# "Let the little children come to me"



## Tyrese (May 14, 2013)

What's the Presbyterian and the Baptist understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:14-15 and Matthew 19:13-15? I posted this in the in the Baptism section because I think this is we're the conversation will lead. As Baptist Me and my wife are really struggling with these two versus.


----------



## Andres (May 14, 2013)

Let me ask this of you brother: as a Baptist, does your church do any kind of "baby dedication" or some type of ceremony when church families have a child? If yes, why?


----------



## Tyrese (May 14, 2013)

Andres said:


> Let me ask this of you brother: as a Baptist, does your church do any kind of "baby dedication" or some type of ceremony when church families have a child? If yes, why?



No we don't do that. I could be wrong but I don't think RB churches do baby dedications.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 14, 2013)

I'll be honest with you, I think a paedobaptist hermeneutical exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 should have the unfortunate side effect of leading one to conclude that salvation is available by marrying a Christian, just based on the wording of the text.

This illustrates what I mean:

A Reformed Baptist View of I Cor. 7:14

"... The Greek term "is sanctified" referring to the unbelieving spouse is simply the verb form of the adjective "holy" that refers to the children. Therefore, we must question any interpretation that posits a different meaning for the two terms. But the paedobaptist argument does just that. The holiness of the children is taken to be such that it qualifies them for baptism. The holiness of the unbelieving spouse, however, does not qualify him or her for baptism. What exactly is the holiness that the children possess? According to Murray, it "evinces the operation of the covenant and representative principle." However, this meaning must be denied in connection with the unbelieving spouse. Otherwise, the unbelieving spouse would be "in the covenant" and have a right to baptism. "


----------



## Tyrese (May 14, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I'll be honest with you, I think a paedobaptist hermeneutical exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 should have the unfortunate side effect of leading one to conclude that salvation is available by marrying a Christian, just based on the wording of the text.
> 
> This illustrates what I mean:
> 
> ...



Excellent point. Presbyterians say baptism replaced male circumcision under the old covenant, but the adult men were circumcised to right? So why do Presbyterians only baptise unbelieving infants?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 14, 2013)

Andres said:


> Let me ask this of you brother: as a Baptist, does your church do any kind of "baby dedication" or some type of ceremony when church families have a child? If yes, why?



You make a good point that many Baptists are really doing the same thing, only without water. I also believe that many Baptists also practice a modified form of paedobaptism by baptizing children as young as four or five who likely have not made genuine professions of faith, but are simply doing what their parents have coached them to do.


----------



## Tyrese (May 14, 2013)

H


Bill The Baptist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask this of you brother: as a Baptist, does your church do any kind of "baby dedication" or some type of ceremony when church families have a child? If yes, why?
> ...



Your right. I was baptised in a baptist church when I was like 10 even though I said in front of the entire church that I had absolutely no idea if I became a Christian.


----------



## au5t1n (May 14, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> So why do Presbyterians only baptise unbelieving infants?



First, Presbyterian churches baptize adult converts just as the Apostles did. Second, we do not possess "regeneration goggles" to know whether a given infant is "unbelieving" or not.

As for the view of 1 Cor. 7:14 that has been offered, I have a few things to note. The word "holy" (as an adjective) might have been used in both cases, but instead the verb form was chosen for describing the adult. Also, the reason the adult is said to be sanctified is because "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy" -- that is, the sanctifying of the unbelieving spouse is not for the benefit of the spouse but for the sake of the child being "holy" (adjective). The child has the condition of being holy because the unbelieving parent "is sanctified" (verb) only for the sake of the child's status.

Without this interpretation, we are left with 1 Cor. 7:14 saying absolutely nothing about either party. Why Paul bothers to call the child "holy" -- and the unbelieving spouse sanctified for the sake of the child being holy -- is a mystery if one does not regard it as a reference to covenant status.

As for the gospel references, the conclusion in this case is very straightforward: if the kingdom belongs to infants, then baptism does.


----------



## Tyrese (May 14, 2013)

au5t1n said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > So why do Presbyterians only baptise unbelieving infants?
> ...



Thanks for your response. Sorry about that I didn't mean to make it sound like you guys didn't baptise believers. I know Presbyterians baptise new converts. I was talking about unbelieving infants versus the unbelieving spouse.


----------



## au5t1n (May 14, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> Thanks for your response. Sorry about that I didn't mean to make it sound like you guys didn't baptise believers. I know Presbyterians baptise new converts. I was talking about unbelieving infants versus the unbelieving spouse.



Sorry, I misunderstood. My first sentence was not necessary, then. Thank you for explaining further.


----------



## Tyrese (May 14, 2013)

> Whose Children Are They? (sermon on 1 Cor. 7:14)



Hi Josh, thanks for posting this sermon. Let me first say that this was a very thought provoking sermon. He makes some very interesting points about the little ones belonging to God. Lol it was pretty funny when he described children as "vipers in diapers." At least that's what I think he said. He did a good job talking about the children and their need to be baptized but he failed to say what should be done with the unbelieving spouse. I also feel like he's trying to say this passage is absolutely teaching infant baptism. I get that our children are set apart, but I don't see water baptism here. I would also like to say that Reformed Baptist (at least the RB churches that I've attended) raise their children the same way he described at the end of the sermon.


