some questions that the Corinthians have written to him. In verses 1-9, he is answering then on the subject of marital relations in general and the advisability of marriage. In verse 10-11, he is addressing the married section of the church and therefore uses the Third Person. * "˜A wife is not to depart from her husband´.* In verse 12ff, he addresses those believers who have an unbelieving spouse, again using the Third Person. Clearly, there was a concern within the Corinthian church as to whether a marriage could continue when one partner had been converted and the other remained an unbeliever. Obviously they had Old Testament Scriptures in mind like Exodus 34:15-16, Ezra 9 & 10 and Nehemiah 13:23-28. 

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that Christians should not marry non-Christians, in the circumstances where a couple had married as unbelievers and one partner had become converted, Paul states that the Christian is not to instigate divorce proceedings, * "˜For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.´* As we saw earlier, the Greek word for "˜sanctified´ is _hagiazo_. This is the very word and the same grammatical construction used in 1:2 to describe the church members at Corinth, save that they are,*´sanctified  in Christ Jesus'.* However, in 7:14,although the same expression is used, Paul must have had something else in mind. Whatever "˜sanctified´ unbelievers might be, they are not those who are* "˜called to be saints´*, nor do they, * "˜call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.´ *. By definition, they are still in their sins since they have not trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. There is no suggestion that they possess any spiritual benefits conferred by their unbelieving partners save perhaps that mentioned in 1Peter 3:1-2.

To understand the apostle´s teaching, it is necessary to bear in mind that the basic meaning of _sanctification_ is to set apart or to be set apart for some special purpose. For example, in 1Tim 4:4-5, the word is used with reference to food: *´For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer´* (NASB). Obviously the food receives no special qualities from this sanctification which will lead to its salvation! It is made suitable for its purpose (being eaten!) by prayer and by God´s word that declares it to be so.

So all Paul is saying in the first part of 7:14 is that there is no need for a believer to separate himself from an unbelieving spouse. As Calvin says, the believing party is not contaminated by contact with the unbeliever, but there is certainly no salvific benefit for the non-Christian. Just a little further on (v16 ), Paul asks, * "˜For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband?´*. She doesn´t!

Then Paul goes on to make a hypothetical argument. *´Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.´* The important thing to note is that Paul has switched from the Third Person to the Second Person. It would have been natural for him to continue in the Third Person and say, _ "˜Otherwise *their* children would be unclean´_ but he doesn´t do that. The reason is that he is addressing the whole church at this particular point. 

Paul´s argument is this; if one had perforce to separate physically from unbelievers to avoid contamination from them, then Corinthian parents would have to separate from their own children. *´That which is born of the flesh is flesh´* (John 3:6 ) and all children are born with the contamination of a sinful nature. What was true for the unbelieving spouse would also be true for all children until they were converted. But in fact, Paul is saying that, just as the believer in the marriage sanctifies an unbelieving spouse so as to be able to live together, so believing parents sanctify their children so as to be able to bring them up in a Christian manner and, if God wills, to see them brought to faith.

I suggest that if the baptism of infants were taking place in Corinth, Paul would certainly not have written this way. If children really could be brought into the New Covenant by baptism, he would not have suggested that they might be "˜unclean.´ Therefore I conclude that infant baptism was not being practised in Corinth.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I know I siad this in other threads, but I do not use 1 Cor. 7:14 as a prooftext for infant baptism. By itself it rather _demands_ contextual and theological interpretation, from whatever part of the baptismal spectrum you hail.

That being said, it serves the paedobaptist with a singularly powerful confirmation of his position, previously established on surer ground. Naturally, the credo-baptist _usually_ feels none of its force, for he has come to his position also on other grounds and other texts. So, we find Gill (for example) offering the interpretation that "holy" in this passage means "legal" or "legitimate." I find this interpretation entirely beside Paul's point, but if I know where the interpreter is coming from, as I do in this case, then I can follow his reasoning though not in agreement with it.

As to the suppostion: that if the paedo-baptist finds infant baptism here, he must likewise approve of adult baptism without a verbal, willing submission--I must demure. Two separate relations are spoken of here, marital and parental. The husband (or wife) is said to be "sanctified" by the other, believing, spouse. Now, whatever that means, it does not have the same force as the different language used with respect to the children.

1) A conclusion is drawn from the basic fact asserted in the former half of the verse. The fundamental truth (more basic than the _influence_ of the one person on the other) is that the believer possesses such an _influential_ power. To claim that the same influence must have the same effect on two different persons bearing totally different relations to the influencer, is the same argument that one chemical must have the same effect on every substance to which it contacts. That, of course, is absurd. The specific influence is equally a product of the influencer and the composition or relation of the thing (or in this case, the _person_) influenced.

2) The language used of the adults is that of *action*, verb-perfect-passive-indicative, "he has been hallowed". The relationship (oath-bound, whether implicit or explicit) itself is responsible for bringing into existence this "set-apart-condition", whatever its nature.

Whereas with the children, first "your" sets up the relation. Biology establishes this relation, not oaths. Second, there is the _contrast_ set up: unclean (akatharta) vs. holy (hagia). This biblical contrast must be explored (see the OT, see in particular the ceremonial law). Third, Paul is emphatic in multiple ways--the use of the explicit copula (be verb) _twice_, and the subject position of the predicate. Such use is emphatic and identifies the predicate with the subject. The fact that the predicates are nominative case would be sufficient. Thus, the faith of the parent *defines* the parent's children. They *are* holy, and what constitutes them holy (as opposed to unclean) is that they are children of a believer.

From the standpoint of one who already holds to the principle of covenant inclusion, this verse hammers an exclamation point at the end of our postion. But like most punctuation, it doesn't really do anything to the sentence that the construction doesn't do much more. We think the New Covenant (just like the Old) is spiritual in essence, but is adminstered visibly in the world by the church. We baptize our children because we believe that's what God tells us to do. We don't baptize them _because_ they are holy. But they are holy, not unclean, and so baptising them isn't repugnant to their identity.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bruce,

I'm glad you handled this first. I just want to restate a few things in a different way.

Martin - You move so quickly around Paul's argument here that you miss the fundamental relationship difference that a believer has with his/her spouse as opposed to the relationship he/she has to his/her child?! It seems you are so intent to guard against Covenant here that you have to focus first on the idea that because Paul calls the spouse sanctified and the child holy that somehow if one is in the Covenant that the other must be as well. Do you really think that argument holds any water at all? Do you really believe that it is what paedobaptists are arguing for? 

The rest of your argument falls apart because you completely miss the fundamental relationship difference.

In one relationship - believer to spouse - the temple of the Holy Spirit is joined in physical union with an unbeliever. Is the marriage bed unholy? Do you not see this would be a real concern for someone who understands the spiritual significance of "becoming one flesh" with another?

Are you also missing that the "endpoint" of this whole argument by Paul deals with the status of the children. Follow him:

1. You believers sanctify the unbelieving spouse
2. If not, the children would be unclean (as are the offspring of Pagans)
3. Because the believer sanctifies the marriage bed their offspring are holy.

You seem to sense that there is a knowledge of the OT in this but then you completely miss the point that holiness and consecration implies being set apart to God.

What was the status of the child of a man who married a Canaanite woman? They were outside the covenant - they were unclean. I realize you have the unbiblical view that the Covenant had no spiritual significance for such a Covenant violater but the Corinthians had no such problem as they were not credo-Baptists.

So, a more reasonable and Biblical perspective of the Corinthians concern would be: "Hey, we know that in the Old Covenant that a person who married outside of the Covenant were Covenant breakers and their children were unclean so what about us?"

Just as Christ was not made unclean by approaching or touching death but made the unclean, clean - so, in Him, the believer sanctifies the unbelieving Spouse and their children are holy and not outside the Covenant as they would have been in the OT. Yet another IMPROVEMENT of the New Covenant that marks it as BETTER. Of course, this is with the understanding that these were pre-existing marriages as Paul elsewhere warns against marrying Pagans if one is unmarried.

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

Bruce,
Thank you for your response. Just two points.
First, you wrote:-


> The husband (or wife) is said to be "sanctified" by the other, believing, spouse. Now, whatever that means, it does not have the same force as the different language used with respect to the children.



You state this without giving any reasoning. _Why_ does the sanctification of the souse have a different force to that of the children? Do you agree with the Calvin quotation that I gave above?



> Whereas with the children, first "your" sets up the relation.



To prove that this is the true reason for the change from Third to Second Person plural, you would have to show where Paul habitually does this elsewhere. Can you do this?


Rich,
If you can't engage in some way with what I've written then it would be more helpful if you remained silent and let someone else have a go. You do not so much as mention the quote from Calvin nor the change from Second to Third Person which were the two strands of my argument. As for what you did say:-


> Martin - You move so quickly around Paul's argument here that you miss the fundamental relationship difference that a believer has with his/her spouse as opposed to the relationship he/she has to his/her child?! It seems you are so intent to guard against Covenant here that you have to focus first on the idea that because Paul calls the spouse sanctified and the child holy that somehow if one is in the Covenant that the other must be as well. Do you really think that argument holds any water at all? Do you really believe that it is what paedobaptists are arguing for?



Rich, the reason I focus first on the marital relationship is because Paul does. Look at the verse. First Paul talks about the unbelieving spouse, then about the children. Do you think I should have done it the other way round? Why?

The rest is just irrelevant nonsense, a 'playing the man and not the ball' again. Of course I understand the significance of marrying outside the covenant in OT times. That is why I alluded to three OT texts.

