I Cor. 7:14

[JM]

Q. Doesn't I Cor. 7:14 teach that children of believers are covenantally set apart and thus eligible for baptism?

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

The argument is elaborated.

Any thoughts?

 

[non dignus]

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

 

[JM]

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

Brother David, I don't know.

What do you think of Dagg's response?

 

[non dignus]

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

 

[wsw201]

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

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

“The proof that such marriages may properly be continued, is, that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing; and the proof that such is the fact, is, that by common consent their children are holy; which could not be, unless the marriages whence they sprang were holy; or unless the principle that intimate communion with the holy renders holy, were a correct principle.
The assertion of the apostle is, that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in virtue of the marriage relation with a believer. We have already seen that the word (agiazein), to sanctify, means, 1. To cleanse. 2. To render morally pure. 3. To consecrate, to regard as sacred, and hence, to reverence or to hallow. Examples of the use of the word in the third general sense just mention, are to be found in all parts of Scripture. Any person or thing consecrated to God, or employed in his service, is said to be sanctified. Thus, particular days appropriated to his service, the temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priest, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common,” Acts 10:15. Every creature of God is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving, “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer,” 1 Tim. 4:5. This use of the word is specifically frequent in application to persons and communities. The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. “If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches,” Rom. 11:26. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children. Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of god, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were nonetheless conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2:3. When therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connect with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, Matt. 23:17, 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though it’s internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus the pagan husband in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother were children of the covenant.
That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the parents are holy, the children are holy; if the parents are unclean, the children are unclean. This is saying literally what is expressed figuratively in Rom. 11:16. “If the root be holy, so are the branches.” It will be remembered that the words holy and unclean, do not in this connection express moral character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane. Those within the covenant are sacred, those without are profane, i.e. not consecrated to God. There are two views which may be taken of the apostle’s argument in this verse. The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view is this: ‘The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognized as holy, that is, as belong to the church. If this be correct, which no one disputes, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner. Other wise, you children would be unclean, i.e. born out of the pale of the church. To this it is indeed object by several modern commentators, that it takes for granted that the Corinthians had no scruples about the church-standing of the children of these mixed marriages. But this it is said, is very improbable so soon after the establishment of the church, when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few. The principle in question, however, was not a new one, to be then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy; and familiar wherever Jewish laws and the facts of the Jewish history, were known. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek while his mother was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen regarded circumcision in such cases as obligatory, Acts 16:1-3. The apostle constantly assumes that his readers were familiar with the principles and facts of the Old Testament economy. Comp. 10:1-13.
The other view of the argument is this: ‘If, as you admit, the children of believers be holy, why should not the husband or the wife of a believer be holy. The conjugal relation is as intimate as the parental. If the one relation secures this sacredness, so must the other. If the husband be not sanctified by his believing wife, children are not sanctified by believing parents.’ This, however, supposes a change in the persons addressed. Paul is speaking to persons involved in these mixed marriages. Your children naturally mean the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives. Whereas this explanation supposed your to refer to Christians generally. In either way, however, this passage recognizes as universally conceded the great scriptural principle, that the children of believers are holy. They are holy in the same sense in which the Jews were holy. They are included in the church, and have a right to be so regarded. The child of a Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to all the privileges of the theocracy. So the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism and to all the privileges of the church, so long as he is represented by his parent; that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound to act for himself. Then his relation to the church depends upon his own act. The church is the same in all ages. And it is most instructive to observe how the writers of the New Testament quietly take for granted that the great principles which underlie the old dispensation, are still in force, under the new. The children of Jews were treated as Jews; and the children of Christians, Paul assumes as a thing no one would dispute, are to be treated as Christians. Some modern German writers find in this passage a proof that infant baptism was unknown in the apostolic church. They say that Paul could not attribute the holiness of children to their parentage, if they were baptized – because their consecration would then be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. The truth is, that they were baptized not to make them holy, but because they were holy. The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew, and not to make him one. The Rabbins say: Peregrina si proselyte fuerit et cum ea ejus – si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut filia Israelite per omnia. See WETSTEIN in loc. To be born in holiness (i.e. within the church) was necessary in order to the child being regarded as an Israelite. So Christian children are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy.”

