Jeremiah 31:27-30

Status
Not open for further replies.
1) We love our children and hope that God saves them. So we apply the means God has instituted.

What is the basis for this hope?

The basis for the hope that as we teach our children the gospel that God will save them? Is this a serious question?

Isaiah 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

2 Corinthians 4:5-6 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

This should be enough to show that we promise we hold onto is that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for our children as we proclaim it to them day after day. We do not hold onto a promise that God will save our children because they are our physical descendants.
 
becaus eof the sanctifying effect that just ONE believing parent has on the family. If neither were Christian, then their children would be unclean.

So, why are the children of Christian parent(s) made holy while the children of non-Christian parents unclean?

And, as Baptist Ben Witherington points out when disagreeing with Jewett's interpretation, "isn't there a difference between a verb and a noun?"


Further, as I explained in that thread, Don, Paul is trying to deal with this problem:
- does my unbelieving Spouse defile me?

He says, in effect, two things:
1. No. You sanctify your unbelieving spouse. This is one of the cool things about the NC that the holy are no longer defiled by approaching the unholy. This did not use to be the case. If a child had leprosy, for instance, you had to cast out your own flesh and blood. I can't imagine how painful that would be. But now the ceremonially unclean no longer defile. Paul obviously doesn't want Christians marrying Pagans but the reasons are not ceremonial but point to the substance of the fact that God's people are always supposed to remain distinct from the world (and also that unbelievers usually lead us astray). But, says Paul, don't leave a spouse that wants to remain because they don't defile you as you suppose.

2. As a support, then, for the fact that the unbelieving spouse does not defile, Paul notes the obvious nature of the children. Again, in the OC, the union of the clean and unclean just produces unclean things. But, Paul points out, you guys know your kids are clean (notice he doesn't teach them they are clean but it's assumed they know). Paul drives home the point that if your unbelieving Spouse defiled you then how is it that your children are clean?

In other words, the children are used to demonstrate to the believers that their spouse does not defile them because their children are holy.

Remember when Gene said before the debate that we ought to have our pre-suppositions challenged. I've noted already that everyone can hold the middle as long as they never challenge their pre-suppositions. Internal critiques ought to make us take notice if offending material is not fitting within the suitcase of our pre-suppositions. The holiness of children and the way that Paul talks about them is dissonant from the manner that Reformed Baptists talk about their own kids. In other words, your kids don't fit within your Reformed Baptist suitcase. You guys can talk about the perfection of the NC with aplomb but then you've got kids in front of you and you really don't know what to make of them and how to fit them within your theology.
 
becaus eof the sanctifying effect that just ONE believing parent has on the family. If neither were Christian, then their children would be unclean.

So, why are the children of Christian parent(s) made holy while the children of non-Christian parents unclean?

And, as Baptist Ben Witherington points out when disagreeing with Jewett's interpretation, "isn't there a difference between a verb and a noun?"


Further, as I explained in that thread, Don, Paul is trying to deal with this problem:
- does my unbelieving Spouse defile me?

He says, in effect, two things:
1. No. You sanctify your unbelieving spouse. This is one of the cool things about the NC that the holy are no longer defiled by approaching the unholy. This did not use to be the case. If a child had leprosy, for instance, you had to cast out your own flesh and blood. I can't imagine how painful that would be. But now the ceremonially unclean no longer defile. Paul obviously doesn't want Christians marrying Pagans but the reasons are not ceremonial but point to the substance of the fact that God's people are always supposed to remain distinct from the world (and also that unbelievers usually lead us astray). But, says Paul, don't leave a spouse that wants to remain because they don't defile you as you suppose.

2. As a support, then, for the fact that the unbelieving spouse does not defile, Paul notes the obvious nature of the children. Again, in the OC, the union of the clean and unclean just produces unclean things. But, Paul points out, you guys know your kids are clean (notice he doesn't teach them they are clean but it's assumed they know). Paul drives home the point that if your unbelieving Spouse defiled you then how is it that your children are clean?

In other words, the children are used to demonstrate to the believers that their spouse does not defile them because their children are holy.

Remember when Gene said before the debate that we ought to have our pre-suppositions challenged. I've noted already that everyone can hold the middle as long as they never challenge their pre-suppositions. Internal critiques ought to make us take notice if offending material is not fitting within the suitcase of our pre-suppositions. The holiness of children and the way that Paul talks about them is dissonant from the manner that Reformed Baptists talk about their own kids. In other words, your kids don't fit within your Reformed Baptist suitcase. You guys can talk about the perfection of the NC with aplomb but then you've got kids in front of you and you really don't know what to make of them and how to fit them within your theology.

Hi Rich,

My problem with your argument is that it never says anything about defilement. It talks about holiness. Where does it ask the question "does the unbelieving spouse defile me?"

You may think that it is implied, but I say this is eisegesis. It's not actually there. The whole passage is talking about marriage, singleness, and divorce. It's not talking about defilement anywhere. I believe what the chapter is mainly addressing is whether singleness is superior to marriage (1 Cor. 7:1). There is no reason to believe that this is about defilement.

The argument, then, is that the unbelieving spouse it made holy by the believing spouse. The reasoning? If this were not so, the children would not be holy! Therefore, the children are holy for the same reason the unbelieving spouse is: influence of the believing spouse.

Therefore, if the holiness that comes from the influence of the believing spouse is enough for the children to be baptized, then so should the unbelieving spouses.
 
Don,

Let me quote the verse again for you to leave you without excuse and any onlookers that might actually think you're taking time to actually read this passage:
10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
As I said before, this passage is specifically addressed to deal with what to do about unbelieving spouses.

I have not used a shred of eisegesis to establish context. What is eisegetical is to assume that an intent in the passage is to show an equality of status between the unbelieving spouse and the child.

1. The spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse.

ELSE

2. your children would be unclean

3. but they are holy

I'll leave it to others to read our two accounts of this argument and see which accords with the passage and with the Biblical data on what it means to be clean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top