----------



## Phil D. (May 14, 2013)

I've always thought 1 Cor. 7:14-15 is a weak and problematic proof text for infant baptism. Actually, the staunch paedobaptist Albert Barnes (Presbyterian) well articulated the reasons:

This passage has often been interpreted, and is often adduced to prove that children are ‘federally holy,’ and that they are entitled to the privilege of baptism on the ground of the faith of one of the parents. But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections. 

(1.) The phrase ‘federally holy’ is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, and what can be meant by it? 

(2.) It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here; not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a separation between man and wife, where the one was a Christian and the other not. Paul states, that if such a separation should take place, it would imply that the marriage was improper; and of course the children must be regarded as unclean. 

But how would the supposition that they were federally holy, and the proper subjects of baptism, bear on this? Would it not be equally true that it was proper to baptize the children whether the parents were separated or not? Is it not a doctrine among Paedobaptists everywhere, that the children are entitled to baptism on the faith of either of the parents, and that that doctrine is not affected by the question here agitated by Paul? Whether it was proper for them to live together or not, was it not equally true that the child of a believing parent was to be baptized? 

But, (3.) The supposition that this means that the children would be regarded as illegitimate if such a separation should take place, is one that accords with the whole scope and design of the argument. ‘When one party is a Christian and the other not, shall there be a separation?’ This was the question. ‘No,’ says Paul; ‘if there be such a separation, it must he because the marriage is improper; because it would be wrong to live together in such circumstances.’ 

What would follow from this? Why, that all the children that have been born since the one party became a Christian, must be regarded as having been born while a connection existed that was improper, and unchristian, and unlawful, and of course they must be regarded as illegitimate. But, says he, you do not believe this yourselves. It follows, therefore, that the connection, even according to your own views, is proper. 

(4.) This accords with the meaning of the word unclean (akathartos). It properly denotes that which is impure, defiled, idolatrous, unclean (a) In a Levitical sense. Leviticus 5:2. (b) In a moral sense. Acts 10:28; 2 Corinthians 6:17; Ephesians 5:5. The word will appropriately express the sense of illegitimacy; and the argument, I think, evidently requires this. It may be summed up in a few words. 

‘Your separation would be a proclamation to all that you regard the marriage as invalid and improper. From this it would follow that the offspring of such a marriage would be illegitimate. But you ire not prepared to admit this; you do not believe it. Your children you esteem to be legitimate, and they are so. The marriage tie, therefore, should be regarded as binding, and separation unnecessary and improper.’ (_Notes_, in loc cit)​
As have other scholars, Hermann Olshausen (1796–1839; Lutheran) also posed this thought provoking argument that the passage actually militates against infant baptism:

It is moreover clear that St. Paul could not have chosen this line of argument, had infant baptism been at that time practiced. (Commentary, in loc cit)​
The point here is that if infant baptism had indeed been practiced in the apostolic church, then it seems Paul would simply have reminded his believing readers that of course their children were holy, as their having been baptized would naturally suppose.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 14, 2013)

Albert Barnes, Presbyterian "stalwart." Indeed. How droll...

Now the New School is the standard for quality exegesis?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f85/history-trial-albert-barnes-36289/


----------



## au5t1n (May 14, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> I get that our children are set apart, but I don't see water baptism here. I would also like to say that Reformed Baptist (at least the RB churches that I've attended) raise their children the same way he described at the end of the sermon.



I am very happy to agree with you that Reformed Baptists raise their children as faithfully as paedobaptists do -- at least, I charitably hope so and have no reason to doubt it. The question is whether this commendable practice is consistent with not baptizing them. If one acknowledges that children of believers are set apart with a covenantally holy status, it follows that they ought to be baptized because (visible) baptism is for all the (visible) people of God. If the kindgom belongs to them and they are federally holy, then baptism belongs to them. Baptism is the visible initiation of a disciple into the Christian Church. If infants are disciples (visibly), then they ought to be baptized (visibly), leaving the invisible/secret things to God (Deut. 29:29) just as we leave to God whether adult converts are really converted or not.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Albert Barnes, Presbyterian "stalwart." Indeed. How droll...
> 
> Now the New School is the standard for quality exegesis?
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f85/history-trial-albert-barnes-36289/



_Argumentum ad hominem_ does not really do much to advance this debate. Refute his arguments, not his person!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Albert Barnes, Presbyterian "stalwart." Indeed. How droll...
> ...



Sean,
In the first place, the dropping of the quote (along with the appellation "staunch paedobaptist") is itself "bad form," and not actually arguing, since it is selective; and presumably we can take it that Phil wouldn't even advance Barnes' arguments for or against the position without qualification (since he's anti-paedobaptist).

So, the _ad hominem_ is perfectly appropriate, given the manner and attitude in which the presentation was made. Note, I didn't attack the _poster_, but his "argument" at its own level. If you (or he) wants to advance Barnes argument for yourself, you make the case for it, and defend it, and quote what authorities you wish all you like. Barnes isn't advancing his own argument here, but he's being USED, and not by someone who actually argues his case.