 

[aleksanderpolo]

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

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

 

[wsw201]

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

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

Note Hodge's explanation:

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

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

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

 

[aleksanderpolo]

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

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

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

 

[JM]

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

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

Major premise: Sanctification of the unbelieving spouse is necessary for the holiness of your children;

Minor premise: Your children are holy;


Conclusion: Therefore, the unbelieving spouse is sanctified.

This construction of Paul's reasoning is an assumption unwarranted by the text. In my view, Paul considers the case of the children to be parallel to that of the unbelieving spouse. He is arguing from analogy rather than by cause/effect. If the unbelieving spouse is holy, the children are holy; if the unbelieving spouse is unclean, the children are unclean -- not because one causes the other but because they are like cases. This view was proposed by John Dagg (Manual of Theology, Part II, pp. 155-156, and "A Decisive Argument Against Infant Baptism, Furnished by One of Its Own Proof-Texts") in the mid-1800's and was adopted by several of his contemporaries. However, it appears to have fallen into obscurity in later years; I have not seen it so much as mentioned in any discussion of the passage published after the mid-1800's. It is time then to blow the dust off this view and give it the consideration that it deserves. In the discussion that follows, I rely heavily on Dagg's work.

According to Dagg, Paul considers the question and

decides that a believer and an unbeliever may lawfully dwell together...The intercourse of a married pair with each other, and that of parents with their children, must be regulated by the same rule. An unconverted husband or wife stands on the same level with unconverted children. If intercourse with the former is unlawful, intercourse with the latter is equally unlawful. [The contrary decision] would sever the ties that bind parents to their children, and [force them to leave their children]. By showing that this monstrous consequence legitimately follows from the doctrine, he has furnished an argument against it which is perfectly conclusive.
Is there evidence for a parallel argument as Dagg advocates? Yes. The language of the passage points strongly in this direction. First, there is the pronoun "your" (plural in the Greek). Virtually all commentators assume without question that "your children" are the children of the mixed marriages being discussed in the passage. But why would Paul say "your children" instead of "their children", since in the immediate context he is referring to the marriage partners in the third person? Paul is in the middle of a section in which he is dealing case-by-case with various questions that had been addressed to him by the church as a whole (v. 1). He is addressing the church as a whole in his answer, even though he is discussing the cases of various subgroups within the church. When he says "your children", he is signifying the children of those whom he is addressing, that is, the children of the church members as a whole, not the children of the mixed marriages exclusively.
In v. 8, he addresses a specific subgroup with the statement, "I say to the unmarried and to widows". Yet he goes on to address them in the third person -- "it is good for them if they remain even as I". He follows the same pattern in v. 10 and again in v. 12. In vv. 13-15 on both sides of the pronoun in question, Paul consistently uses the third person to refer to the believing partner. Following the same style, Paul would have said "otherwise their children are unclean" if he had been referring exclusively to the children of these mixed marriages. In v. 16, he addresses the believing partner in the second person, but he explicitly states the party that he is addressing, and even here he uses the singular.

In v. 5 Paul uses the second person to address a specific subgroup without a formal notice of the restricted audience. However, in this context he is addressing a general concern touching the church as a whole (see vv. 1-2 and v. 7). He is issuing a directive, which makes the shift to the second person natural and expected. This is an extended statement whose intended audience is utterly unambiguous. It applies to all who were married just as "your children" applies to all who had children.

Finally, if we insist on finding a reference to "your" in the immediate context, the logical referent is the unbelieving spouse. The unbelieving spouse is the subject of the previous sentence and is more prominently in view than the believing spouse. But is it likely that Paul addressed those outside the church with "your" when in the broader context he is addressing specific questions of the church?