The crux of my argument is Paul's change from Third to Second Person plural. He stops addressing just those with unbelieving spouses and speaks to the whole church. That has profound implications for his meaning in my opinion as I explained. If you can find another possible reason for him doing this, then I'll be glad to hear it; otherwise, why not listen to what other people have to say?

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Bruce,
> Thank you for your response. Just two points.
> First, you wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> The husband (or wife) is said to be "sanctified" by the other, believing, spouse. Now, whatever that means, it does not have the same force as the different language used with respect to the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You state this without giving any reasoning. _Why_ does the sanctification of the souse have a different force to that of the children? Do you agree with the Calvin quotation that I gave above?
Click to expand...

Martin,
I offered my reasoning in the discussion of the language of the text. I said that Paul states two different things with respect to the "effect" that the believing spouse has 1) on the spouse, then 2) on the children. In the first place, the focus is upon the *relationship*, the terminology is verbal, the actor (the believer, not even the unbeliever) is principal. In the second place, the focus is on the condition that is the inalienable property of the object, the children. Neither the relationship to the actor, nor the process of influence is highlighted, but rather the condition of the object, which is in some sense even maintained in an ordinary sense after a natural (permanent) departure.

Beside the fact that two different relations and two different objects in no wise demands the same final condition, Paul carefully avoids speaking of the effects as if they were identical. The same sanctifying fire (agent) that sanctifies (consumes) the burnt offering sanctifies (perfumes) the Tabernacle. If the unbeliever deserts the marriage, his sanctification is over with--he cannot take it with him. The child's relation to the parent is not so easily altered, nor does it change in the same way as a spouse's upon his departure.

As yourself points out, the precise nature of various "sanctifications" may vary. Having done my part to show that the effects may without prejudice have _variable_ force, I think you must now show where my reasoning is weak and that the _same_ force is demanded by an equally close reading. It isn't enough to show that identity may be maintained (for example, use of agios/agiadzw cognates), but that such is the preferred interpretation given the differences in what is stated.

As for Calvin, I do not disagree with him at all, not least for which reasons I have already offered above. The spouse is sanctified _by the spouse,_ emphasis on the believer; the child *is* a holy thing, emphasis on the object's identity. Why does Paul do this, if not to make a difference?

Let me go back to the OT. When something common came in contact with a holy thing, the common thing was ordinarily sanctified, at least while it remined in contact with the holy object. Sometimes, the result was a permanent association; alienation was forbidden. Profane things (on the other hand) corrupted common things. Profanity either corrupted a holy thing it came in contact with, forcing it to be cleansed and restored or destroyed, or was itself destroyed (judgment).

Some things were, by their nature or original use, holy objects. They did not become "sanctified," they *were* sanctified. Their association with the Tabernacle and worship did not constitute their sanctity, though they had some of that sanctity through that derivation, but the exclusive incense mixture, manufactured exclusively for the priests, by the priests, was holy on account of what it was, not who made it, where, or what it was used for.

This is Calvin's point, and he is correct. He says too, that this is "BASED ON the profoundest theology." He does not seek to prove infant baptism from this passage either, but rather sees it confirmed in a most emphatic way by this passage. You misuse him when you claim that his position is that of Rome (you say "even further"), that supposedly he says Original Sin is removed by baptism (a position that Lutherans also take with Rome against the Reformed). You make him contradict himself in the same paragraph!

Calvin is speaking covenantally, the "blessings of the covenant" are present. He is treating baptism in its correlation to circumcision. The children are privileged; that much is hard to deny from this passage alone. I do not blame you so much for not following Calvin properly as he speaks sacramentally here. Your interchanges with covenant theologians on the PB show that misunderstandings of the other side's position is a common failing among us all.

You do not accept the connections he and we make across the whole Covenant of Grace. You do not share the covenant theologian's understanding of the nuanced relationship between the sacrament and the things it signifies and seals, and what and where and to whom. You do not even understand it enough to properly disagree with it, but attribute alien and heretical ideas to us that we (and Calvin) expressly deny.



> Calvin is asserting that all the children envisaged in 1Cor 7:14 should be baptized because they are holy, the curse of nature (that is, *presumably,* the effects of original sin) having been removed because they were born of a believing parent.


 If I thought you were intending to highlight the word "presumably", I would think it quite perceptive of you, if not quite accurate. After all, ALL baptizers presume _something._ :bigsmile: 

However, Calvin is not saying baptism erases Original Sin and its effects. Baptism is a sign of the work of God. All the means of grace (Word, prayer, sacraments, primarily) are made effectual unto the salvation of the elect. Calvin is saying that HOLY children ought to have that sign of the grace of God in regeneration placed on them, by virtue of God's own declaration about them, and according to his promises. It may even represent the actual spiritual work accomplished in them in the womb, or around their birth or baptism, or that the means of grace have begun their ordinary saving work in their lives, that will be accomplished in due time. The TRUTH it signifies has less to do with them personally, as it does with the work of the Saving God. This is Calvin's point. I leave off here... and move on


> Whereas with the children, first "your" sets up the relation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To prove that this is the true reason for the change from Third to Second Person plural, you would have to show where Paul habitually does this elsewhere. Can you do this?
> Martin
Click to expand...

It sets up the relationship gramatically. "Your children" is a statement of the case. I don't consider this a controversial point. The difference in the parts of the verse are primarily dependent on the verbs, after that the nouns and adjectives/adverbs (case usage). Following those main matters are prepositions, the use of person, conjunctions etc. My point is that it is understated, when compared to the _focus_ on the relationship in the first half of the verse.

Verse 12: 1st person, 3rd person
Verse 13: 3rd person
Verse 14: 3rd, 2nd, 3rd
Verse 15: 3rd, 1st
Verse 16: 2nd

How many different is that in 5 verses? NINE! Look back in the chapter: it starts off in 2d person, he moves to the third, and by verse 5 he's back to the personal 2nd. Verse 7, back to 3rd. And there are more changes if throw in singulars and plurals.

Paul is writing a letter. He's writing to many people he knows, and more than a few that he doesn't. He is connected to these people as a fellow Christian and as their spiritual father. He switches his rhetoric constantly for variety as well as effect. (This, by the way, is what preachers and other orators do out of habit and training--it makes for more interesting listening.) Open your Bible to ANY PAGE in Paul's letters and start counting the switches. Such usage tells us more about Paul's relationships and his familiar or formal style than it does about theological points.

I am not persuaded that gramatically the "person" is of great weight in determining the theological point in this passage. I also do not think that Paul used "person" (2nd, 3rd) as rigid categories to speak to groups as a whole, or subgroups, etc. That issue must be determined contextually, after which we recognize that ultimately nothing is specific, and everything is general (useful to all).

Having said that, I agree that the specific 2nd person statement is quite a general assertion, applicable across the board. Your penultimate paragraph is fairly acceptable to me, although I do not think you allow Paul's argument its full force. And, you do not succeed in perfectly correlating the two cases: spouse and child. You would do better to use exactly the same language in both cases, thus making your point. "Able to live together" and "able to bring them up in a Christian manner" are not identical results, which is key to your argument that the "sanctifies" is having the same impact as "holy".



> I suggest that if the baptism of infants were taking place in Corinth, Paul would certainly not have written this way. If children really could be brought into the New Covenant by baptism, he would not have suggested that they might be "˜unclean.´ Therefore I conclude that infant baptism was not being practised in Corinth.


This is argument from silence and autobiography. Unpersuasive.

For our part, we do not suggest that water baptism is a spiritually effectual implement. It is a physically effectual implement, because we recognize that the New Covenant has a visible administration called the church. And in that sense, Baptism does the job. These children are baptized after God has already declared them holy--they do not become holy because they are baptized. Paul doesn't suggest that they might be unclean, rather that they shouldn't be treated as if they are unclean, because they are the opposite. But Paul doesn't mention baptism, because he isn't addressing baptism.

Now if the passage stated that "your" children were unclean, that is anti-holy, now that would certainly call into question the practice of infant baptism, or certainly its meaning. Then hypothetically, if it were still practiced one would have to grant the papists argument concerning Original Sin. But this of course we deny, and it isn't in the text either...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Martin - 



> A number of brothers have based their adherence to paedo-baptism to their understanding of 1Cor 7:14



Who?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Martin -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A number of brothers have based their adherence to paedo-baptism to their understanding of 1Cor 7:14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
Click to expand...


Stupid is as stupid does.............







[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Martin,

I intended to let Bruce deal with the gramattical issues of the text because I am not trained to be able to dispute you on that point. I do not dispute you and he are far better educated than I on that point.

Nevertheless, you did begin by asserting that because sanctify and holy are the same basic word in the Greek that the spouse and child have the same basic relationship to the believer. It is my contention that you failed to prove the idea that the way in which a believer sanctifies his spouse is identical to the way that his children are holy. You presume it and then move on as if that is established without dealing with the glaring relationship difference that a spouse has to a believer as opposed to his child. Not all uses of the term sanctify and holy are identical in the Scriptures.

