The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Thoughts on 1Cor 7:12ff

Steve,

I am one of those paedobaptists who sees no relevancy to 1Cor 7:14 to the matter of baptism. Yet, the covenant sign, being changed from circumcision to baptism, to reflect the fulfillment of the new covenant is certainly relevant and so is the relationship of the children of believers to that covenant. It is my view, that this passage is talking about "associations" with the Church. Because of the intimate association with a believer, the spouse and child(ren) are deemed "clean/holy/sanctified", i.e., they are a privileged group which are given covenant blessings (external), e.g., the faith expressed in life of the believer in their presence, the preaching, reading of the Word, etc. (cf. Rom 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5)

Thus, I see this discussion on this particular text as a proverbial wild goose chase as to the matter of baptism of infants. Children are not to be baptized because they are "holy", but simply because they are the children of believers and are to receive the sign of the covenant which manner has changed, but the practice has never been abrogated and thus remains. IMHO, covenant children are NOT to be presumed, elect, regenerate, or Christians, nor treated as such. They are a privileged group, to be sure, but they are nonetheless conceived in sin and they share in the guilt and corruption of Original Sin which is universal to mankind. They are in dire need of regeneration and conversion no less than any other sinner.

Now, as a Baptist, you will agree with the condition of children born to believers, but you obviously are going to disagree that they should receive the sign of the covenant; baptism, because you bring far more discontinuity into the New Covenant than I do. As it has been said all along and it bears saying again. Our biblical hermeneutics are not the same and thus the end result is not going to be the same. So unless someone is willing to change his hermeneutic, their biblical theology, then we shall always be at an impasse. The differences are great and particularly in practice. For example, you would be accepted as a member in my church upon a profession of faith. I would not be accepted in your church unless I both professed faith AND submitted myself to a rebaptism by immersion; a requirement which I find biblically indefensible and dishonoring to Christ, of whose church we are all members.

Okay, I'll go crawl back into my little hole and let you guys continue with the discussion.

In His Grace,