This may seem an odd post to those who do not share the assumptions of a basically Reformed view of the Bible. So let me set the stage.
The Problem.
In Reformed thinking (as I understand it at least) when a person is truly saved, they will never fall away. The deal done at Calvary where Jesus died applies to them forever – they cannot get out of it. However, there are many people (and Biblical examples) who give up on being a Christian, or show no signs of being saved even if they say they are Christians. In those cases, Reformed theology would say they were never saved in the first place, even though for a time they may have appeared genuine.
Doug Wilson is reviewing N.T. Wright’s latest book, and has written an Excursus on Union with Christ. In that post he uses the common illustration of marriage to think through how being united with Jesus makes us righteous. In essence, if a woman in terrible debt marries a man with incredible wealth, then at the moment they are married, the debt is owned by both of them and the wealth is owned by both of them. In the same way, when we commit ourselves to Jesus, we become one with him – our debt of sin becomes his as well as ours, and his righteousness becomes ours as well as his, as does his death on the cross. Therefore, by becoming one with Christ our debt is paid and we are completely righteous because of what he has done. But then Wilson poses this problem:
If reprobate covenant members have some kind of connection with Christ (as John 15[:1-11] and Romans 11[:11-24] require) then, unless we make some clear and easy-to-follow distinctions between this kind of union and that kind, we will find ourselves trying to answer awkward questions about reprobate covenant members who are supposedly in full possession of the imputed righteousness of Christ.
In other words, everyone who professes faith in Jesus is joined with him, even if they later deny him (see the verses referred to above). According to the marriage illustration, any person joined to Jesus has their sins forever covered, even if later on they deny Christ. But that can’t be right, because a reprobate person (e.g. someone who denies Christ) does not have his sins covered.
So the question is, how does all this work?
My Answer.
My understanding of marriage in the Bible is this:
Two people become one through public agreement and a public declaration that they are married. (In fact, in Jesus’ time this even applied to those betrothed – Matt 1:19). But Jesus also says marriage is defined as two becoming one flesh (Matt 19:5-6) which indicates that the consumation of a marriage in the marriage bed is what constitutes the marriage (see 1 Cor 6:16). This would mean that a couple who have been married but haven’t consumated their marriage are one legally, but are not yet one in the fullest way intended.
Apply this to becoming a Christian. The people in John 15 and Romans 11 who are united to God are not united in the fullest sense, which in terms of the gospel means they have not responded in faith (read Romans 11:20 and Hebrews 3:16-19, 4:11).
So, a person can be declared part of God’s people and united to Christ, without having consumated that union through faith. [For those of you worried, yes, that faith comes solely from God].
The New Testament illustrates this in a number of places, but probably the clearest example is found in Hebrews, where the people of Israel have joined the people of God, left Egypt, but fail to enter the promised land. This theme is carried on right through the book. Take Hebrews 10:26-31:
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Notice how the person who has rejected Christ is said to have “profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified“? In other words, he was part of the covenant, receiving covenant blessings, but he still fell away. He was married, and shared in many of the blessings of marriage, but had not consumated the marriage. He was a Christian, part of the people of God, but never responded with saving faith.
I think I’m becoming more and more Presbyterian…
This is a fascinating suggestion, Ali, one that I think has some merit. I will have to give more consideration to the Hebrews passages, though. I have long tended to see the warning passages as an example of the reductio ad absurdum, addressed to those who are true believers and will not fall away, but used as one of the means to keep them from falling away.
Now, as for the Presbyterian thing, before you go over to the dark side (joke!), I think there is one major distinction that needs to be made: we must not confuse “is” and “ought.” In other words, it is one thing to recognize the reality that there will always be professing believers who are “unconsummated” and who have received the covenant sign of baptism without saving faith. But it is another thing entirely to divorce the covenant sign from faith and say we ought to bring into the church intentionally those whom we know do not have saving faith (i.e., infants). Baptists recognize the reality of unregenerate church members, and if they are good Baptists they will lament this reality and try their best to correct it through church discipline. Presbyterians see it as their duty to add to the church members who are unregenerate. There is a big difference there.
Thanks Aaron, I appreciate your encouragement.
My take on Hebrews is that it does function as you describe, but also describes actual people who fall away. Going back to John 15 the same thing is taught. Even in our day, I’m sure we both know people who have professed Christian faith, experienced the benefits of Christianity and then fallen away. I just think it lines up with reality far more.
Ahh, the Presbyterian bit
.
I understand your point, but I don’t think you are completely accurate in your portrayal of the Presbyterian perspective. Pressies don’t intentionally bring people into the covenant who do not have saving faith, ie. infants. Instead their paeadobaptism acknowledges that, like it or not, children of even one Christian parent are already in the covenant. That is why they baptise them. Good Presbyterians then do the same as good Baptists and do what they can to see that those unregenerate Church members have faith through teaching and ultimately church discipline.
Now, I’m not sure whether I agree with the Presbyterian perspective or not, but in light of 1 Cor 7:14 it seems attractive. There are questions I still have, but then it doesn’t effect the conclusion of the above post either way.