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by SemperFideles]

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Bruce,
Let's look at 1Cor 7 in a litle more detail to see whom he's talking to.

v1. He is speaking to the whole church and uses the 2nd Person plural, _'you'_
vs 2-4. He divides the church into male and female and addresses them separately. He therefore uses the 3rd Person.
vs 5-6. He puts the men and women together and addresses them as the whole church in the 2nd Person plural again.
v7. He speaks to each member of the church individually: _'But each one...'_ 3rd Person again.
vs 8-9. He speaks to another section of the church. 3rd Person.
vs 10-11. He speaks to the married. 3rd Person
vs 12-14a. He is speaking to those who are married to an unbeliever and therefore continues in the 3rd Person.
v14b. *He suddenly switches to the 2nd Person plural. Why?*
v15a. He returns to the 3rd Person because he is still speaking to the same people as in vs 12-14a.
v15b. He makes a statement covering all Christians, and includes himself by using the 1st Person plural.
v16. He makes a statement directly to those married to unbelievers. To avoid any confusion he uses the Second Person *Singular*. _'Knowest thou.....'_

I hope I've shown that while Paul does indeed change the Person frequently, he always does it for a purpose, and he only uses the Second Person Plural, _'Ye'_, when he is addressing the whole church. Therefore I conclude that in v 14b, _'your children'_ refers to the offspring of the whole Corinthian church and not just to the children of those who are married to unbelievers.

Now in v14, Paul is making a hypothetical suggestion. He introduces it with the Greek phrase, _epei ara_, 'otherwise'. He uses the same construction in 5:10. *'Since then* [or 'otherwise'] *you would need to go out of the world'*. What he's saying in 10:5 is that if the Corinthians were to avoid keeping company with immoral people in the world, in that case, they would have to leave the world since immoral people are ubiquitous. But they don't have to do that; it's a hypothetical argument. They must separate from immoral people _within_ the church (by expelling them- vs 11-13 ), but not from those outside because it's impossible to do.

Now look at 7:14. It's the same hypothetical argument. *If* the unbeliving spouse were not sanctified so that the Christian partner could continue to live with him/her, *then* by the same logic all children born to Christian parents are unsanctified and should therefore by separated from by their Christian parents. But the unbelieving spouse _is_ sanctified by the Christian partner and therefore _in exactly the same way_ the child, who was *'brought forth in iniquity'* and *'conceived in sin'* (Psalm 51:5 ) is sanctified by the Christian parent so that they may live together.

So it can be seen that the 'sanctification' of the unbelieving husband is identical to that of the children, otherwise Paul's argument does not stand up. Therefore all your arguments concerning the relative sanctification of one and another, interesting though they were to read, have no relevance here since they do not impinge upon the Apostle's teaching at this point. 

As for your support of Calvin, I'm afraid this is nothing but special pleading. Listen to Calvin again:-


> But the fact that the apostle ascribes a special privilege to the children of believers here has its source in the blessing of the covenant, by whose intervention the curse of nature is destroyed, and also those who were by nature unclean are consecrated to God by His grace"¦"¦"¦.In view of the fact that the children of believers are made exempt from the common condition of mankind, in order to be set apart for the Lord, why should we keep them back from His sign [of the covenant]?



Well there you are! 'The children of believers are made exempt from the common condition of mankind.' Exactly what condition is this? In what way were, say, Er and Onan, or Ahaz 'exempt from the common condition of mankind'? *'That which is born of the flesh is flesh'*. It was always true, and it's still true today. 

I may be unable to post again here for a few days, so forgive me if your next post is not answered straight away.

Grace & Peace,

Martin





[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen

Rich,
I'm sorry if I was a little terse in my last post, brother. It was unnecessary.
I hope I've answered your point in my post to Bruce.

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> Therefore I conclude that in v 14b, 'your children' refers to the offspring of the whole Corinthian church and not just to the children of those who are married to unbelievers.


I already stated that I basically agree that this statement _may be applied_ across the board to all the children in the church. They are all HOLY. However in the immediate context, the 1st referent would be to the mixed family types he is addressing.

But while I agree that Paul writes carefully and purposefully, and not willy-nilly changing and varying his address, I don't agree that when Paul makes changes in "person" that he is _necessarily_ redirecting his comments all over the place. This is an inferential interpretive decision that may or may not work in various places. Personal address, in particular 2nd person, whether singular or plural, is *direct* address. 3rd person is *indirect address*. Making hard categories on the basis of this distinction is extremely limiting, and if you tried to force it down over all of Paul's writing (or even just the writing in this letter) I think that is artificial.

For example, he will use the 2nd/3rd person interchange in ch. 11. He uses a word of praise 2nd person, cautiously it seems, and then uses 3rd person *indirect address* 4-12 to address an incipient problem that has not yet exploded upon the church--someting he has heard rumblings about, but is not yet a specific problem. He applies what he speaks of *directly* in the 2nd and 3rd person in vv 14-16. He then gives them both barrells in primarily 2nd person address starting in verse 17-34. But in there too you find notable instances of 3rd person (28-29) which is certianly general address, and 31 (where he includes himself-1st person), or 30 where he speaks to the DEAD in the 2nd person? (I don't think so!)

One has got to follow the context clues, of which changes in person is only one (minor) piece. But, ultimately I fail to see how this determination (all the Church's children are HOLY) helps your point that ALL the children in the church are in the same category as the UNBELIEVING spouse of a Christian. If you say that they are all presently UNSAVED, *I say that is a massive reading into the text.*

Granted that ALL the children in the church _are_ HOLY, with a tremendous difference then placed between them and all the UNHOLY children outside the church, what does that difference amount to?


> Now look at 7:14. It's the same hypothetical argument. If the unbeliving spouse were not sanctified so that the Christian partner could continue to live with him/her, then by the same logic all children born to Christian parents are unsanctified and should therefore by separated from by their Christian parents. But the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the Christian partner and therefore in exactly the same way the child, who was 'brought forth in iniquity' and 'conceived in sin' (Psalm 51:5 ) is sanctified by the Christian parent so that they may live together.


Well, I certainly agree that Paul is using a hypothetical, but I vehemently disagree as to the force of it. Paul refuses the argument that the unbeliever is a defiling influence on the marriage or on the believer. No, the force of influence is in the other direction. The Christian un-defiles the marriage and the unbelieving spouse. *If this were not the case, OTHERWISE, the defiling influence of the unbelieving spouse would also render the children of the marriage defiled, UNCLEAN.* But Paul intimates, _you already know that isn't true,_ because those children ARE HOLY.

It is an _a fortiori_ argument. If your children are holy, then your sanctifying influence is already proved stronger than the whatever defiling influence that the unbeliever brought to the marriage. Therefore, you MUST NOT separate from the unbeliever--you are also sanctifying toward him or her. Verses 15 & 16 draw further conclusions. If the unbeliever departs, let him go. BUT, by God's grace the end result will be their salvation instead. Then, which power has again been proven stronger! God 's or Satan's?

By the way, we are not arguing about whether the believer exudes "different kinds" of sanctification. The difference that I am claiming is that of effect, just as fire or chemical do different things to different substances. So, as far as I can see, you have said nothing as to why the same influence (sanctity) on different substances (people) must produce the same effect. The same Word that softens one heart hardens another.


> So it can be seen that the 'sanctification' of the unbelieving husband is identical to that of the children, otherwise Paul's argument does not stand up. Therefore all your arguments concerning the relative sanctification of one and another, interesting though they were to read, have no relevance here since they do not impinge upon the Apostle's teaching at this point.


????? Where have you addressed even a word of my exegesis? The difference in the text itself? You have not.
As for Paul's argument not standing up on any other grounds than yours, see the above in RED.


> As for your support of Calvin, I'm afraid this is nothing but special pleading.


"Special pleading," indeed.
You assume you know what is "the common condition of mankind," according to Calvin, *showing again that you misundertand him.* The common condition is being born outside any covenant arrangement, outside the CoG. But beginning with Seth, to Noah, then Abraham, there have been those who have been born into a lot different from the common lot. They have been born within the external administration of the covenant, as Calvin words it "the blessings of the covenant," and a difference placed upon them from all born outside of it. They are HOLY. The others are UNCLEAN.

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Trevor,
Most of your questions have been addressed in the thread already at some point. The paedo-baptist shouldn't seek to prove his case from this passage, despite what Martin said at the beginning and what some might try to do. The passage is rather forcefully confirmatory of the paedo's position, having founded it on other grounds. That the children of a Christian are holy "fits" with baptism, i.e. baptizing them is far from being repugnant to the ordinance.

As for why children and not adults? Beside the fact that God commands the one (in our view) and not the other, the language of this verse does not say anything at all about baptism. Neither is the identical effect of the believer's sanctifying influence implied.


----------



## pastorway

> Also, contextually......Paul doesn't seem to be dealing with baptism at all.



BINGO!! The old art of reading in context (which is what Martin has been trying to do throughout the thread). 

Once again baptism emerges from the silent mists of obscurity and presupposition. As John MacArthur stated in his debate with RC Sproul, the only way to find infant baptism in the Bible is to insert it, because otherwise it just isn't there!


----------



## BrianBowman

Do we have in ICON for going in circles?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> Also, contextually......Paul doesn't seem to be dealing with baptism at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!! The old art of reading in context (which is what Martin has been trying to do throughout the thread).
> 
> Once again baptism emerges from the silent mists of obscurity and presupposition. As John MacArthur stated in his debate with RC Sproul, the only way to find infant baptism in the Bible is to insert it, because otherwise it just isn't there!
Click to expand...

Fascinating then, is it not, that Pastor Buchanan and other paedobaptists were insistent that this text was not a fundamental text for establishing paedo-baptism. In fact, two others have asked who, precisely, is using it as a pretext for infant baptism.

Who, precisely, are you criticizing for focusing on baptism? Would it be Martin?


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Once again baptism emerges from the silent mists of obscurity and presupposition. As John MacArthur stated in his debate with RC Sproul, the only way to find infant baptism in the Bible is to insert it, because otherwise it just isn't there!