These considerations point us to the conclusion that "your children" refers to the children of all the church members and not to those of mixed marriages exclusively. But how does this bear on the nature of Paul's argument? If some of "your children" are not the fruit of mixed marriages, then we cannot explain how they could hypothetically be unclean as the effect of an unsanctified unbelieving parent. In other words, the argument must be understood as an argument of analogy rather than of cause/effect.

Another evidence that Paul was arguing from parallel cases is the tenses of the verbs in the passage. Literally, we have the following translation: "The unbelieving [spouse] is made holy in the [believing spouse]; otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy." The verb "is made holy" is in the perfect tense, and "are" is in the present. The implied major premise is: If the unbelieving spouse is not made holy, your children are unclean. In contrast, cause/effect arguments ordinarily use a temporal progression in their verb choice to signify a dependent consequence. In such a case, a more natural choice for the implied major premise would be: If the unbelieving spouse had not been made holy, then your children would be unclean. The passage would then read: "The unbelieving spouse is made holy in the believing spouse; otherwise your children would be (or "were") unclean, but now they are holy". (Regrettably, this word choice appears in many translations, although there is no warrant for it other than the mistaken notion that Paul is making a cause/effect argument.)

The use of "would be unclean" is the most natural wording for the situation in which the contrary is an established fact to the audience. When Christ said to the Pharisees, "If God were your father, you would love me", the contrary fact "you do not love me" was established and known to the audience. Christ did not need to say explictly "but you do not love me" since this fact was known to both him and his audience. On the contrary, in I Cor. 15:16, when Paul said "If the dead are not raised, then neither is Christ raised", he did not assume that his audience accepted Christ's resurrection. Instead, he went on to show that the denial of the resurrection leads to absurdity to complete his argument. In Dagg's argument, the cleanness of the children is not so much taken as an established fact; instead, the contrary notion leads to absurdity. Paul's use of "is unclean" and his conclusion with the statement "but now they are holy" more naturally suggests that his argument does not assume the children's cleanness as an established fact. Therefore, it suggests that the common cause/effect interpretation is in error.

Another phrase in the passage also suggests a parallel argument. We note that the Greek phrase "epei ara" translated "otherwise" is only used one other time in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in a nearby passage, I Cor. 5:10, where Paul makes a similar argument concerning a similar issue. He argues that we are not to avoid contact with immoral people as a class; otherwise, it is necessary for us to go out of this world. In this passage Paul is arguing using parallel cases. He argues that if we avoid contact with immoral people, then we must also avoid contact with other people to whom we need to relate. The similarity of word choice and issues in the two passages suggests that the nature of the argument is similar too.

None of these arguments is conclusive in itself. Taken together, however, they form a strong case for understanding the argument as one of parallel cases rather than cause/effect. Furthermore, even if all of these arguments can be overthrown, it would not provide any positive evidence for the opposing view. In fact, the parallel cases view would still be preferable simply because of its natural accord with the passage and the insurmountable difficulties of the alternative. This interpretation is strong in exactly the ways in which the others are weak. It assigns an identical meaning to the holiness of the children and the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse. Furthermore, it accounts for the fact that the holiness of the children is accepted as true, for the contrary would call into question the relation between all believing parents and their children, which the Corinthians agreed was contrary to all Christian principles. Finally, it gives cogency and strength to Paul's logic. It applies directly to all mixed marriages, whether there are children or not. And the effect of the opposite conclusion would be so horrible that it compels agreement with Paul's decision.

 

[wsw201]

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

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

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

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

 

[elnwood]

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

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

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

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

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

This can be reconstructed in one of two ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aleksanderpolo]

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

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

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

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

 

[elnwood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aleksanderpolo]

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

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

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

 

[JohnV]

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[elnwood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Davidius]

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

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

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

 

[elnwood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[aleksanderpolo]

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

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

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

 

[non dignus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Robert Truelove]

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

Consider this passage in the ESV...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

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

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

Grace and Peace,

-CH