Second, it is tedious and irksome to be repeatedly barraged with acontextual quotes--sometimes pages worth, culled and cut and pasted ad nauseum--from various and sundry paedobaptists that are supposed to be fatally concessive to the Baptists' position. Actually, it shows that you can pick a forefather at random, and find diversity of opinion in any century on either interpreting the historical record, or discrete Scripture passages.

Quote-mining doesn't do anything that addresses the positive reasons why, despite one man's disagreement with another's, he maintains his position (usually _their_ position). Clearly, consistency across the Reformed interpretive spectrum on the value of 1Cor.7 or Mt.19 as proof of the propriety of infant baptism hasn't undermined overall confidence in the solidity of the general position. Since the arguments are both biblical and theological, and come from a wide range of texts, minor disagreements on the value or precise import of one passage or another have never undermined the broad Reformed consensus on Covenant Theology, and its corollary, paedobaptism.


So anyway, if you have a particular point you wish to defend as yours, and want my critique, feel free to ask. Otherwise, I prefer any number of orthodox, and superior (in my judgment) exegetes to whom the unorthodox Barnes doesn't hold a candle.

Peace.


----------



## Phil D. (May 15, 2013)

Good grief...Not quite sure why so many of my posts seem to especially touch a nerve and elicit such sarcastic and uncharitable replies from certain people here...

Like I said, Barnes articulate well some things I have also found to be problematic with way the passage is taken out of context, and not really dealt with at face value. That's all. Pointing out the fact they even some paedobtists have a problem with its use as a proof text for baptism seems legitimate to point out.

But maybe next time I should just plagerize.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2013)

Rev. Buchanan,

Thanks for the reply. You make a number of good points to which I am VERY sympathetic, but I'd like to point out I wasn't suggesting you were engaging in _ad hominem_ against the poster, but rather Albert Barnes. His exegesis ought to stand on the merits of it's _correctness_, not on the merits of Barnes' character or relationship to a denomination's standards. I'd prefer to see you respond to his argument, which looks to ME to be rather sound. If you just want to say "you can't believe what Albert Barnes says because he's New School", then from where I stand that's as good as me saying "you can't believe what Rev, Buchanan says. He's a PAEDOBAPTIST! :O", and honestly I would NEVER do such a thing. 

I'll be honest, I don't know Albert Barnes from a hill of beans, but from what I read of his quoted exegesis it seems spot on.



Contra_Mundum said:


> SeanPatrickCornell said:
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2013)

So, Phil,
At what level do you think the "rebuttal" to the "argument" should be pitched? I chose to respond (above #14) equal to the level of this: "Ha! I found a paedobaptist (unorthodox) and a Lutheran who agrees with my opinion!"

Or maybe I should have responded at this level: by simply dropping a contrasting quote--dueling quotes?


> *Calvin, loc cit*1Cor.7:14.
> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified.
> He obviates an objection, which might occasion anxiety to believers. The relationship of marriage is singularly close, so that the wife is the half of the man — so that they two are one flesh — (1Cor.6:16) — so that the husband is the head of the wife; (Eph.5:23); and she is her husband’s partner in everything; hence it seems impossible that a believing husband should live with an ungodly wife, or the converse of this, without being polluted by so close a connection. Paul therefore declares here, that marriage is, nevertheless, sacred and pure, and that we must not be apprehensive of contagion, as if the wife would contaminate the husband. Let us, however, bear in mind, that he speaks here not of contracting marriages, but of maintaining those that have been already contracted; for where the matter under consideration is, whether one should marry an unbelieving wife, or whether one should marry an unbelieving husband, then that exhortation is in point — Be not yoked with unbelievers, for there is no agreement between Christ and Belial. (2Cor6:14.) But he that is already bound has no longer liberty of choice; hence the advice given is different.
> 
> ...


Of course, such quoting is tedious, and a waste of time.

Moreover, you don't win any "points" for cherry-picking exegetes out of the opposing camp who present an opinion closer to your own. Furthermore, Barnes is kind-of "low hanging fruit," but not everyone knows that; so pointing out that he was tried for heresy, before he helped split the church seems only fair to the uninformed.


Bottom line, you chose both avenues for presenting your "case": 
1) drawing special attention to the "paedobaptist" beliefs of the man quoted, 
and 2) appeal to authority, as if that settled anything. 

When you complain that the rebuttal was pitched at the same level of the post:
1) drawing special attention to the unorthodox theology of the man quoted,
and 2) lack of appeal to authority (or a lack of interaction with Barnes),
that seems overly sensitive.

Why not thank me for adding a sliver of "balance" to the record?



Phil,
Let me say, for the record, I appreciate about more than a few things you have brought out on this board. And generally, I appreciate how you let "history" do the talking. But if Barnes (GRHS) be permitted to open his mouth, then its only fair to add to the record that he was a *flake*, and out of the mainstream of Confessional piety.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 15, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> Good grief...Not quite sure why so many of my posts seem to especially touch a nerve and elicit such sarcastic and uncharitable replies from certain people here...