Its pretty much agreed that there's no explicit command in the NT to baptize infants. *If* (hypothetically) you were convinced that the scripture was talking about covenantal inclusion, would it then follow that infants of believers should be baptized?


----------



## JohnV

This is very helpful and educational. I hope you don't mind my cutting in with some personal observations, for my own education. Maybe this will be helpful, or maybe not.

These are well thought-out concepts from both Martin and Bruce. It does seem, though, that the stated conclusions are rather presuppositions to the arguments than they are well-reasoned results. 


> I suggest that if the baptism of infants were taking place in Corinth, Paul would certainly not have written this way. If children really could be brought into the New Covenant by baptism, he would not have suggested that they might be "˜unclean.´ Therefore I conclude that infant baptism was not being practised in Corinth.


The above quote does seem to be a bit of a jump in logic, a surprise ending to say the least. But perhaps I just don't see the implied propositions. I just can't see how we get from.


> The crux of my argument is Paul's change from Third to Second Person plural. He stops addressing just those with unbelieving spouses and speaks to the whole church. That has profound implications for his meaning in my opinion as I explained.


to 


> Therefore I conclude that infant baptism was not being practised in Corinth.



Nor am I quite following Bruce on this. Yes, grammatically it all makes sense the way you put it, but does this necessitate the conclusion you call for?



> From the standpoint of one who already holds to the principle of covenant inclusion, this verse hammers an exclamation point at the end of our postion. But like most punctuation, it doesn't really do anything to the sentence that the construction doesn't do much more. We think the New Covenant (just like the Old) is spiritual in essence, but is adminstered visibly in the world by the church. We baptize our children because we believe that's what God tells us to do. We don't baptize them because they are holy. But they are holy, not unclean, and so baptising them isn't repugnant to their identity.


Notice that I agree with this, but I can see how this would not follow for someone who has different line of thinking. The Credo-baptist could use this same construct to include children in their service of worship without breaking their conscienctiousness, and yet not baptize them. Its a bit of a jump from OT inclusion to "we believe that's ( i.e, infant baptism, _jv_ )what God tells us to do"; a Credo-baptist would seek a more direct logic than this.

It seems to me what is missing here is a crucial definition of baptism, what it means and what being baptized entails.


----------



## pastorway

Bob, by its very definition the New Covenant is not inclusive when it comes to physical lineage, only the children of Abraham by faith are in the New Covenant.

Others, As for who is arguing for baptism from this text, just do a search. Almost every thread that deals with baptism has this verse tossed around from the paedo side of the fence as if the "holy" children were declared holy so that they might be fit for immediate sprinkling. In fact, I would dare to say that this is the single most abused verse on the Puritan Board. If you guys are missing it them maybe you just read the baptist posts and ignore the paedo posts when you look at the board. 

PW

[Edited on 12-28-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Bob, by its very definition the New Covenant is not inclusive when it comes to physical lineage, only the children of Abraham by faith are in the New Covenant.
> 
> Others, As for who is arguing for baptism from this text, just do a search. Almost every thread that deals with baptism has this verse tossed around from the paedo side of the fence as if the "holy" children were declared holy so that they might be fit for immediate sprinkling. In fact, I would dare to say that this is the single most abused verse on the Puritan Board. If you guys are missing it them maybe you just read the baptist posts and ignore the paedo posts when you look at the board.
> 
> PW
> 
> [Edited on 12-28-05 by pastorway]


OK it's happening in other threads but you were criticizing people for THIS thread. You said Martin was the one remaining in context while the paedos were not. So are you criticizing Martin here for bringing baptism in?


> BINGO!! The old art of reading in context (which is what Martin has been trying to do throughout the thread).



[Edited on 12-28-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## pastorway

have you not read Martin? His point is that in context there is no baptism in 1 Cor 7:14, so he is showing what the verse does say while proving what it does not say.

I am not necessarily taking on anyone in this thread. I am attempting to support Martin and what he has posted. If anyone missed that I can type slower.......

[Edited on 12-28-05 by pastorway]


----------



## JohnV

C'mon, guys. First, what's wrong with building an argument of paedo baptism from this text? If no one else will, then I will. Pin it on me. I'm not afraid of that. And second, what's the point of "he said, you said" arguments? If its wrong to construct paedo baptism on the idea of the unique holiness of children, then its wrong, and lets go on from there. But let's keep on topic, putting rancor and comtempt beneath us.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> C'mon, guys. First, what's wrong with building an argument of paedo baptism from this text? If no one else will, then I will. Pin it on me. I'm not afraid of that. And second, what's the point of "he said, you said" arguments? If its wrong to construct paedo baptism on the idea of the unique holiness of children, then its wrong, and lets go on from there. But let's keep on topic, putting rancor and comtempt beneath us.



I'm with you John, and we're in good company. RC Sproul bolsters the paedo position with 1 Cor 7:14 in the debate with John MacArthur.

BTW the argument from silence is like a box of chocolates......


----------



## Contra_Mundum

JohnV,
To answer your question re. my conclusion: it wasn't "conclusion" to an argument. I "concluded" it beginning with "thus" in the previous (second-to-last) paragraph. My final comments, along with my opening statement were my answer to the opening and closing comments of Martin's post:


> _originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> A number of brothers have based their adherence to paedo-baptism to their understanding of 1Cor 7:14.... I suggest that if the baptism of infants were taking place in Corinth, Paul would certainly not have written this way. If children really could be brought into the New Covenant by baptism, he would not have suggested that they might be "˜unclean.´ Therefore I conclude that infant baptism was not being practised in Corinth.


If you read the two together, leaving out the exegetical stuff in between, you can see that they are simply statements.


> _Originally posted ny Contra_Mundum_
> I know I siad this in other threads, but I do not use 1 Cor. 7:14 as a prooftext for infant baptism. By itself it rather demands contextual and theological interpretation, from whatever part of the baptismal spectrum you hail.... From the standpoint of one who already holds to the principle of covenant inclusion, this verse hammers an exclamation point at the end of our postion. But like most punctuation, it doesn't really do anything to the sentence that the construction doesn't do much more. We think the New Covenant (just like the Old) is spiritual in essence, but is adminstered visibly in the world by the church. We baptize our children because we believe that's what God tells us to do. We don't baptize them because they are holy. But they are holy, not unclean, and so baptising them isn't repugnant to their identity.


The charge is that some base their paedo-baptist convictions on this verse. (As pointed out, no examples follow.) My counter is that I don't, and others shouldn't attempt to make it bear more weight than it is capable of. However, this verse is not pointless to a covenant-theologian, as it states truth (as _*I*_ have exegted the passage) that is fully in accord with our paedo-baptist convictions, and rather confirmatory of them.

If the argument is made: *there are no NT indications that the children of believers are in any kind of special relationship with God (even non-salvific),* then this verse is quite germane. Now, both Martin and I have provided 2-3 posts apiece with at least some alternate exegesis, enough I think to allow readers to decide for themselves which of the arguments presented (or the manner of presentment) is better. Even then, such a decision will probably not sway even a fence-sitter, but if it helps someone understand the sides of the debate, and moves anyone along the path to truth (wherever it lies) then we have had a profitable exchange.

Bob,
To answer your question: in a word, "no", not by itself. And the reason is, since this text says nothing to the point (of baptism as such) then the conclusion cannot be drawn solely from this text. This verse says children of believers are HOLY. You need at least two premises to form a conclusion. What is appropriate for doing to Holy Things must be determined from texts that speak to that in particular.



And, to no one in particular, let me add a further analogy. I have said (particularly as it relates to this verse) that a child is not holy because he is baptized, and we do not baptize a child _because_ he is holy. And yet it is proper to say that a child is baptized because he is holy. Let me explain this ambiguous-sounding language. The word "because" in each sentence has a different sense. In the first case we are speaking _causatively,_ or that "holiness" is the determining cause, the reason for which a child is baptized. This is the sense that some Paedo-baptists would try to extract from this text, in conjunction with other texts, but I recognize it's weakness and will not employ it. By the same logic, we should "baptize" anything holy. "OK everyone, we'll be sprinkling (dunking!) your Bibles next week!" That cannot follow.

What about the second sense? Now we are talking about criteria. A holy thing, as opposed to an unholy thing, might be a candidate for baptism. A full set of qualifications or minimum requirements must be determined from other passages, but it is certainly true to say that nothing UNCLEAN ought to be baptized. So in that sense we do say that we baptize children because they are holy. This distinction needs to be appreciated in the debate.

Now for the analogy: Neither Tom nor Bob are guilty of felonies. Only those who are not guilty of felonies may vote. Tom MAY vote. Bob is FORBIDDEN to vote. "Hey! They're both innocent, so why can't Bob vote? You are not being consistent, and obviously misreading the US Constitution!" Well no, Tom is 18 years old, Bob is 17. Not only that but Rex is innocent too, and older than either one of them, but he's not allowed to vote. "Aaaugh! More inconsistency!" No, Rex is the old sheepdog.

Our text says that unbelieving spouses are sanctified. It also says that children of any believer are holy. The sanctifying "agent" in both cases is the Christian. The credo-baptist says, "They're BOTH affected by their relation to the believer (notice, you can't say they are both *** from the text itself). You paedos baptize the one, but not the other. Inconsistent!"

But, as I've pointed out, sanctity (however created or defined) is not the _cause_ of our practice, it is merely a criteria. An important criteria, yes, so that in another sense it is proper to say that we baptize _because_ children are holy. But we will not concede the accusatoin of inconsistency when we do not baptize unbelieving adult spouses. The criteria for baptism is not met in them.