I don’t know if Presbyterians would say that the children of believers are already in the covenant prior to baptism. At least I have not seen that language in their writings. They would say children of believers by rights ought to be in the covenant, but if baptism corresponds to circumcision as the initiatory sign of the covenant, then it would seem that official covenant membership does not begin until baptism. And because Presbyterians do not (generally) believe in baptismal regeneration, they therefore are bringing into the covenant (intentionally) those whom they believe are not (yet) regenerate. Good Presbyterians do practice church discipline (to their credit, many times better than Baptists!), but I think it would be hard to have biblical church discipline in a situation like that where it is expected that many church members will be unregenerate, by God’s design.
1 Corinthians 7:14 proves too much; if Presbyterians took it seriously they would not only baptize the children of believers but also the unbelieving spouses of believers.
Some Lutherans approach infant baptism as a “means of grace” (ei something that _may_ lead to saving faith for elect infants).
You also have people who can receive particular “means of grace” without receiving saving faith. These people are included in the Church community for a time.
Into that category are placed those who fall away from Christ.
Other Lutherans approach infant baptism from an almost Anglican or Catholic perspective but I’m not in that group.
Doug,
I appreciate your perspective. I am not as learned in Lutheran theology as I am in Baptist and Presbyterian.
My understanding of Luther’s own position is that, by means of the proclamation of the Word in baptism (without which baptism is meaningless), faith is created in the baptized infant. Luther held to a kind of baptismal regeneration based on the power of the word that combines with the sacrament and makes it effective. Do Lutherans today still believe this?
That is one major difference between Lutherans and Presbyterians. While both baptize infants, Lutherans still keep baptism and faith together, whereas Presbyterians have split them up into two separate events. I agree with the Lutherans that baptism and faith go together, but I agree with Presbyterians that faith is not created by the sacrament of baptism but rather by the preaching of the gospel to one who is mature enough to understand it and respond of his own volition. Therefore, I am a Baptist.
Hi Aaron,
I specifically asked the Jollyblogger at one point why Presbyterians would baptise infants if by doing so it would increase their responsibility before the Lord should they refuse to repent and believe as they grow older. I mean, surely it would be more loving not to baptise them in order to reduce the level of their eternal punishment!
He replied that infants of believers are already in the covenant regardless of whether they are baptised. That is where I get my understanding.
As for 1 Cor 7:14, I agree with what you say regarding the unbelieving spouse, but I’m guessing they would respond that they do not base paedobaptism on that verse alone. However, it is true that regardless of how it’s applied, Paul’s argument for the unbelieving spouse is based on an accepted fact that children of believers are sanctified. What do you do with that other than see that they are already in some way joined to Christ? (Who else makes us holy?)
Hi Doug,
I guess I’d repeat the question I asked the Jollyblogger to you. Why increase responsibility before the Lord by giving infants a means of grace if you didn’t know they would respond with saving faith?
By the way, I am even less aware of Lutheran beliefs than Aaron, so I enjoy hearing your perspective on these things. Thanks.
I hope this isn’t too long-winded of an answer.
I’d love to dive right in and answer what Lutheran theology is.
Lutherans have a spectrum of views because of their approaches to interpreting the Bible.
I could write several posts about the complex interaction of Confessions, Luther’s writings, and later Lutheran writings on how Lutherans approach the Bible.
Aaron what you write is fairly close to the confessional Lutheran consensus on infant baptism (faith and baptism linked). I’m a bit more nuanced but I still see infant baptism as _capable_ of imparting faith through the Word.
Ali, that is a difficult question. On the one hand I believe baptism is spiritually beneficial to all infants even though it may not lead to faith at that moment (and potentially never). On the other hand exposing the infants to the Word does appear to increase their accountability. Lutherans don’t believe in the “age of accountability” so I suppose we see the possible worse gradation of Hell for a baptized non-Christian as not comparable to the benefits of providing the child a means of grace that may impart faith.
Ali,
On 1 Cor 7:14, I am glad to admit that both the children of a believer and the unbelieving spouse of a believer are “holy” in some sense. But it is clear from the passage that Paul does not mean that the unbelieving spouse is holy in any of the following senses:
(1) he/she is saved
(2) he/she is a member of the covenant people
(3) he/she is a proper candidate for the covenant sign apart from personal confession of faith
If all of these are true for the unbelieving spouse, who is nevertheless “holy” by virtue of his/her connection to the believing spouse, then it is simply inconsistent to press the meaning of holiness farther in the case of the children of a believer.
I think the sanctification that Paul is talking about here is that which occurs by virtue of the unbelieving spouse’s connection to Christ by means of his or her marriage. This is not a salvific connection, but it is one that puts the unbeliever in closer proximity to Christ than he/she would otherwise be. I think the same is true for children of believers.
Hey Aaron,
I agree with your statements regarding the unbelieving spouse. Their holiness is by virtue of the Christ-bought holiness of the believing spouse, though the second and third senses in your list are not taken from the context of the verse, but rather your prior commitment to (a) a definition of what a member of the covenant people is and (b) to believer’s baptism. Just because Presbyterians do not baptise unbelieving spouses does not mean the verse cannot mean that. But in light of the rest of the New Testament, I am willing to accept that what you say is true.