Phil,

Keep in mind that Baptism is the one topic upon which Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are going to disagree the most, and as such this topic has the tendency to illicit passionate responses from both sides of the debate. That being said, I don't think that Rev. Buchanan was being uncharitable in bringing up the fact that Barnes is considered out of the mainstream in Presbyterian circles. If this were a trial and you had presented Mr. Barnes as an expert witness, the defense would certainly be within their rights to question the credentials of your expert witness before even engaging with what that expert had to say. While I would certainly agree with your position on this text, I would also agree with what Rev. Buchanan said in regards to doctrine not being built on just one verse. Ultimately, the doctrine of paedobaptism does not rest upon just this verse, and so refuting it is rather pointless.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 15, 2013)

Back to the OP, Alan Conner has done a pretty good job for helping Reformed Baptist understand the intricacies of the passages mentioned. I posted portions of a book he did on my blog concerning the passages you want to understand Tyrese. 

Sanctification in 1 Corinthians 7:14 - Blogs - The PuritanBoard

New Covenant Sanctification PT. 1 by Alan Conner - Blogs - The PuritanBoard Pt. 1

Sanctification and New Covenant Membership (II) by Alan Conner - Blogs - The PuritanBoard Pt. 2

I post these because there is some good stuff in them for both sides of the issue. I am a paedobaptist and think I can refute his Covenantal understanding but I still want to help my Baptist brothers understand what may be a solid understanding of the text from their side of the isle.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Rev. Buchanan,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. You make a number of good points to which I am VERY sympathetic, but I'd like to point out I wasn't suggesting you were engaging in _ad hominem_ against the poster, but rather Albert Barnes. His exegesis ought to stand on the merits of it's _correctness_, not on the merits of Barnes' character or relationship to a denomination's standards. I'd prefer to see you respond to his argument, which looks to ME to be rather sound. If you just want to say "you can't believe what Albert Barnes says because he's New School", then from where I stand that's as good as me saying "you can't believe what Rev, Buchanan says. He's a PAEDOBAPTIST! :O", and honestly I would NEVER do such a thing.
> 
> I'll be honest, I don't know Albert Barnes from a hill of beans, but from what I read of his quoted exegesis it seems spot on.



Thank you Sean.
Sometimes, in internet exchanges, if you choose to respond to a post, you might also have to choose the manner in which you reply. For instance, I chose to respond to your previous invitation to answer Barnes (I really did understand your intent, brother) by instead justifying the _ad hominem_ of my earlier post (which was not careless, but intentional on my part).

I was addressing a _pro hominem_ argument (he's a paedobaptist!), as well as dismissing (curtly, shortly) an appeal to authority (extended quotation) by an appeal to the same man's lack of authority.

---Barnes first point is "biblicist." It is a waste of time to argue with heretics about the propriety of theological terms. That was the Arians insistence, as well as the Arminians. I think your Teacher, James White (_The Forgotten Trinity_), is completely aboard with that observation. And such is Barnes' starting point? He's looking bad from the first word.

---When he argues from the "scope and design" of Paul's argument, Barnes either doesn't apprehend the actual argument for baptism as drawn from the passage, or else he miscasts it, or else he's arguing in a narrow fashion against over-relying on this text--as if it could do more than provide qualified support for the practice. Now the real question would be: does the paedobaptist Barnes accept even limited support for infant baptism from this text?

He seems to accept John Gill's (and other's) proposition that the tenor of the text is ancillarily (to the "legitimacy" of marriage) concerned with the "legitimacy" of children, Paul being equally solicitous to guard a favorable view of them as much as of the marriage itself. The problem with this notion should be plain. Paul makes a _clinching argument *in favor of*_ the propriety of remaining in a mixed marriage (believer & unbeliever), on the proposition he assumes is evident on its face: "since your children are holy."

Gill's (et al) argument rests on the question of whether "sanctifies" in this text is an equivalent term to "legitimizes." I believe that limiting the force of Paul's language to legal or even moral "legitimacy" is completely unnecessary, and needlessly weakens Paul's claim; even as we deny to the other extreme that "sanctifies" is an equivalent term to "saves." 

Paul makes a _spiritual assertion_ that (unlike the OT principle) the unclean does not contaminate the clean; but rather by the virtue of Christ--the grace that flowed the other direction, and cleansed the lepers--the clean affects the unclean positively in the marriage. And as PROOF of his contention, he points to the fact _acknowledged_ by the Corinthians: *that these children were clean*. However you understand them to have acknowledged that fact (what circumstances would have already persuaded them of it), Paul makes an objective statement about them, and so PROVES the cleanness of the union.

1) That which is holy is necessarily clean.
2) Clean could only have come from clean.
:. Your marriage is clean.


So, in a word, Barnes stands against his own tradition on this point, in accepting the force of Gill's (et al) interpretation of "sanctifies." Now, I can allow him his reading, even as I disagree with it, and stand more in the mainstream of our tradition. I want the freedom to make my own judgments of the meaning of various Scripture texts as well, rather than to be beholden to Barnes or Calvin. That I side with Calvin and the majority regarding this text is my glory; but not before God.