----------



## JohnV

Well, Bruce, that was my point. You take the long way 'round the barn to say what amounts to not what I was expecting. But in going that round you disspell Martin's argument, adequately I would say; and I suppose that was your intention. 

It seems to me that, if the grammatical constructs are there to draw the lines as such, that the context of the assertion made by Paul here, which he states in addition to our Lord's direct commands, and is itself followed up by a surprise application, though not out of context, is a clear foundation for some kind of definite knowledge of the place of children in the Church. If we had a clear statement of what baptism, as a sacrament, was and what it entailed, we would have a very strong argument for paedo baptism, rather than a weak one. That is, if it has direct ties to the OT rite of circumcision, as we hold. 

You are right that this text does not stand on its own as a defence of infant baptism, because we need first to assume unity on other things prior to taking in the conclusion following on this text. The Baptist would understand it differently because he understands baptism differently, not only as a sacrament, but also as an efficacious ministry in and of the Church. But between you and I, both paedo baptists, this text is quite clear. 

So the question is, is it clear or is it not clear in what it states about children, and the direct ramification it has on baptism? 

That was the conclusion I was expecting as I read your initial post. If I was disappointed, then it was my fault, not yours: I was hoping for a different conclusion, reading into your post a different intention. I should rather have responded solely to Martin's posts. 

Thank you for the reply. As usual, it was helpful and thoughtful.

[Edited on 12-31-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Mocha

For anyone interested in reading "A Reformed Baptist View of 1 Cor. 7:14" by Stan Reeves, click here.

Mike


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> by its very definition the New Covenant is not inclusive when it comes to physical lineage, only the children of Abraham by faith are in the New Covenant.



Balderdash. That notion is easily dispelled by simply reading the book of Hebrews. May I suggest chapters 6 & 10? Or how about Jeremiah 31-32? Or we could look at Luke 18. Or, how about if we simply flip over to 1 Cor. 7:14, the verse upon which we are focusing in this thread?

Such a large portion of Scripture is rendered nonsensical if you hold to the fallacious belief that the New Covenant is not inclusive according to physical lineage.

After all, Hebrews says that the New Covenant is a BETTER covenant! And a BETTER covenant does not cut off covenant benefits from the children of believers. In the OT, Israel was the olive tree, and the little Israelite children were called "olive branches". But the credobaptists would have us believe that the children of NT believers are just weeds. But that is certainly not BETTER!

Of course, in the ultimate final realization of the New Covenant, in the full eschatological consummation of the Covenant of Redemption, the only remaining covenant members will be believers, because all unbelievers are covenant breakers, and will be utterly cut off and judged.

But we must not confuse the _already_ with the _not yet_. . . . And that is precisely what the credobaptists are doing here. They look at the New Covenant in Scripture, and mistakenly assume that it has already been consummated. But there is clearly still a _not yet_ aspect to it.


----------



## pastorway

If His blood was not shed for you, then you are not in the New Covenant. It is the "New Covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

Unless you believe that the blood of Christ was shed for the non-elect. Then, and only then, can unbelievers have any part in the New Covenant.

Do you *get it* _already_, or _not yet_?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Let me take a page from the other guy's playbook.

For the sake of argument, I'll grant the credo definition of "inclusion" for a moment, and apply it in reverse:

Unbelievers _had_ no part in the *OLD* Covenant either.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> If His blood was not shed for you, then you are not in the New Covenant. It is the "New Covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."
> 
> Unless you believe that the blood of Christ was shed for the non-elect. Then, and only then, can unbelievers have any part in the New Covenant.
> 
> Do you *get it* _already_, or _not yet_?



The secret things (election) belong to God. 
The revealed things (covenant) belong to us _ and to our children_. 

Since the promise is to our children, and love hopes all things; we assume they are elect. 

It is really no different than when we assume an adult believer will follow through in faith all his life.


----------



## Steve Owen

First of all, my apologies for not being able to contribute to this thread for a while. Things have been more than a little busy.

If I may take you back to Bruce´s post of Dec 28th. He mentioned 1Cor 11 as contradicting my thesis that Paul only uses the Second Person plural when he is speaking to the whole church. I think that if you look again, you will find that it actually confirms what I´m suggesting. If anyone wants me to go through it verse by verse, I will, but I hope you´ll all see that I´m correct.

Bruce wrote:-


> I already stated that I basically agree that this statement may be applied across the board to all the children in the church. They are all HOLY. However in the immediate context, the 1st referent would be to the mixed family types he is addressing.



That the children are _hagios_ is beyond dispute. The question is, in what does that "˜holiness´ consist. Let´s look at the "˜immediate context´:-

1Cor 7:12-15. *´But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases"¦"¦.´*

I want to make two observations concerning the context:-
1. Paul is not speaking about children. He is only using them as a hypothetical example in his argument concerning whether believers should separate from their unbelieving spouses.
2. Is it not strange that Paul switches from the Third Person to the Second Person just for one sentence and then switches back again. Would it not have been much more natural for him to have written *´Otherwise their children would be unclean"¦´*? _Unless_ he has a special purpose for doing so; unless he is speaking of the children of the whole church? 

In my last post, I wrote:-


> Now in v14, Paul is making a hypothetical suggestion. He introduces it with the Greek phrase, _epei ara_, 'otherwise'. He uses the same construction in 5:10. *'Since then* [or 'otherwise']* you would need to go out of the world'*. What he's saying in 10:5 is that if the Corinthians were to avoid keeping company with immoral people in the world, in that case, they would have to leave the world since immoral people are ubiquitous. But they don't have to do that; it's a hypothetical argument. They must separate from immoral people within the church (by expelling them- vs 11-13 ), but not from those outside because it's impossible to do.
> 
> Now look at 7:14. It's the same hypothetical argument. If the unbeliving spouse were not sanctified so that the Christian partner could continue to live with him/her, then by the same logic all children born to Christian parents are unsanctified and should therefore by separated from by their Christian parents. But the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the Christian partner and therefore in exactly the same way the child, who was *'brought forth in iniquity'* and *'conceived in sin' *(Psalm 51:5 ) is sanctified by the Christian parent so that they may live together.



To which Bruce replied


> Well, I certainly agree that Paul is using a hypothetical, but I vehemently disagree as to the force of it. Paul refuses the argument that the unbeliever is a defiling influence on the marriage or on the believer. No, the force of influence is in the other direction. The Christian un-defiles the marriage and the unbelieving spouse. If this were not the case, OTHERWISE, the defiling influence of the unbelieving spouse would also render the children of the marriage defiled, UNCLEAN. But Paul intimates, you already know that isn't true, because those children ARE HOLY.
> 
> It is an _a fortiori_ argument. If your children are holy, then your sanctifying influence is already proved stronger than the whatever defiling influence that the unbeliever brought to the marriage. Therefore, you MUST NOT separate from the unbeliever--you are also sanctifying toward him or her. Verses 15 & 16 draw further conclusions. If the unbeliever departs, let him go. BUT, by God's grace the end result will be their salvation instead. Then, which power has again been proven stronger! God 's or Satan's?



Well, needless to say, I disagree with Bruce. I don´t want to pass myself off as an expert on NT Greek, and I´m open to correction by Fred or anyone else who is learned on such matters, but it is my belief that _epei ara_ does not introduce an _a fortiori_ argument. This text and 1Cor 5:10 are the only instances of _epei ara_ in the NT. In 1Cor 5:10, it is more of a _Reductio ad absurdum_ argument. Paul says, if this were so, you would have to go out of the world, which is absurd, therefore this is not so. In 7:14, the thought is somewhat similar: if believers with unbelieving spouses had to separate from them, then by the same logic, *all* Christians would also have to separate from their children, who are by nature sinners and unbelievers until they are saved. But that is absurd; therefore Christians need not separate from unbelieving partners. Look at vs 12-15 again. The children are not really part of the argument. They are only brought in to make Paul´s case concerning the unbelieving spouses.

Next, writing HOLY in respect of the children in capitals does not make the argument stronger. Is Bruce prepared to say that the unbelieving spouse is MADE HOLY in the same way? That is the meaning of_ hagiazo_. In 1Cor 6:11, Paul writes, *´But you were washed, but you were sanctified* (Gk. _hagiazo_), *but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.´*. _Hagiazo_ is just the verb form of _hagios_. One means HOLY, the other means MADE HOLY. The degree of holiness can only be determined by the context. In 7:14, an unbelieving spouse is only "˜holy´ insofar as his Christian marriage partner may continue to live with him/her. That is the context, and I suggest that it is highly inconsistent to suppose that Paul, in the same sentence, would have two different definitions of holiness, one for the unbelieving spouse and another for the children. What is true of the one is surely true of the other. Nevertheless, Bruce writes (and this is perhaps a fair summary of his argument):-


> As for Calvin, I do not disagree with him at all, not least for which reasons I have already offered above. The spouse is sanctified by the spouse, emphasis on the believer; the child is a holy thing, emphasis on the object's identity. Why does Paul do this, if not to make a difference?



There is a simple reason for this. The children of believers generally are not _made_ acceptably sanctified so that their parents can live with them, they are born that way. Hence Paul does not say they are "˜made holy,´ as the unbelieving spouses are, but rather that they "˜are holy´. But the degree of holiness is the same. The context demands it. 

Finally, it seems that not everybody understood how I reached my conclusion that infants were not being baptized in Corinth. Well, my argument is, that if Paul is saying that if Christians had to separate from non-Christian spouses, then *all* parents would have to separate from their children, then those children surely cannot have been baptized any more than the non-Christian spouses were baptized? It seems self-evident to me. 