However, I do not agree that it’s inconsistent to press the meaning of holiness further in the case of children. The children do not need to be holy in the same sense as the unbelieving spouse. It’s like saying in my case, “Paula is a legitimate Robertson by virtue of being married to me, otherwise our children would be illegitimate Robertsons, but as it is they are legitimate.” Paula’s status continues to rely solely on me, meaning, if she were to leave, her status would be forfeit. However, our children are Robertsons by inheritance, meaning their “Robertson-ness” does not depend on the continuing “Robertson-ness” of Paula (or even me, for that matter), but it does depend on Paula being a legitimate Robertson at the time of their birth. Once given it is theirs unless they formally renounce their family.
In the same way, I don’t think you can argue from the context that the holiness of the unbelieving spouse and that of the children cannot be conceived of differently in some important senses, i.e. that children have a right to the covenant sign apart from personal confession of faith, whereas the unbelieving spouse does not.
Please note, I am not saying that it necessarily does mean that, only that it easily could, and it would seem that Presbyterians take it that way.
True, but let’s shave with Ockham’s Razor here and admit that nothing in the context would even remotely support such an idea. It would also lead to ridiculous conclusions. If the child’s holiness is seen in that way, then we would also have to conclude that the child is 1/2 unholy, just as I am 1/2 Wilbanks and 1/2 O’Kelley. Of course, I have inherited the family name because of my father, but would we want to say that only children of Christian fathers are holy, not children of Christian mothers? These silly ideas illustrate how the natures of physical and spiritual relationships are simply different.
However, if Presbyterians want to make that kind of case, then they must prove that the new covenant gains members by virtue of physical descent, and in that case their position would already be proven apart from 1 Cor 7:14.
The case for physical descent as a criterion for new covenant membership is weak. See Stephen Wellum’s article (if you haven’t already) located here:
http://kingdomresources.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/wellum_baptindd.pdf
You are not giving the illustration I used it’s due. You may be 1/2 Wilbanks and 1/2 O’Kelley in nature, but not in name. You are 100% O’Kelly in name, and that is the point.
The fact is, however you define the word, children of at least one believing spouse are “holy” in some sense – 100%. Paul explicitly states that the believing spouse’s belief sanctifies the unbelieving spouse, otherwise the children would be unclean! This is exactly how it works for children in our culture when it comes to surnames (though less so now than in the past) – the woman takes on the name of the man and their children are called by that name. The difference in this verse being that it is not the paternity of the children that determines their status as holy, but the faith of one of their parents.
Note how the argument is structured:
Assumption #1: The believing spouse is holy.
Assumption #2: The children of one believing parent are holy.
Conclusion: The unbelieving spouse is holy (by virtue of connection with their believing spouse).
There is no argument given for the holiness of the children – it is assumed that everyone agrees. That means the holiness of the children of a believer was widely accepted and the holiness of the unbelieving spouse is derived from that accepted truth. Therefore, argues Paul, a believer is not to separate from an unbelieving spouse for reasons of “uncleanness”.
Now, this is a reversal of the situation in Ezra 9a and 10 where children of an Israelite spouse and a non-Israelite spouse were considered unclean, as were the non-Israelite spouses. I personally think it means that Jesus’ ability to make the unclean clean (as seen in the gospels when he touches unclean people) has reversed the situation under the Law where clean people become unclean when they touch something/someone unclean.
Since Paul’s argument assumes the holiness of the children, it would seem that the fact of their “holiness” can be derived from other Biblical reasoning, such as the clean and unclean reversal through the gospel. I think that leaves this verse open to the interpretation that the children’s holiness is a different type in some way from the unbelieving spouse’s holiness.
You have accurately laid out the argument of the passage. Notice, however, that the holiness of the unbelieving spouse, though it is epistemologically asserted on the basis of the accepted truth of the children’s holiness, is itself a ground of the children’s holiness. In other words, while you are right that the holiness of the children of believers is taken for granted, the whole point of Paul’s argument is that this widely held truth is itself dependent on the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse. Therefore, the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse has an ontological (if not epistemological) priority over the holiness of the children of believers. If in fact the unbelieving spouse were not holy, as Paul argues, “your children would be unclean.” So, in fact, this is not quite the same thing as your daughter being a Robertson on the basis of her connection to you. Paul’s argument would actually translate into saying that your daughter is not a Robertson unless BOTH you and your wife are Robertsons. And, given the fact that we know that your daughter IS a Robertson (we take it for granted), it therefore follows that your wife is a Robertson too.
I take it, therefore, that the holiness of the children depends on the holiness of not one but BOTH parents, even if the holiness of one of the parents is derived from the faith of the other. And if that is the case, how can it be argued that the child’s holiness is of a different order altogether such that it would warrant membership in the covenant? I still think Presbyterians need to start baptizing unbelieving spouses if they want to lean on this verse for their ecclesiology. And given that no one in the history of the church has ever advocated the practice of baptizing unbelieving spouses (to my knowledge), I take it that it is an unwarranted practice. And if it is unwarranted to baptize someone who is holy by virtue of another person’s faith (the spouse), I take it that it is also unwarranted to baptize someone whose holiness is in part derived from that very person.
