Children of Christian Parents
John: Paul writes in First Corinthians, seventh chapter, fourteenth verse: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy."
I think this text is a sure testimony against infant baptism, since Paul would certainly have referred to the baptism of children as a proof of their holiness, if infant baptism had been practiced. Moreover, this passage would in that case teach the baptism of the unconverted husband of a believing wife. It plainly proves that the children of Christian parents were not baptized, and had no closer connection with the Christian Church then the unbelieving partners of Christians. [1]
Martin: Both the opponents and defenders of infant baptism use this passage as an argument for their view. Let us examine what the apostle really means by it.
Paul teaches in this passage that if one parent, father or mother, is a believer, the rest of the family stands in a sanctified relationship, or lives in a Christian home, even though some member of it is an unbeliever. This sanctity of relationship, or membership in a Christian home, does not guarantee the salvation of the unbelieving partner or unbelieving children.
Dr. A.T. Robertson, a great Baptist New Testament scholar, says of the passage under discussion: "The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism." [2] Thus a Baptist New Testament scholar refutes you in your use of this passage as an argument against infant baptism. What do you say to that?
John: Maybe Dr. Robertson is right. I withdraw my assertion that this passage can be used against infant baptism. But neither can it be used for it.
Martin: If you will bear with me, I will briefly explain the pedobaptist point of view with regard to this passage. We'll see then whether you accept or reject it.
Only the children of Christian parents were baptized in the Apostolic Church, for only they could have Christian rearing, living in the sanctified relationship of a Christian home. Paul says in the passage under discussion that the faith of one parent is sufficient to produce such a sanctified relationship. Thus even if only one of the parents was Christian, the children could be baptized.
Frequently it happened, of course, that the unbelieving parent did not want to have the children baptized. Thus in some cases the children were baptized and in others not, when only one of the parents was Christian. Since there was no general rule at this point, Paul could not say in this passage whether the children were baptized or not. He only said that the children lived in a sanctified relationship, in a Christian home, when one of their parents was Christian. As Charles H. Spurgeon says, such children "are favored by being placed under godly training, and under the hearing of the gospel." [3]
Thus I do not say that infant baptism can be proved or disproved by First Corinthians, the seventh chapter, fourteenth verse. But if it is proved otherwise, this passage fits well into the picture. Would you admit that much, John?
John: I think I would. When we're speaking of the relationship between Christian parents and their children, I have a question for you. Do you think that baptism belongs to the infant because of an organic connection of the child with the parents, which permits the latter to stand for the former and to make a profession of faith for it -- faith already existing genetically in the child by virtue of this organic union, and certain for the same reason to be developed as a child grows to maturity? I think some believers in infant baptism hold such a view. We object to it, for it unwarrantably confounds the personality of the child with that of the parent, and practically ignores the necessity of the Holy Spirit's regenerating influence in the case of children of Christian parents, and presumes in such children a gracious state which facts conclusively show not to exist. [4]
Martin: There may be some pedobaptists who hold such views as you mention. They cannot, however, be widespread, for I have never happened to meet people who have such views, neither have I found them in literature. There is, of course, a great amount of literature on baptism that I have never read, and therefore do not know what it contains.
As far as I'm concerned, I think I have already made it clear that the sanctified relationship in which even the unbelieving members of Christian homes live is not based on any natural organic connection. It is a question of godly training and living in the sphere of the Gospel, as Spurgeon aptly says. Each person must have his own personal faith, which is always born by the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit.
John: But doesn't Luther say that "infants are aided by others' faith, namely, of those who bring them to baptism"? [5] Luther seems to think that people who bring infants to baptism somehow, in a natural way, stand for them in baptism. However, believing parents obviously do not have an atom of merit for the salvation of their infants. Neither is there an atom of demerit in unbelieving parents that can condemn their infants, because Jesus is all in all. [6]
Martin: I'm afraid you put your own ideas into the words of Luther. If you study his statement carefully you observe that he says nothing about the parents standing for their children or having any significance for their salvation because of their natural union with them. He only says that the child is aided by the faith of those who bring it to baptism. If you read the context of the words that you quoted, you see that Luther refers to the Gospel story of a man sick with palsy who was carried by his friends to Jesus. In a somewhat similar way the faith, prayers, and activity of believing parents help their children. Or don't you think that the faith of the parents helped the infants to come to Jesus in the case we have spoken of?
John: Of course it did.
Martin: I'm afraid you're inconsiderate in speaking of the merits and demerits of parents for the salvation or perdition of their children. I suppose that you actually meant to say that the merit of believing parents cannot in any way substitute for the personal faith of the children, and that the demerit of the unbelieving parents cannot destroy the salvation of the children who believe in Christ. Don't you think that the prayers, tears, instructions, and entreaties of Christian fathers and mothers have any significance to the children from the point of view of their salvation? And that the ungodly life and bad example of unbelieving parents in any way promote the perdition of their children? [7]
John: There is no question of that. I fully realize the worth of Christian rearing, as well as the dangers implied in the example of ungodly parents. My only objection is to the view that the faith of the parents would substitute for the faith of their children. But since we are unanimous on this point, let's pass to another question.
[1] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (5th ed., revised and enlarged; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1896), p. 535.
[2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures, IV, p. 128. Quoted by J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., "Both sides of the Baptism Question," reprinted from The Bible Today, 1944-49, p. 44. We have, in part, followed Dr. Buswell in our interpretation of I Cor. 7:14.
[3] Charles H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of the New Testament, I, p. 528. Quoted by Buswell, ibid.
[4] Strong, op. cit., p. 537.
[5] Luther, On the Babylonian Captivity, Weimar ed., vol. 6, p. 538.
[6] The thoughts in the last two sentences are those of a baptist, quoted by Dr. Buswell, op. cit., p. 31.
[7] We follow here, in the main, Dr. Buswell, op. cit., p. 31.