I´m sorry that the argument has become a bit complicated, and I hope that my part of it is reasonably intelligible to everybody. May I wish everyone on the PB a very happy New Year?

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> If His blood was not shed for you, then you are not in the New Covenant. It is the "New Covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."
> 
> Unless you believe that the blood of Christ was shed for the non-elect. Then, and only then, can unbelievers have any part in the New Covenant.
> 
> Do you *get it* _already_, or _not yet_?



Phillip - would you say that His blood was shed for Moses? or Abraham? or Noah? Or not?

It seems you are going to have a problem with salvation in general if you hold to what you said.

Moses gets to heaven by Christ's blood. If he does not, then you would have to be a Ryrie or Larkin kind of dispensationist who thinks that God saves in different ways at differnt times. If Moses IS saved by Christ's blood, then is Moses in the New Covenant? If Moses is not in the New Covenant, is Christ's blood only in the New Covenant as your statement says, or does it expand past the NC? Because we know Moses was in the Old Siniatic covenant. Is Christ the Mediator by His blood of that covenant or only the New? If it doesn't apply tot he old covenant, then what saved Moses in the OT if it were not the blood of Christ?

I think in general, Christians today seem to have a heard time with reconciling salvific ideas around the blood of Christ and how it applies to those in the OT/NT. That is what makes your statement thoroughly confusing to me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> He [Bruce] mentioned 1Cor 11 as contradicting my thesis that Paul only uses the Second Person plural when he is speaking to the whole church. I think that if you look again, you will find that it actually confirms what I´m *suggesting*. If anyone wants me to go through it verse by verse, I will, but I hope you´ll all see that I´m correct.


I am going to address this issue in a separate post, because in one sense it is completely irrelevant to the topic.

I have a different *suggestion*. Let everyone who thinks this "personal hermeneutic" is of the first interpretive order take Paul's writings, starting with 1 Corinthians; take a sheet of paper and draw columns on it; then divide up his comments through the letter into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and singular and plural forms; then you will need sub/sub2/sub3-columns based on the subject matter to determine particular headings that describe the persons being addressed; OK, now you are finally ready to read 1 Cor. (or some other letter) analytically. Has anyone ever done this? Has such a method established itself over time as a reliable approach to getting a handle on Paul? No, because the use of "person" is flexible, not categorical. "Person" is valuable and useful, but it is not a first-order interpretive tool.

I would like the name of a reputable commentator who takes this hermeneutical stance regarding the interpretive use of person, in this letter (1 Cor.) or in any letter; of Paul or of any other writer of the NT. If you've already decided to use this parsing method as a "template", then you can force it down over just about any passage you like. And guess what! Because it is not a _necessary_ inference, you can also make exceptions to its use, whenever or wherever you determine that the sense it yields is unsuitable! How convenient.

Using it as your hermeneutical grid is a choice, not a necessity; and one which, if applied consistently, may not yield the most natural sense of a given passage. When you absolutize it (as in: Paul always uses this method in this letter to "parse" his audience), as Martin you seem willing to do to make a point, you have taken a one form of rhetorical variety and raised it to a level of significance that grammar generally does not ascribe it. Indirect address and indirect discourse (3rd person) are modes of communication we employ on a daily basis in our own conversation.

(By the way, notice how many times I changed "person" in the last three paragraphs. Did anyone feel "left out" at some point?)

Frankly, insisting that Paul "would have" used the 3rd person again in the sentence to make his point if he was speaking (only or directly) of the children of the unbelievers would qualify under ordinary analysis as "imposition" on the text. Treating of the text itself, apart from any _necessity_ (lacking here) the natural reading stance to take is: that, within a short compass, particularly with a "bracketing effect" (3rd-2nd-3rd), the (prime) subjects of an address do NOT change.

At this point in the discussion, I am primarily anxious to keep as many people as possible from applying such a "grid" to this or any other text. I am less interested in how such a matter applies here. *The irony is that I am perfectly willing to grant a general inclusion of all the children in the church, by a perfectly natural and unexceptional application of the principle Paul states here.* But not, emphatically not, on the basis of Paul's use of the term "your", as if that decided the question. You MUST value the use of "person" in interpretation, but you must not ascribe too much to it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> That the children are hagios is beyond dispute. The question is, in what does that "˜holiness´ consist. Let´s look at the "˜immediate context´:-
> 
> 
> 
> 1Cor 7:12-15. ´But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases"¦"¦.´
> 
> 
> 
> I want to make two observations concerning the context:-
> 1. Paul is not speaking about children. He is only using them as a hypothetical example in his argument concerning whether believers should separate from their unbelieving spouses.
> 2. Is it not strange that Paul switches from the Third Person to the Second Person just for one sentence and then switches back again. Would it not have been much more natural for him to have written ´Otherwise their children would be unclean"¦´? Unless he has a special purpose for doing so; unless he is speaking of the children of the whole church?
Click to expand...

Well, so far _no one_ has ascribed a salvific holiness to this terminology. It is the "holiness of association" that comes about from connection to a believer (particularly) and the church (generally). In other words, it is a derivative holiness that describes a condition or relationship brought about in one entity because of its connections to something with a "superior" holiness.

Addressing 1 & 2 above:
1) Paul isn't speaking about the children _directly,_ but that doesn't mean that he says nothing at all factual about them, when he plainly does. And hypothetical examples are useful precisely for their analogous properties, i.e. something about the example corresponds to objective reality encouraging an inferential conclusion. The "but now" portion of Paul's statement is a statement of reality, not hypothesis. *And apparently that reality is so far from being disputed, as it forms a generally accepted maxim, and may thus enforce Paul's main argument.*
2) How special is special? Only useful if it were a necessary inference, if there were no other reasonable explanation. *And how is its applicabilty relevant to the discussion?*

[to be contiued]


----------



## Steve Owen

Bruce wrote:-


> Paul isn't speaking about the children _directly_, but that doesn't mean that he says nothing at all factual about them, when he plainly does. And hypothetical examples are useful precisely for their analogous properties


I absolutely agree. That is why I see _Hagiazo_ applied to the unbelieving parent as *analogous* to _hagios_ applied to the children.



> I would like the name of a reputable commentator who takes this hermeneutical stance regarding the interpretive use of person, in this letter (1 Cor.)



This line of thought that I've been pursuing here is not (alas) original to me, but was suggested to me by a friend who read it in the works of John Dagg.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> If His blood was not shed for you, then you are not in the New Covenant. It is the "New Covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."
> 
> Unless you believe that the blood of Christ was shed for the non-elect. Then, and only then, can unbelievers have any part in the New Covenant.
> 
> Do you *get it* _already_, or _not yet_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phillip - would you say that His blood was shed for Moses? or Abraham? or Noah? Or not?
> 
> It seems you are going to have a problem with salvation in general if you hold to what you said.
> 
> Moses gets to heaven by Christ's blood. If he does not, then you would have to be a Ryrie or Larkin kind of dispensationist who thinks that God saves in different ways at differnt times. If Moses IS saved by Christ's blood, then is Moses in the New Covenant? If Moses is not in the New Covenant, is Christ's blood only in the New Covenant as your statement says, or does it expand past the NC? Because we know Moses was in the Old Siniatic covenant. Is Christ the Mediator by His blood of that covenant or only the New? If it doesn't apply tot he old covenant, then what saved Moses in the OT if it were not the blood of Christ?
> 
> I think in general, Christians today seem to have a heard time with reconciling salvific ideas around the blood of Christ and how it applies to those in the OT/NT. That is what makes your statement thoroughly confusing to me.
Click to expand...




Phillip, there is no need for me to respond to the argument you gave me, since Matt has already done so quite well. Please respond to Matt's post, and extrapolate a bit on the issue as it pertains to salvation in the OT. Thank you! I look forward to your response.



[Edited on 1-2-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## pastorway

Anyone in all of time who is saved is saved by the blood of Christ shed to ratify the New Covenant. So yes, all elect through all time are members of the New Covenant by faith!

The Old Covenant did not save anyone. It could not save anyone. Acts 13:39; Romans 3:20; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:11, 24; Hebrews 8:7-13. 

The New Covenant is the covenant whereby men are saved.

Phillip


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Anyone in all of time who is saved is saved by the blood of Christ shed to ratify the New Covenant. So yes, all elect through all time are members of the New Covenant by faith!
> 
> The Old Covenant did not save anyone. It could not save anyone. Acts 13:39; Romans 3:20; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:11, 24; Hebrews 8:7-13.
> 
> The New Covenant is the covenant whereby men are saved.
> 
> Phillip


Actually, the Covenant of Grace is the covenant whereby men are saved, for it forms the context of history in which salvation comes about. And behind that there is the Covenant of Redemption that describes the inter-Trinitarian determination (which includes election) to save from all eternity.

The Old Covenant did not save only in this sense: that it was prospective, and did not include the Messiah's work in history (although it did provide the _exact context_ for its historical fulfilment). In comparison the New Covenant is salvific, for by the death of Jesus the New Covenant is inaugurated; the New Covenant context then is retrospective because the work of Christ is done, and grace is on display. Thus it is only proper to state that the Old Covenant did not save in an _historical_ sense.