Lol. I’m enjoying this discussion. Thanks, Aaron.
Okay. Let’s put the illustration of children and mother aside, not because it doesn’t work, but because we seem to have different assumptions regarding it (i.e. in my experience, if a couple is not married, the surname is up for grabs).
Instead, let me go back to Paul’s argument.
What you say is true: if a child is holy, both parents need to be holy. But Paul’s argument is that the unbelief of the non-Christian spouse does not contaminate the holiness of the Christian spouse. Instead, the Christian spouse makes the non-Christian spouse holy. This can be seen, says Paul, because the unbelief of the non-Christian spouse does not negate the already established holiness of the children.
That is quite different from saying that the holiness of the unbelieving spouse determines the holiness of the children. In fact, while the holiness of the unbelieving spouse is necessary for the children to be holy, it is clear that the Corinthians’ understanding that the children are holy has some other basis besides the holiness of the unbelieving parent, otherwise Paul’s argument would not work.
That means, then, that the holiness of the children of believers is determined by something not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:14. So, while the baptism of children as members of the covenant cannot be proven from this verse, it is consistent with this verse. The next question, then, is how did Paul and the Corinthians come to the conclusion that the children of believers are holy?
Yes, I am enjoying the discussion too. I feel like we are two Scholastic theologians from the middle ages disputing over some intricate theological minutiae.
I see your point, but I don’t agree. I think what Paul is doing in 1 Cor 7:14 is similar to what he does in 1 Cor 15:12-34: he is building on a common assumption between him and his readers and then working out the implications of that assumption that his readers don’t quite understand.
So, 1 Cor 15:12-34 looks like this:
CORINTHIAN POSITION: There is no general resurrection of the dead.
PAUL’S ARGUMENT:
(1) Common ground: Christ has been raised (vv. 1-11)
(2) Implications: the dead in Christ will be raised too (vv. 12-34)
(a) Negatively, if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised, and the whole gospel is a sham (vv. 12-19)
(b) Positively, Christ has been raised, setting motion the events that will inevitably lead to the end (vv. 20-28)
(c) Negatively, if the dead are not raised, then we are both engaging in foolish practices (vv. 29-34)
I think 1 Cor 7:14 looks something like this:
CORINTHIAN POSITION: Being married to an unbeliever defiles a believer; therefore, a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse.
PAUL’S ARGUMENT:
(1) Common ground: Children of believers are holy (how they arrived at this, I do not know; but it is taken for granted).
(2) Implications: Unbelieving spouses of believers are holy too.
(a) Negatively, if they are not holy, then the children would not be holy either, because the holiness of the children depends on the holiness of BOTH parents.
(b) Positively, since we know that your children are holy, your unbelieving spouses must likewise be holy.
(3) Conclusion: Don’t divorce unbelieving spouses.
I think what Paul is doing in part 2a is exposing an inconsistency in the Corinthians’ theology, just as he does with regard to the resurrection. Where at least some of the Corinthians believed in the resurrection of Christ while disbelieving in the general resurrection, Paul had to come in and tell them these two things cannot be separated. The same thing is happening here. Some Corinthians believe that the children of believers are holy but not the unbelieving spouses. Paul has to tell them these two things cannot be separated. Moreover, he specifically draws the conclusion that if the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified, then neither are the children. I do think this is an ontological, and not merely an epistemological, relationship.
I do think this is an ontological, and not merely an epistemological, relationship.
Forgive me. I don’t actually know what you are saying in that sentence.
Apart from being clueless about your last sentence, I agree with everything you said in your last post. My point is that the argument supports a certain kind of holiness for unbelieving spouses, but that does not necessarily limit the holiness of the children to the exact dimensions of the unbelieving spouse.
To repeat: What I’m hearing you say is that 1 Corinthians 7:14 is incompatible with Presbyterian paedo-baptism. I’m saying that it is compatible because the children’s holiness does not need to be exactly the same as the unbelieving parent’s to support the holiness of the unbelieving parent. In fact, if you look at Paul’s argument while assuming that children are members of the covenant, it works very well and does not require the unbelieving spouse to be a covenant member.
So, no, 1 Cor 7:14 doesn’t tell us children are covenant members, but it does open up the question as to how the Corinthians and Paul arrived at the common ground. Where would we get that answer? Well, one would assume from the rest of the Bible.
What I mean by “ontological” vs. “epistemological” is that the nature of Paul’s argument works this way:
A. Children of believers would be unclean if unbelieving spouses of believers were not sanctified because the holiness of the children depends on the holiness of both parents.
rather than this way:
B. We know that unbelieving spouses of believers are holy because the children of believers are holy.
I’m not saying that B is not true; it is. But A explains how B can be true. B is not a self-evident statement, and thus it requires some kind of explanation to make it cogent. I think A is the presupposition Paul has in mind.
The upshot of all this is to say that there is a logical priority to the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse over that of the children. But I see no reason from the context to conclude that the holiness involved for each party is an essentially different kind of holiness than that of the other party. All we know is that Paul and the Corinthians both took it for granted that children of believers are holy, but he had to do some convincing when it came to unbelieving spouses of believers. Yet he calls both of them holy. I cannot fathom why we would, on this basis, baptize one and not the other. And if there is good reason not to baptize the unbelieving spouse, I think a similar logic applies to the children as well.