Peace.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2013)

Thank you Rev. Buchanan.


----------



## Phil D. (May 15, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> "Ha! I found a paedobaptist (unorthodox) and a Lutheran who agrees with my opinion!"



This would be another example of something I consider uncharitable. You are unilaterally pronouncing, or at lest insinuating a motive for my quoting Barnes that is inaccurate, and thus less than honest. God alone is my judge on this. Also, please don't presume to know my current state of mind on the question of infant baptism based on the limited information I have divulged on it. I still see strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

I too disagree with Barnes on a host of issues. However, I do find his exegesis on this particular text, with which I sympathize, to be expressed exceptionally well. If pointing out (or the way I emphasized) that he was a paedobaptist (regardless of his views on other issues) was somehow wrong or unduly offensive, then of course I apologize. Yet I can't help but wonder if someone had "dropped a quote" by an unconventional but articulate Baptist who happened to sympathize with the typical paedobaptist take on the passage, it would have elicited the same protest regarding form and procedure from you. Perhaps it would have. There just seems to be an unnecessary triteness and harshness with many of your interactions with me on this particular topic. I wish it was otherwise. Why not just state your objections in a nice way, and let's proceed from there.


----------



## au5t1n (May 15, 2013)

The quotation from Calvin touched on this, but in case anyone missed it in the lengthy quotation: A problem with the "legitimacy" reading of the passage is that it would then imply that the children of two unbelievers are illegitimate, but that is not true.


----------



## Poimen (May 15, 2013)

Re: Matthew 19:13-15

Arguments from major to minor - 1) If Jesus blessed the children who were brought to Him, then they should also receive the sign of His blessing (see Acts 2:38ff.) 2) If Jesus said that their reception was of the kingdom of God they should also receive the sign of the kingdom (see Matthew 28:18-19).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 15, 2013)

(1.) The phrase ‘federally holy’ is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, and what can be meant by it? --Barnes

Barnes reveals his modus operandi here. The term Trinity can bare the same scrutiny by those who want to attack the doctrine. PhilD I know you understand inference and circumstance. Barnes is not trustworthy. And I don't believe that Rev. Buchanan is being uncharitable.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2013)

Phil,
I'm sorry this exchange has dragged out. I hope I would object to a similar use of an "unconventional" Baptist. And I think, if Barnes mere opinion had been set forth, absent any extra "juice" from his being a paedobaptist, I would have simply let it stand as a historical example.

I do believe, "letting it stand uncontested," is *my habit with most of your posts*. The problem with passive consent or an unwillingness to argue on the internet is that it is indistinguishable from "ignoring." And then, if I feel the need to reply somewhere and disagree, that comes across "harsh," because that's all you're getting from me. I wish it were different.

I probably would have stayed out of this whole thread (as I PMd the author before this whole rabbit-trail came to life), but for what struck me as an objectionable _pro hominem_ statement. As if it were possible for such an heterodox example as Barnes to stand unchallenged as something like the best of fair-minded paedobaptist sentiment.

So, I offered the _ad hominem,_ and dismissed your appeal to Barnes' authority by appealing to his lack of authority. My first comment was a very short (trite?) "rebuttal." I thought it was pitched at the same level as the offering. Most of the rest of my commentary has been explaining myself.

For every aspect of my replies that has been uncharitable--even that received as such--I apologize. 


There is legitimate appeal to authority, especially useful when the appeal is to someone your interlocutor has (or is expected to have) respect for. It is best used in support of a statement of one's own opinion; then the expert is brought in to support particular propositions. In a case like this, why not appeal to the Baptist, J.Gill, having similar arguments? Because the paedobaptist might dismiss him on other grounds?

When you appeal in an unqualified way to Barnes (or anyone else, be it Ch.Hodge, or K.Barth), and point to his arrangement on the side opposite; the presumption is that he represents your opinions, but from the other side. When someone then brings up an alleged heterodoxy, you may be forced _post hoc_ to distance yourself from his unique views. That introduces a back-pedalling qualification after the fact. But he was originally brought up because ostensibly his were opinions generally with which the interlocutor ought be predisposed to agree! Otherwise, why mention that he was on the other side? Does his "stature" overcome his downside? If his downside might diminish his authority at the outset, no wonder no mention of it!


That, in my opinion, is the issue at hand. Again, I appreciate your usual scrupulous accuracy in historical theology. I appreciate it, even when I think your conclusions don't always follow. Every reader is capable of benefit from the truth.


----------



## Phil D. (May 15, 2013)

Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you for your reply. I agree this part of the discussion is an bit of an unwelcome tangent, but I suppose this is as appropriate a venue as any for airing some of these things. 

Allow me to make just a couple of clarifying points, and then I'm good.

I was not attempting to cite Barnes with respect to his inherent or sectarian "authority", but merely using the clarity of his commentary on a particular take on this passage. I wasn't aware it was similar to Gill's. My main reason for identifying his stance on infant baptism was to convey the fact that - counter to what I sometimes see implied - even some paedobaptists think this passage can be abused as a proof text, which I find at least noteworthy. 