But in the sense of _faith,_ the Old Covenant was just as salvific as the New Covenant, for this is the point of New Covenant writers. Abraham is saved by faith, as well as Noah, Daniel, Samson, Moses, etc. (see Heb. 11). _It is erroneous to say that the Old Covenant equals the Law of Moses._ That Law plays a central role in the Old Covenant adminstration (an administration of the Covenant of Grace), but it is not synonymous with or a coterminous description of the Old Covenant.

Acts 13:39 (for example) states not that the OLD Covenant could not save but that the LAW of Moses could not save, a point agreeable to all sides. The Hebrews 8 pasage indeed uses the term "covenant", but beside speaking in particular of the pomulgation of the Law at Sinai (v.9) and not mentioning Abraham at all (who certainly fits under the whole Old Covenant umbrella), it doesn't say: the _covenant_ didn't save (which the other references DO say regarding the LAW). And even if you are inclined to see such an implication in Heb. 8, then you must allow by the same implication the specific restriction to _the LAW_ that you are importing from the Galatians, Acts, and Romans passages. You can't have it both ways.

The Old Covenant in general was "weaker" and less efficient broadly speaking, though it was certainly 100% efficient in every particular case of faith. The fault (as always) was in the sinners themselves, as Hebrews 8:7 explicitly declares. It is entirely unnecessary and anachronistic to thrust believers out of their time, or project the New Covenant backwards in time, in order to cover men by the (totally) necessary condition of Jesus' blood--*because* he is the Mediator of the COVENANT OF GRACE.

Speaking of, say, Seth or Abraham or Jeremiah as members of the New Covenant, beside completely confusing categories and being unintelligible to them (if they were to hear such a designation), _robs them of their privileges of being full, saved members of the Old Covenant,_ to which for all eternity they will wear as a badge of honor--the comparitively select few that waited on the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, believing the promises.


----------



## pastorway

oh, yeah. The covenant of grace. 

Tell me again where that is in the Bible? (Actually, I have argued here before that to correctly use the term covenant of grace one must be referring to the New Covenant, for no other covenant saves.)

No one was saved by the Old Covenant. The Bible is clear about that. Salvation comes only through the covenant in Christ's shed blood, which is the New Covenant. The other covenants that came before all pointed to this covenant. The only way to confuse categories here is to make up covenants that do not exist and in so doing miss what the Bible says about the covenants that are listed as covenants made between God and men.

The OT saints were members of the Old Covenant. OT reprobates were as well. But only those who saw what the Old pointed to and believed God were made part of the New Covenant and saved.

Phillip


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> Well, needless to say, I disagree with Bruce. I don´t want to pass myself off as an expert on NT Greek, and I´m open to correction by Fred or anyone else who is learned on such matters, but it is my belief that epei ara does not introduce an a fortiori argument. This text and 1Cor 5:10 are the only instances of epei ara in the NT. In 1Cor 5:10, it is more of a Reductio ad absurdum argument. Paul says, if this were so, you would have to go out of the world, which is absurd, therefore this is not so. In 7:14, the thought is somewhat similar: if believers with unbelieving spouses had to separate from them, then by the same logic, all Christians would also have to separate from their children, who are by nature sinners and unbelievers until they are saved. But that is absurd; therefore Christians need not separate from unbelieving partners. Look at vs 12-15 again. The children are not really part of the argument. They are only brought in to make Paul´s case concerning the unbelieving spouses.


Well, let's look at 1 Cor. 5:10. Here is the argument unpacked: 
A) In order for you to separate _totally_ from the wicked you would have to literally remove yourself from the world.
B) You cannot go out of this world (strong indisputable point)
C) Therefore, you cannot absolutely separate from unbelievers

The argument is actually a fairly straightforward example of an a fortiori, a greater-to-lesser argument. Since the greater is negated, so also is any less than the greater. Reductios are similar to the a fortiori type of arguments anyway, except they usually argue like this: "Let's take that line of thinking to its logical (necessary) conclusion; oh, you don't want to go there? then your argument is dead." The reductio attacks an invalid premise. The conclusion of a successful reductio must be necessary, based on the premises. So, you see the similarity and difference in the arguments?

(Not that such arguments are dependent on the epei-ara construction, or that I concede that an epei-ara construction, "for else, otherwise" necessitates a certain form of reasoning, whether a-fortiori, or reductio, etc., though it may lend itself to certain situations. It is a 2nd class condition--premise assumed to be or treated as if it is contrary to fact, ATR* p. 1012. The construction might, for example, simply be used in a situation that supposes two alternatives, and the one being unacceptable for some reason the other option comes available, "otherwise, do this." Since the scriptural instances are so limited, it is almost impossible to discover a rule based on such limitations. ATR p. 1026 points out that in 7:14 the omitted premise rather than 2nd class would be 1st class--premise assumed to be or treated as if it is factual. So the use of the epei-ara in certain conditionals is not even the same in the two biblical examples.)

So, at this point one must go back and read the alternative interpretations, consult the commentaries, lexicons, and grammars, and see which of the two proposals so far stacks up best.

to be continued...

* ATR = A.T. Robertson (Prof. @ Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY), _A Grammar of the Greek N.T. in the Light of Historical Research,_ 1934 (4th ed. 1923). This is the definitive 20th century Biblical Greek grammar in English (and perhaps any other language to date). This mammoth work is over 1500 pages including introductory matter, appendices and indices.

[Edited on 1-2-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> oh, yeah. The covenant of grace.
> 
> Tell me again where that is in the Bible? (Actually, I have argued here before that to correctly use the term covenant of grace one must be referring to the New Covenant, for no other covenant saves.)
> 
> No one was saved by the Old Covenant. The Bible is clear about that. Salvation comes only through the covenant in Christ's shed blood, which is the New Covenant. The other covenants that came before all pointed to this covenant. The only way to confuse categories here is to make up covenants that do not exist and in so doing miss what the Bible says about the covenants that are listed as covenants made between God and men.
> 
> The OT saints were members of the Old Covenant. OT reprobates were as well. But only those who saw what the Old pointed to and believed God were made part of the New Covenant and saved.
> 
> Phillip


"oh yea, the _Trinity._ 

Tell me again where is that in the Bible?" Sorry, this kind of argumentation is not going to fly.

Moving on...
I'll just say what I said before about 12 posts back:


> For the sake of argument, I'll grant the credo definition of "inclusion" for a moment, and apply it in reverse:
> 
> Unbelievers had no part in the OLD Covenant either.


If you want to talk real, spiritual inclusion, and only of that, then you need to speak the same language in both contexts. Salvation is and always has been by faith in the Messiah, period. So, if you are going to exclude unbelievers from the New Covenant, you are obliged to exclude them from the Old Covenant.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> Next, writing HOLY in respect of the children in capitals does not make the argument stronger. Is Bruce prepared to say that the unbelieving spouse is MADE HOLY in the same way? That is the meaning of hagiazo. In 1Cor 6:11, Paul writes, ´But you were washed, but you were sanctified (Gk. hagiazo), but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.´. Hagiazo is just the verb form of hagios. One means HOLY, the other means MADE HOLY. The degree of holiness can only be determined by the context. In 7:14, an unbelieving spouse is only "˜holy´ insofar as his Christian marriage partner may continue to live with him/her. That is the context, and I suggest that it is highly inconsistent to suppose that Paul, in the same sentence, would have two different definitions of holiness, one for the unbelieving spouse and another for the children. What is true of the one is surely true of the other.


The only reason I wrote it in CAPS was to emphasize the term. Paul emphasizes it by putting the direct object in the predicate position. So maybe I should have said, "Holy are they all." But that sounds artificial in English, don't you think? Anyway, I try not to raise my voice in debate. Please do not assume that I would insult your intelligence or anyone else's by trying to "score points" by strengthening my argument with capital letters. I don't recall insinuating that you try to score points by various diversionary tactics, like _mockery._

And actually I have argued that 1) the agent of sanctification is the same, and 2) that the "kind" of sanctification is the same, that is "associational." What I have also pointed out is that the subjects are different, and the actual results are not of necessity equitable--any more than that different substances are identically affected by the same _fire,_ or that the results of the associated sanctification in the case of the _whole burnt offering_ and the _perfuming offering of inscense_ were the same. When I pointed these things out, you simply called this line of reasoning an irrelevant waste, and refused to handle it. Suit yourself...

You bring up the cognate argument. I already mentioned it, but you make no attempt to answer my exegetical challenge wherein I distinguished Paul's meaning by his use of the different terms. Where is my exegesis flawed? You do not address it, only dismiss it.

And what you say is followed up by mere assertion. "I suggest that it is highly inconsistent .... What is true of the one is surely true of the other." *And the reasons would be...?* You have "suggested" that there are two different _parties_ being addressed in the same sentence. I've given you grammatical and exegetical arguments why I think that supposition is weak.

I asked: Why the difference in Paul's terminology?


> There is a simple reason for this. The children of believers generally are not made acceptably sanctified so that their parents can live with them, they are born that way. Hence Paul does not say they are "˜made holy,´ as the unbelieving spouses are, but rather that they "˜are holy´. But the degree of holiness is the same. The context demands it.


Well, I agree that it is birth that makes the difference, but since the idea that children might need to be alienated from from their parent never seems to have crossed anyone's mind, I don't see why Paul should have even brought it up. There is no logical argument that goes from: "Well if the unbelieving spouse wasn't sanctified (and Paul says he is) then you'd have (?) to separate from them (why?), then so would follow (why?) the children's uncleanness (so they'd have to be alienated? why? what parent would accept this as a logically necessary inference?). But the children are holy (therefore ? they can't be alienated from the believing parent). Consider how much of this argument (such as it is) is being supplied from outside the text itself.