Yeah, okay. I understand your position.
Maybe you also understand what I’m saying, but let me try to say it one more time with clarity.
***Stunningly dramatic re-enactment follows***
Imagine Paul and the Corinthians both accepted that children of believers were covenant members to whom the rite of baptism should be applied.
Corinthians: Unbelieving spouses of believers are unholy/unclean. Therefore, believers should divorce unbelieving spouses.
Paul: No, unbelieving spouses are not unholy/unclean, they have been made holy/clean by their believing spouses.
Corinthians: What? How do you figure that?
Paul: You believe that your children are holy/clean, don’t you?
Corinthians: Of course. They are covenant members and we baptised them.
Paul: But how can they be holy/clean if one of their parents is unholy/unclean? They can’t. So, the unbelieving spouse may not be a covenant member, but they have been made holy/clean because of their believing spouse. This must be true or your children would be unholy/unclean.
***End of stunningly dramatic re-enactment***
In other words, in this scenario the children are accepted as holy/clean because covenant members are necessarily holy/clean. Their holiness/cleanness also necessitates that their unbelieving parent be holy/clean even though that unbeliever is not a covenant member, i.e., you can be holy/clean without being a covenant member, but you can’t be a covenant member without being holy/clean.
Now, you would say there is nothing in the text that shows that Paul bases the holiness of the children on their status as covenant members. That is true. But it is a possible reconstruction. In other words, 1 Corinthians 7:14 can be read as consistent with the paedo-baptist position.
“But,” I hear you saying, “without any evidence in the text it is illegitimate to draw that reconstruction from it.” To which I would reply that you cannot definitively prove anything from it, but the text leaves the door open to questions about the holiness of children, and such a reconstruction is a legitimate attempt to bring other biblical texts to bear and re-constructing a worldview that answers those questions.
Whew. Does that make sense? I’m not saying the Presbyterian view is a slam dunk in light of 1 Corinthians 7:14, but I think it is possible to read that verse as supporting that position.
Ok. But I think you could reconstruct that whole conversation, pretty much the way you have done, without any reference to covenant membership at all. And, in fact, I think such a reconstruction would be simpler and more probable.
It is clear to me that a case for infant baptism cannot rest on this verse. And, honestly, there is not much else in Scripture that it CAN rest on!
This discussion has been rather enlightening.
If I understand correctly most Protestants see reason as the only earthly tool for interpreting the Bible.
If I held to that and an anti-traditionalist viewpoint I’d reject infant baptism and orthodox trinitarianism on the same basis (lack of explicit Biblical support).
I wonder how Protestant from anti-traditional perspectives reconcile holding to the trinity and rejecting infant baptism on the basis of the Bible interpreted only with reason.
Hi Aaron,
I agree that it is possible to reconstruct the conversation without reference to covenant membership, but you’d be left without an explanation as to why children are holy/clean. That question hanging in the air is begging to be answered, and while it doesn’t have to be answered through covenant membership (it could be answered through the reversal of clean/unclean laws) I don’t see why that construction is any less probable unless you have already decided that the rest of Scripture does not warrant it.
What suggestions have those who champion believers baptism have for the holiness/cleanness of believers’ children?
G’day Doug,
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by interpreting the Bible only with reason. I think I understand what you are saying re. anti-traditionalism.
In terms of reason, the Scriptures themselves are documents written with internal consistency such that, in the same way we use reason to figure out what any writing says, we use reason to figure out what the Scripture says, always humbly recognising that there are limits to our ability in this regard (revelation is inseperable from interpretation).
Tradition itself is merely past attempts at using reason to interpret the written Word. If our reading of the Bible is different from tradition, then the Bible’s message (as we understand it) trumps tradition. But the fact that tradition has interpreted the Bible in a particular way is important, and means that we should be careful to examine our reading in light of what others have read, and give weight to centuries past. That is, we give weight to tradition, but not automatic submission.
I don’t see that as being anti-traditional at all, though I guess that danger is there.
Doug,
My understanding is that tradition forms a certain hermeneutical trajectory that must be given priority in our biblical interpretation. But when I speak of “tradition” here, I am referring to the ecumenical tradition expressed in the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed. Neither of these mention infant baptism, though they are both trinitarian in nature, and for good reason. The word “Trinity” is not mentioned in Scripture, but that does not mean that the doctrine is not there. It most certainly is.
Infant baptism, on the other hand, just isn’t there. Even proponents of infant baptism would admit that. They acknowledge that they have to deduce it by a certain kind of inference based on the way they put the whole of Scripture together. But if their way of putting it together is wrong, then infant baptism is left with no support. The Trinity is much different. You could dispute the meaning of a few isolated passages that speak in relation to it, but some aspect of the doctrine is on almost every page of the New Testament.