I do hope to learn more and grow in understanding on this issue. I, like many, tend to do best in such endeavors through straightforward and gracious conversation. 

SDG


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 15, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I'll be honest with you, I think a paedobaptist hermeneutical exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 should have the unfortunate side effect of leading one to conclude that salvation is available by marrying a Christian, just based on the wording of the text.


Just to return to this note, I think we need to distinguish between exegesis and the larger principle of hermeneutics. Exegesis occurs at different levels starting from the basic meaning of words in a sentence and the overall syntax of the sentence to the entire passage to the larger point the author is trying to make. Thus, the charge that a consistent paedobaptist hermeneutic leads to a certain kind of exegesis at the level of this passage is misdirected.

The problem I have with Barnes' quote is that he's not even representing how a theological (read higher levels of hermeneutics at a systematic or biblical level) would be brought together. No responsible exegete at the level of this passage would make the argument that Paul is talking about baptism. Why? Because, very obviously, baptism isn't mentioned. It's sort of obvious and when you begin at that level it's easy to simply paint paedobpatists as trying to make arguments they never made. Are all of us really that stupid? Is this the first time a PB has ever noticed that baptism is not mentioned.

So, then, what value does an individual passage have to an overall picture of things? It's a piece in a larger systematic understanding.

Let's look at 1 Cor 7:14 in the Greek and make a few observations:

1 Corinthians 7:14 (NA28)
14ἡγίασται γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἄπιστος ἐν τῇ γυναικὶ καὶ ἡγίασται ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀδελφῷ· ἐπεὶ ἄρα τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν ἀκάθαρτά ἐστιν, νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν.

When speaking of the unbelieving wife (ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄπιστος) is the subject of the clause and the verb is ἡγίασται which is third person, singular, perfect, passive, indicative that could be translated "has been made holy". In other words, the "holiness" of the unbelieving wife is something that has happened to her.

Paul then turns to "your (plural) children" (τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν) and notes that, if the unbelieving wife had not been made holy by the believing husband then "your children are unclean" (τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν ἀκάθαρτά ἐστιν). The verb here is a form of the verb (to be) and is 3rd person, singular, present, active, indicative. The clause is a predicate nominative. The predicate nominative is the noun following a linking verb that restates or stands for the subject.

What then does he say about them?

"...but now they are holy." (νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν.)

Again, the verb is a form of the verb: to be and it is as a predicate nominative.

Here's another example of how the predicate nominative is used:

1 John 4:8 (NA28)
8ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν θεόν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν.

"The one not loving is not knowing God, because God is love."

"God is love" (ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν) is predicate nominative. Imagine the theological difference if, in lieu of a predicate nominative, the verse was "God has been made love".

To get less technical, at the level of exegesis within this sentence:

1. Paul states that the unbelieving spouse "...has been made holy by (or in) the husband"
2. Paul staes that the children "...are holy" (he does not state "by (or in) the husband"

Thus, if we simply let the passage speak for itself, one cannot conclude that children "...have been made holy in the husband". He simply states "...they are holy."

Is this significant? At this level, it's not possible to state. We'd have to go elsewhere in Scripture to make a larger, hermeneutical argument that a child has been made holy by a believing parent but it's not stated here.

I'm friends with James White and have supported his ministry for years now. You'll notice that James deals with larger hermeneutical questions all the times when he's dealing with opponents who try to get passages to bear more than the passage will bear. What his books on the Trinity or other matters demonstrate is his ability to put together a number of exegetical "data points" to make a larger systematic understanding of an idea. That systematic understanding is then brought back into particular passages so when an opponent is trying to say that a single text about Christ overthrows the Trinity, he's able to marshall the overall understanding of the texts.

The same thing occurs with paedobaptist theology. The fact that "...they are holy..." is a data point. Paul doesn't intend to communicate anything about baptism here but it doesn't mean that it's unrelated to the question of baptism any more than Paul's teaching about Christ in Colossians is unrelated to the Trinity even though Paul had a different overall focus in that particular letter.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (May 15, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> What's the Presbyterian and the Baptist understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:14-15 and Matthew 19:13-15? I posted this in the in the Baptism section because I think this is we're the conversation will lead. As Baptist Me and my wife are really struggling with these two versus.



As a previous Baptist, I understood these verses in Matthew to basically mean that just like we are to have faith like children, these children were of course welcome to come to Christ as well. In regard to the verses in 1 Corinthians, that was always a struggle for me as a baptist. I took it as meaning that my children were privileged to be part of my household as they would hear the gospel. However, I struggled with the term HOLY as I knew that it meant more than privileged, and was more of a status than a benefit. So I researched further.

The problem I had with the whole idea of infant dedication services and the like were that they were for VERY specific instances in scripture....John the Baptist, Christ, Samuel...men that had very specific purposes in their dedications. I soon found the whole idea of infant dedication to be unbiblical, and that children of believers were not to be dedicated to Christ, but considered His already.

edit:

In addition, I haven't seen a baby dedication done in the Biblical manner as of yet, which would include a three year old bull, or a dove or such to sacrifice for the occasion.