This is nonsensical; there's no real logic to it. And I don't want to attribute nonsense to you, Martin, but I can't see how else you are reading this passage. Furthermore, if the unbeliever departs _and takes the children away,_ since he's no longer sanctified at this point, _aren't the children no longer holy either?_ But how can that be since we agreed that it was the birth that gave them that status? Thus what you denominate identical "degree of holiness" flounders in ambiguity...


> Finally, it seems that not everybody understood how I reached my conclusion that infants were not being baptized in Corinth. Well, my argument is, that if Paul is saying that if Christians had to separate from non-Christian spouses, then all parents would have to separate from their children, then those children surely cannot have been baptized any more than the non-Christian spouses were baptized? It seems self-evident to me.


*If* your reading of the text were correct, which reading focuses not on the power of the sactifying party (as Paul actually is doing) but on a supposed unexpressed argument that assumes for the sake of argument that everything Paul said in the last 5 verses was counterfactual, 
and *if* it is assumed that this statment of Paul's would otherwise have been nullified, if the parties (spouse and children) were baptized, 
*then* children weren't baptized in the Corinthian church.

I don't think the argument follows any logical train of thought. Here it is stripped down: If this is what Paul was saying, then children weren't baptized. If they were baptized then Paul's argument wouldn't work. My construction of Paul's argument works for me, and therefore children weren't baptized. There is nothing necessary about it. It assumes the conclusion is true.



We've gone from "some paedo-baptists use this text to prove infant baptism", to "this text says nothing at all about baptism, but it proves that infant baptism wasn't practiced in Corinth."

[Edited on 1-2-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## pastorway

> if you are going to exclude unbelievers from the New Covenant, you are obliged to exclude them from the Old Covenant.



But that would be taking away from what the Scripture says about the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant included lost people - but then the Old also never saved anyone as the Scriptures demostrate for us plainly. The New does not inlcude anyone for whom Christ's blood was not shed. 

The problem with most systems of theology is that they either force *too much discontinuity* (aka. dispensationalism) or allow *none at all* (aka. full blown covenant theology - the non-Baptist kind) between the Old and New. 

Hebrews tells us where they differ, where the discontinuity exists - and there is discontinuity between the two. Discontinuity taken too far destroys the gospel. No discontinuity at all confounds and confuses the Old and New, tending toward a type of Judaistic doctrine in the church that forces eveything Old onto New Covenant believers. Both lead to legalism of one form or another.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-2-06 by pastorway]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Phillip,
And I would say that you are taking away from what the New Testament says about the New Covenant, about who is included in it. There are plenty of apostasy texts and warnings in the New Testament. Examples of faithlessness abound. Hymenaus? Alexander? Diotrephes? But you refuse to acknowledge an external, visible adminstration of the earthly mechanics of the New Covenant. The church is what? Whatever it is, you cannot call it administrating the New Covenant, nevermind that we administer the sacrament containing the cup--the New Covenant in Jesus blood--only in this institution...

The Old Covenant only contained non-believers in the _externals_ of the Old Covenant. *That* is what the New Testament (with repeated reference to the Old) says time and again. Unbelievers experienced ZERO with respect to the real benefits of the Old Covenant, same as unbelievers and apostates experience with respect to the New. They heaped up judgment to themselves, same as Heb. 10:26, 29.

I agree that there is error in dispensational tendencies and in some theonomists and the FV, in assuming too little continuity or too much. Hebrews is possibly my favorite NT book. It tells us over and over again how much better Jesus and the New Covenant is better. But I can't agree with your assessment that Hebrews (or Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or any of the OT prophets) speak of the "pristine" nature of the New Covenant in any other than a spiritual and ideal sense, as if there is no visible adminstration of this present Covenant, no Kingdom of God advancing to knock down the gates of hell.



Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't honor and respect you, both as a person and as a fellow minister of the gospel. I hope you were blessed and a blessing this Lord's Day.


----------



## pastorway

> Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't honor and respect you, both as a person and as a fellow minister of the gospel. I hope you were blessed and a blessing this Lord's Day.


----------



## Steve Owen

Bruce wrote:-


> Well, let's look at 1 Cor. 5:10. Here is the argument unpacked:
> A) In order for you to separate totally from the wicked you would have to literally remove yourself from the world.
> B) You cannot go out of this world (strong indisputable point)
> C) Therefore, you cannot absolutely separate from unbelievers



I would unpack it a different way.

A) You think I want you to separate totally from all wicked people.
B) To do that you would have to go out of this world (which is ridiculous)
C) Therefore, this cannot be what I was telling you.

Now let's look at 7:14.
A) You (the Corinthian church) think (cf. 7:1 ) that Christians with unbelieving spouses should separate from them because they are unclean.
B) If that is correct, you would also have to separate from your own children who are also unclean until they are saved (which is ridiculous)
C) Therefore Christians with unbelieving spouses do not need to separate from them. 

I hate swopping authorities, but according to _Liddell & Scott_ the word _ara_ denotes "an anxiety or impatience on the part of the questioner." I see Paul saying, in effect, "If the unbelieving spouse is unclean, then for crying out loud so are your own children!"


> Well, I agree that it is birth that makes the difference, but since the idea that children might need to be alienated from from their parent never seems to have crossed anyone's mind, I don't see why Paul should have even brought it up.



That's the whole point! In v5, no one was talking about leaving Planet Earth, but Paul brings it up to show how absurd their line of thought was. He's doing the same thing here.



> There is no logical argument that goes from: "Well if the unbelieving spouse wasn't sanctified (and Paul says he is) then you'd have (?) to separate from them (why?), then so would follow (why?) the children's uncleanness (so they'd have to be alienated? why? what parent would accept this as a logically necessary inference?). But the children are holy (therefore ? they can't be alienated from the believing parent). Consider how much of this argument (such as it is) is being supplied from outside the text itself.
> 
> This is nonsensical; there's no real logic to it.



Well, to take it bit by bit, Paul is answering the Corinthian church's questions (7:1 ). Presumably, they have asked, should Christians with non-Christian partners separate from them? Paul says, no. The believing marriage partner sanctifies the non-believer so that (and no further) they may live together. Then, to anticipate someone bringing up Ezra 9 or Neh 13, where the Israelites were made to put away their foriegn wives, Paul says, 'If this were not so then all Christians would have to separate from their children who are unbelievers until they are converted. But they are sanctified in just the same way as the unbelieving marriage partners.

I'm not really expecting Bruce to agree with this, but it is a logical line of argument.



> Let everyone who thinks this "personal hermeneutic" is of the first interpretive order take Paul's writings, starting with 1 Corinthians; take a sheet of paper and draw columns on it; then divide up his comments through the letter into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and singular and plural forms; then you will need sub/sub2/sub3-columns based on the subject matter to determine particular headings that describe the persons being addressed; OK, now you are finally ready to read 1 Cor. (or some other letter) analytically. Has anyone ever done this? Has such a method established itself over time as a reliable approach to getting a handle on Paul? No, because the use of "person" is flexible, not categorical. "Person" is valuable and useful, but it is not a first-order interpretive tool.



There was a time when painstaking study of the Scriptures of an original nature was called 'Scholarship.' Today, it is apparently the constant mastication of dead men's brains that merits such a title.

Bruce, I think I have said all that I want to say on this subject and am happy to leave the last word to you. Thank you for your time and trouble. I've enjoyed the discussion. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> There was a time when painstaking study of the Scriptures of an original nature was called 'Scholarship.' Today, it is apparently the constant mastication of dead men's brains that merits such a title.



Martin, as a bystander to your on-going argument with Bruce, Matt, et. al., I'm not sure how to take this statement. I'm not sure if Bruce has been a life-long Presbyterian/Covenater or not, but Matt has decidedly not been such. As a matter of fact, Matt was a Reformed Baptist for well over a decade. Don't you think that for many of us who were formerly Baptists and now hold the Presbyterian/Padeo/Covenantal position, that a thorough (and on-going I might add) study of the Scriptures, in an attempt to "integrate" Redemptive History is what led us to the Covenant Theology we now hold to? Furthermore, that in the name of honest scholarship we consult great men in the line of the Covenant _and_ Reformed Baptist (e.g. Owen) Theology traditions in order to verify and correct our own observations. Can you show us how Matt's/Bruce's 1000's upon 1000's of hours of honest study in the Scriptures (which include credible original language skills) with humble reliance upon the same Holy Spirit that regenerated you and me have led them epistemologically astray?

[Edited on 1-2-2006 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> oh, yeah. The covenant of grace.
> 
> Tell me again where that is in the Bible? (Actually, I have argued here before that to correctly use the term covenant of grace one must be referring to the New Covenant, for no other covenant saves.)Phillip


Where in the Bible does it *explicitly* state that the OT Saints were in the New Covenant?


----------



## pastorway

is states that no one was saved by the Old (Acts 13:39; Romans 3:20; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:11, 24; Hebrews 8:7-13), so that leaves only the New, since it is the covenant in Christ's blood!

Phillip


----------



## Semper Fidelis

So the faith that Adam and Eve had in the proto-Evangelum was the New Covenant?

How is the New Covenant "New" if it predates the Mosaic Law (which is what you define as the Old Covenant)?

[Edited on 1-3-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> is states that no one was saved by the Old (Acts 13:39; Romans 3:20; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:11, 24; Hebrews 8:7-13), so that leaves only the New, since it is the covenant in Christ's blood!
> 
> Phillip



*"...the just shall live by faith." 

Hab 2:4 cited by Paul Gal 3:11. *

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.


----------