Ali,
Honestly, I have not seen any advocate of believer’s baptism treat 1 Cor. 7:14 in detail (other than Gordon Fee in his commentary). But it must be kept in mind that an advocate of believer’s baptism is not forced to conclude that the children of believers are exactly the same as the children of unbelievers. Are children of believers lost in sin and in need of Christ? Yes (Presbyterians agree). But are they in the same position as those outside the church? No. They are connected to the church, to the preaching of the gospel, to the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. They grow up in a community of faith and learn its language and rituals. They are under Christian influence from the time they are born. Baptist churches do not baptize infants, but they do often have baby dedication ceremonies to mark the occasion of a new life born into the church (not as an automatic covenant member but as one who is still connected to the life of the church). In this sense, I believe children of believers are “holy” as opposed to “unclean.”
It is clear to me that the holiness of the unbelieving spouse pertains to the potential for his or her conversion as a result of being connected to the believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:16). The holiness of the children is not essentially different from that.
Aaron:
Prior to the 16th century there had been several major schisms based on disagreements with orthodox trinitarianism. I’m not aware of any significant opposition to infant baptism prior to the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists.
So I’m not so certain how obvious the orthodox trinitarian position is in contrast to heresy (ex: modalism).
When I say tradition I’m including the first seven ecumenical councils which actually created the Creeds and explained them in greater detail. I also hold those things which the early Church had unity on as default positions but not dogmas (ex: Harrowing of Hell).
I’d require evidence from the Bible against those practices/beliefs to just up and destroy them. I don’t see a compelling Biblical case for baptism being restricted to only those who are able to communicate their faith.
My understanding is that churches descended from the Radical Reformation instead reject all tradition unless they find compelling Biblical support.
Ali:
I don’t think the scriptures are perspicuous on all topics. I think that’s why we as Protestants hold such an odd diversity of dogmas even on important issues. My reformed understanding is obvious only because I already hold it and see how it fits together.
I am all for reason but I subscribe to the belief that tradition should inform our understanding of areas where the Bible is unclear.
Aaron,
After your comment about not reading any other credo-baptist interpretation, it occured to me that I hadn’t looked at Thiselton’s commentary. He basically three options, 1) there is a quasi-physical connection between Christ and the believer which influences the one-flesh union between husband and wife (and presumably children), 2) the OT holiness by associateion principle, and 3) the moral/ethical influence of the believing spouse.
He has little time for no.1, is somewhat sympathetic to no.2, but sides with no.3. I personally can’t see how that works too well in the argument Paul presents. I’d go with 2, since it’s a version of what I think anyway.
(If you’re interested, he also has a section on the historical interpretations of “holy” in this verse).
But your appeal to baby dedication ceremonies has all the same problems as infant baptism. Why, if that is the case with children, do you not have spousal dedication services? And where is the biblical warrant for any kind of dedication in the first place? I can’t see that appealing to that takes you any further at all!
I also disagree that verse 15 can define “holy” in verse 14. It is far more natural to me to see the potential salvation of an unbelieving spouse as another reason to stay, i.e., “…and anyway, how do you know whether your spouse will become a Christian? Then your concerns about clean/holy will all be answered”, says Paul (my paraphrase).
Doug,
I’ve never come across someone with such a conscious view of the authority of tradition. In truth, a number of people hold to their own tradition in exactly the same way, but don’t admit it.
I think you’re right about the descendants of the “Radical Reformation” rejecting all tradition unless they find compelling biblical support…or at least, no tradition is safe without biblical support (and even then it’s on shaky ground).
I don’t think I have too much of a problem with that position, though. There is much to be said for holding to tradition, but there is always a danger that it will get in the way (see the Roman Catholic Church!). On the other hand, the need to re-invent tradition often takes a lot of energy that could be spent in other, more beneficial ways. My view is, I will hold onto tradition as long as it doesn’t get in the way of Biblical truth. And in the case of credo-Baptists, that’s exactly what they believe paedo-baptism does.
Me? I actually want to be persuaded that paedo-baptists are correct, but I am not yet. I actually think it’s one of those non-perspicuous topics in Scripture, but that has behind it important biblical truths. I have a little daughter, so I’m interested in resolving it. But, as of yet, I haven’t come to final conclusions, and I’m happy to hear Aaron’s objections as much as any paedo-baptist’s arguments.
Doug,
I would define a schism as a break between two groups that are both within the bounds of orthodoxy. I am only aware of one schism that has occurred in the history of the church that has been related to the Trinity, and that would be the schism between East and West in the 11th century, which was in part due to the filioque controversy. But whether one accepts the filioque or not is not a matter of orthodox trinitarianism; there are orthodox Trinitarians on both sides of that divide. And so the Trinity has been the defining mark of orthodoxy from the beginning.
Groups that have been anti-Trinitarian (Arians, Modalists, etc.) have been rightly labeled heretical and outside the bounds of orthodoxy. These breaks do not constitute schism as I have defined it above.