----------



## MW (May 15, 2013)

Covenant baptism is built on covenant inclusion. These texts speak to covenant inclusion. We can also add Romans 9-11, Ephesians 2-3, and the expansive program of the Acts of the Apostles. Texts should not be isolated from the broader themes of covenant inclusion which are evident throughout the New Testament.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 16, 2013)

The best understanding I've heard of 1 Corinthians 7 is as follows:

This was a unique circumstance. Probably what happened is that a wife or a husband converted after they were married. Thus, they were now united with an unbeliever. In verse 16, Paul teaches that if an unbelieving spouse wishes to leave, let him leave because you do not know if you can save him anyways. So, we know that in v.14, the unbelieving spouse being “made holy” is not the same thing as a believer’s sanctification. Moreover, because of Paul’s teaching on the one flesh union of marriage, a concern would likely have been does it bring uncleanness upon a believer to be united to a pagan? Paul’s answer is no - so long as the unbelieving partner is willing to live with the Christian partner, he/she has been sanctified in that partner (en th gunaiki / en tw andri I believe is the Greek). “Unto the pure are all things pure” (Titus 1:15). Paul is not arguing that the children are holy because of two holy parents but that the same principle applies to the husband as the child. _Paul is taking it to be obvious and accepted that the holiness would extend to the child and thus he makes an application from the holiness of the child to the holiness of the unbelieving spouse._ Paul’s point seems to be that in virtue of the fact that one partner is a believer, the marriage is a Christian marriage and under the blessing of God. The relationship has conferred a certain status upon the unbelieving partner within that relationship which he/she would otherwise not possess. 

In other words, it is important to understand that Paul is pointing to the holiness of these children as something obvious to and accepted by his Corinthian audience. When the issue of the sanctity of these children of converts arose, it was already well-known that they were to be considered holy. Their sanctity, then, is appealed to as an analogous case on which the sanctity of the unbelieving spouse can be established. An important disanalogy, however, is the fact that Paul stresses that the sanctity of the unbeliever is "in" the believing partner and not something that the unbeliever is, in and of him/herself, simply in virtue of the marriage.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 17, 2013)

Leah,

Very lucid presentation of the point. I obviously agree with the analysis. The argument goes something like this:

1. If your unbelieving wife has not been made holy by the believing husband

2. Then the children are unclean

3. Bur the children are holy.

4. Therefore, this supports my point that your unbelieving wife has been made holy by the believing husband.

My point earlier about exegesis is that you start moving outward to draw larger conclusions. My larger systematic understanding of children being holy be virtue of their covenant inclusion (and all that entails) is not fully found here but it is consistent with that point. I can read Paul here to see the point I think he's trying to make.

If I didn't come at this from a PB point of view, however, I will have to look at Paul's argument a bit differently. I'm not exactly sure how that might look but I'll give it a try:

1. If you unbelieving wife has not been made holy by the believing husband

2. Then your children are unclean

3. But your children are holy.

4. You know already that your children are holy because they are made holy by the believing father (Scripture?) just like your wife has been made holy by the believing husband. (I'm including this extra point because it would need to be explained externally)

5. Therefore, I just proved the idea that someone is made holy by a believer by saying that someone is made holy by a believer.


I'm really not trying to be pejorative. I'd actually like to see what point Paul is making about the unbelieving spouse by bringing in the "children are holy" argument if one accepts the Credo-Baptist perspective. It might be my inability to think consistently like a Credo-Baptist here but I can't see the point Paul would make here if I thought he was a Credo-Baptist.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 17, 2013)

I agree with you, Rich. 

I don't know of any RB interpretation of this verse which could not possibly destroy Paul's point here. I think it is because there's absolutely no concept in Scripture of holiness apart from covenantal holiness, which the RB is unwilling to admit. Even though it is not directly related to baptism, the clear point is that children are covenantally holy which we must then infer that they should be given the sign of the covenant based upon the general understanding of covenants given in Scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 17, 2013)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> I agree with you, Rich.
> 
> I don't know of any RB interpretation of this verse which could not possibly destroy Paul's point here. I think it is because there's absolutely no concept in Scripture of holiness apart from covenantal holiness, which the RB is unwilling to admit. Even though it is not directly related to baptism, the clear point is that children are covenantally holy which we must then infer that they should be given the sign of the covenant based upon the general understanding of covenants given in Scripture.



Well, what I'm getting at is that there may be an argument for holiness (or having been made clean) apart from a sense of Covenantal holiness so I don't necessarily want to exclude some argument where Paul is making a point that an unbelieving spouse doesn't defile the believer and anything that proceeds from the union.

That said, Paul just "throws it out there" that the "children are holy". He's trying to instruct them that they're not defiled by unbelievers. What possible rhretorical weight does a child have here? Not according to my perspective (I know why) but according to an RB perspective.

After all, the child is an "unbeliever" until proven otherwise according to RB theology. They're simply one more thing that a believing person might have to worry about as defiling him. How can Paul appeal to another unbeliever as an argument that they don't defile and simply say: "They are holy"?