There were a few groups prior to the Anabaptists who held to believer’s baptism. The Waldensians, for example, would be one. And there is good evidence that believer’s baptism was the normal practice of the church at least until the third century. Furthermore, none of the four universally recognized ecumenical councils ever defined the practice of baptism (and I am not aware that any of the other three did either), whereas they did pronounce on the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Radical Reformation did have a low view of tradition. But modern day Baptists like myself are not direct heirs of the Radical Reformation. I would trace my own ecclesiological lineage to the Puritan and Separatist movements in England in the seventeenth century. The Puritans and Separatists were very similar in their theology, but they had different ecclesiological strategies. The Puritans wanted to remain within the Church of England, but the Separatists gave up on it and broke away. I believe, once they had broken away from that ecclesiastical context, the Separatists were free to reevaluate their baptismal practices, and some concluded that baptism should only be administered to believers. These groups became the Particular Baptists, who are the ancestors of most Baptist groups today. They did not like the Church of England, but they had a healthy regard for the orthodox tradition of the church as a whole.
Ali,
We could go on forever, but you did make me think about one thing: why don’t we have spousal dedication services? I think I would answer that in two ways:
(1) Baby dedication services are connected to an initiatory event, namely, the birth of a child. The only comparable initiatory event for a spouse would be a wedding. But then, if we had dedication services for unbelieving spouses at the time of their wedding, we would be celebrating a union that Scripture explicitly forbids (believer and unbeliever). Therefore, the two situations are different.
(2) Baby dedication is obviously not a biblical practice. I don’t think a church is either obligated to do it or forbidden from doing it. It is, to my mind, a suitable way to recognize a biblical truth, namely, that children are a blessing and that there is reason to celebrate when a baby is born to a Christian family and enters into the life of a church. It is also a way to give a charge to the parents and to the church to take responsibility for this child. It is, emphatically, not a sacrament.
Hi Aaron,
I wondered which of us would finally say, “We could go on forever”
. It would have been me in this comment if you hadn’t mentioned it in yours.
Thanks for the discussion. I’m interested to see whether there will be a bit more discussion with Doug here, but this is a long comment thread. Feel free to continue in that vein. I’ll add my ignorance here and there if you choose to continue.
Aaron, there is no universally accepted earthly authority to distinguish between orthodoxy and heresy across all of Protestantism (Let alone all of Christendom).
Every group that ever split from Rome was at one time declared heretical (for a variety of different reasons). Even the Orthodox Church was eventually declared heretical by Rome.
Defining schism as “a split within orthodoxy” is therefore a matter of personal perspective.
I was not aware of Particular Baptists and I appreciate you making me aware of them.
I think I’d agree that believer’s baptism was the predominate form of baptism in the early Church. For at least several generations the Church grew more through conversions than births from Christian families.
I’d wonder if you have evidence that suggests believer’s baptism was the normative practice and not simply the predominant one.
I also was not aware the late medieval Waldesians practiced believer’s baptism prior to their coming under the influence of Reformation groups.
When I use the word “orthodoxy,” I am using terminology that is widely accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant groups to refer to the entirety of the tradition that is within the parameters of the Council of Nicea and the other three ecumenical councils. Certainly, heretics do not appreciate the terminology, but here’s the catch: there is nothing in the world that I can say that is not being said from a certain perspective. I am a finite creature and therefore cannot escape perspectivalism.
I adhere to the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, but that does not lead me to conclude that tradition is inherently worthless. So long as Scripture exercises regulative authority, tradition is not only a helpful part of our faith, it is unavoidable and essential to it. It is simply naive to claim that one can bypass tradition and go straight back to the Bible free of all presuppositions (as some restorationist groups have done).
In order to prove that believer’s baptism was the normative practice instead of simply the predominant one, I would have to prove that infant baptism was not widely regarded as valid. That is made difficult for two reasons: (1) it is always difficult to prove a negative historically; (2) it is doubly difficult when you are trying to prove something that may not even have been on the radar screen yet. In other words, if the early church did not practice infant baptism, it is quite unlikely that we would find anything in their documents about it at all. If believer’s baptism was normative, then infant baptism likely didn’t even cross their minds for some period of years. Therefore, silence on the question is what we would expect, and, to my knowledge, that is exactly what we have in the first couple of centuries. The didache, for example, mentions only believer’s baptism. We wouldn’t expect the author to go out of his way to deny a teaching that had not yet come on the scene.
I think infant baptism probably arose as a more sacramental understanding of baptism became dominant. When baptism began to be seen as a sacramental means by which sins are remitted, working in an automatic fashion, it began to make more sense to apply it to people as early as possible in order to effect their conversion (ironically, in some cases the opposite conclusion resulted; some people waited until they had almost died to be baptized in order to ensure that they received a maximum amount of forgiveness). I think baptismal regeneration, which I do not perceive is a New Testament doctrine, was ultimately the driving force behind infant baptism. And thus the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism as a covenant sign detached from regeneration, which arose in the sixteenth century under Zwingli, is not the same doctrine as that which prevailed in the church in the prior centuries. Thus, in terms of the progress of history, this is the order in which I perceive the different doctrines of baptism to have emerged:
(1) believer’s baptism (New Testament period)
(2) infant baptism as a regenerating sacrament (3rd century?)
(3) infant baptism as covenant sign that anticipates future faith (16th century)
Clearly, the novelty here is the Presbyterian view.
I’m not sure “Clearly” is the word you want. Perhaps, “So, as I read history…”
Ali,
“As I read history” and “clearly” are synonymous in meaning.
Honestly, I don’t think even Presbyterians can argue with that, though. They will be hard pressed to find evidence of their theology of baptism prior to Zwingli.
Now let me be clear about what are the implications of that historical observation. The fact that a Reformed doctrine of baptism is a theological late-comer does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. I think the doctrine of justification, in its full biblical sense, is also a theological late-comer, but I wholeheartedly embrace the Reformed doctrine on that point.
The point is not that it is necessarily wrong; it is just that it does not have the kind of claim to catholicity that is sometimes claimed for it. When the categories are framed as “credo-baptist” and “paedo-baptist,” we Baptists are often seen as the minority position (not pertaining to the present day but to the mainstream tradition of the church). But the truth is, the categories should be more nuanced, and when they are properly nuanced we see that both Baptists and Presbyterians have two different minority views of baptism. And the reason for that is that both groups reject baptismal regeneration.
Hi Aaron,
Unfortunately a long article, Greg Johnson has written a piece about the history of infant baptism considering the arguments of Joachim and Aland, and also addresses your understanding that infant baptism arose because the church embraced baptismal regeneration.
If time is short, read the second section only.
http://gregscouch.homestead.com/files/Infantbap.html
Aaron,
On the issue of orthodoxy. Claiming orthodoxy on the basis of only the first 4 Ecumenical Councils is interesting. Most Protestants accept the first 7 Councils just as do the Eastern Orthodox. It’d be interesting to see the justification given for throwing out the last 3 Ecumenical Councils.
Presbyterian theology on infant baptism does appear historically novel. At the least it was rarely suggested prior to the Reformation.
I’m mildly supportive of baptismal regeneration (though as a regeneration for the elect). I don’t automatically snicker at people who say “I’ve been Christian as far back as I can remember”.
I think it’s interesting that the earliest mentions of infant baptism do not treat it as a new practice or as a point of controversy.
Every part of the Christian community held to infant baptism despite Christendom having already been divided prior to the first records of infant baptism in the late 3rd century. In the regionalized Church of the 3rd century it seems odd for infant baptism to occasion no significant splits or disagreements.
It would be interesting for groups who held each other in disrepute to simultaneously adopt a novel practice. Many of these Christian groups had declared anathemas on each other.
I’m not saying that didn’t happen but I don’t find it probable.
Doug,
From my study of history (which may be inadequate on many points, I admit), I see things very differently:
(1) Protestants have not, historically, accepted the validity of all seven ecumenical councils. They have accepted, along with Roman Catholics, the validity of the first four councils. But that is a minor point in this discussion.
(2) In some of the earliest sources on infant baptism, it does appear that it was something that had to be debated and ultimately decided on. See, for example, Cyprian’s letter to Fidus:
http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/fathers/e_CyprianBaptism.htm
(3) I am not aware of any anathemas that were pronounced in the early centuries of the church except when it was a matter of orthodoxy vs. heresy. I know the Marcionites were anathematized, as were the Arians and Modalists, but where is there an example of one orthodox group anathematizing another during the Patristic period?
Aaron,
That claim that Protestants have not accepted all Seven of the Ecumenical Councils is very odd.
Lutherans, Methodists and Anglicans always have. I’m aware a few denominations have not. Of course the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic accept all Seven Ecumenical Councils also.
Justin Marytr in “Dialog with Trypho the Jew”, spoke of how Baptism had replaced the Jewish ritual of circumcision. He wrote that in the 2nd century.
I wonder how late you mean by early centuries in reference to anathemas (the 1st one was in 306)?
Is 418 still early?
If so there was an anathema in that year you might be interested in.
Yes, please inform me about those anathemas. I am not aware of what you talking about.
Does Justin’s argument about baptism replacing circumcision entail a doctrine of infant baptism? One could argue that baptism corresponds to circumcision in that both covenant signs are initiatory in nature, but that would not necessarily say anything about who the proper subjects of baptism are. Is there anything in Justin’s argument that demands infant baptism?
On the Protestant view of the ecumenical councils, see the last paragraph of this article:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ecumenical-council
I don’t know what I was thinking when I said Roman Catholics don’t recognize the other three. I had a brain lapse. The difference between East and West is that there are many more councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church than the seven that are recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Here Aaron. These is the 418 anathemas Doug is talking about. “Can 2″ is what I’d say he’s referring to specifically.
http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/pelagianism/CanonsAgainstPelagianism.pdf
That was an anathema pronounced upon Pelagianism, which is undoubtedly a heresy. It happened to be couched in terms of infant baptism because (as I argued earlier), infant baptism became a widespread practice specifically because of a belief in baptismal regeneration. To deny baptism to an infant was tantamount to denying the doctrine of original sin in that context.
This is not an anathema of one orthodox group pronounced upon another; I am still not aware of that happening during the patristic era. And given that we’re talking about the fifth century here, it’s no surprise to me that infant baptism is taken for granted by this time.
I’m wondering if you can sustantiate that infant baptism became widespread due to a belief in baptismal regeneration. That article I pointed you to a couple of comments back argues against that. I’d be interested in the support you have for that view.