----------



## JML (May 17, 2013)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> Even though it is not directly related to baptism, the clear point is that children are covenantally holy which we must then infer that they should be given the sign of the covenant based upon the general understanding of covenants given in Scripture.



This may be a dumb question but can you or someone else define covenantally holy? Is this different from the holiness of a professing believer?


----------



## JML (May 17, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> After all, the child is an "unbeliever" until proven otherwise according to RB theology.



Just so I am understanding then, an infant is a "believer" until proven otherwise according to PB theology?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > After all, the child is an "unbeliever" until proven otherwise according to RB theology.
> ...



I would say, as a Presbyterian, that we don't adjudicate the case (what to do) on the basis of what we think is true or false about the faith of a child, or an adult for that matter.

How can saving faith be "proven?" It can't; all that can be said is that a person presents himself, or is presented, as a disciple. We'd say he's a *disciple* unless he's been formally, visibly, separated from that distinction. But clearly, we don't assume the identity of these two classes: disciples and professors.

In other words, Rich's point is the stance represented is relevant to the Baptist's position, mainly because of the role self-selection (i.e. profession) plays in Baptist discipleship. But one cannot simply invert the notion, and find the Presbyterian position. The relations either side bears to that same issue are asymmetrical.

(continued below...)


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 17, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > After all, the child is an "unbeliever" until proven otherwise according to RB theology.
> ...



According to proper PB theology as taught by the Westminster Standards, children are seen as federally Christians. A man in Scripture comes to God with all that he has, which most importantly includes his family. Children are therefore seen as disciples of Christ by virtue of their birth. As disciples, they are given the sign of discipleship which is made effectual only to the elect. Just to be clear, this is not the same thing as presumptive regeneration. John Murray explains this well,

"When we ask the question: why do we baptise infants or upon what ground do we dispense baptism to them? It is sufficient for us to know and to answer that it is the divine institution. God has ordained it as one of the provisions whereby He administers His grace in the world. When the church practices this institution and complies with the divine command, no further judgment respecting the secret purpose nor respecting God’s secret operations in the heart of those baptised is required as the proper ground upon which the ordinance is administered. To require any further information than the divine institution would go beyond the warrant of Scripture. It is true that in administering this ordinance we plead the promises which God has attached to faith and obedience, and we rest our faith and hope upon God’s faithfulness. But our faith in God’s promises would not appear to be placed in its proper relationship to infant baptism if it were conceived of as the ground for baptising infants. The ground is rather the institution which God has established and revealed, namely, that to the infant seed of believers the sign and seal of the covenant of grace is to be administered. Hence to aver that baptism is dispensed to infants on the ground of presumptive election or presumptive regeneration appears to be without warrant and also introduces perplexity into the question at issue."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2013)

(...continued from above)

I would say: I treat/expect my child to believe what I tell him about Christ. I don't necessarily assume he believes (or remembers) when I begin or repeat the process, especially the younger he is; although it's reasonable to expect a little more retention as the child grows. But I don't entirely assume the adults in the congregation perfectly believe the truth in advance of its proclamation either.

Calvin remarked (wisely) that we are all partly unbelievers until we reach glory. The role of gospel-repetition all our lives is to drive the unbelief out of us. What is the difference between that, and the beginning of the work?

None of this is to say that a Baptist cannot take essentially the same stance toward his child. But, though like me he _*disciples*_ his child; unlike me he's not baptizing him as a _*disciple*_. And his basic outlook may--though perhaps not necessarily--be more anxious to detect the moment of "transition," so as to justify that baptismal-response that proceeds according to his theological understanding to some degree from the desire of the child, as with all other individuals.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 17, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> Just so I am understanding then, an infant is a "believer" until proven otherwise according to PB theology?



I think how we view our children as holy has been adequately addressed elsewhere.

My issue is that I fail to understand Paul's rhetorical point in the passage by referring to the children of a believing husband and unbelieving wife.

From the perspective of the theology both the unbelieving spouse and the child are in the same category.

If so, Paul makes a strange appeal to them to point out "... otherwise the children are unclean...." Why wouldn't the same doubts about their "uncleanness" exist for the children as well as the wife herself? I don't see how it would naturally follow that they wouldn't have the same presumption of "uncleanness" but Paul simply then says: "But they are clean."

In other words, he already states that an unbelieving wife has been made clean by the believing husband. Stop there. What's the otherwise? What about the kids now? Doesn't he need to make sure to let them know that this second group of unbelieving persons are not unclean either? He doesn't just say: "Oh, and your children too have been made clean." He appeals to them only to continue the argument about the wife being clean and simply says: "They are clean" to seal the case _about the unbelieving wife_. How can this be?

Again, hermeneutics is larger than individual passages but an overarching hermeneutic has to deal with the exegesis of a passage. If one is convinced of the overall hermeneutic then a passage needs to be harmonized with that overarching view. I'm simply asking how the credobaptist harmonizes this passage with his hermeneutic that makes sense given how Paul constructs his argument here.


----------

