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

Please work on your Latin, that was a terrible interpretation. Steve in my post it was clearly explained what holy meant and what the relationship with an unbeliever entailed: the pagan husband, in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified (as described in the previous posts); he assumed a new relation[/b]; he was set apart to the service of God, as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother, were children of the covenant. Maybe you can glean something from Hodge here as well:

There are two views which may be taken of the apostle’s argument in this verse. The most generally adopted view is this: The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognized as holy, that is, as belonging to the church. If this be correct, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, (i.e. born out of the pale of the church). This is indeed objected by several modern commentators, for 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.

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 means the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives. Whereas this explanation supposes 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 (as described in the previous posts). They are holy in a similar sense in which the Jews were holy. They are included in the visible church, and have a right to be so regarded. The child of a Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, so the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism. The church is the church, 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, and are still in force under the new.

Steve as to these other questions they were already answered here. Apparently, you do not believe in the TWO kinds of people and TWO kinds of administration of Gen 17:7, et. al. So please do tell how did children of the covenant “believe unto righteousness, as did Abraham” at 8 days old in order to be circumcised?

But, you can’t ever prove they HAVE believed at ANY age and thus we are left with no baptism at all--but I think you meant profession of faith... Simply put "when speaking of infants," Credos baptize only according to man’s profession—(man’s word that he is saved, of which we can never be sure) and thus will not baptize infants; on the other hand, Paedos baptize according to the covenant promises—(God’s word), which are eternal and sure. Yes, Paedos, do baptize adults upon profession of faith, but look again at the continuity of the covenant--from OT --> NT--in doing so. In either case, baptism is not the the means of, or, guarantee of salvation, just like circumcision was not in the OT (that continuity thing)!

Yes, the Jesus ONLY crowd is another part of the Dispensational mind set, hermetically speaking that is. But, indeed Christ gave us the OT also for examples. Pilgrim though summed it up well:

If you would like to learn more about understanding the OT and how it relates to the NT please read: The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, by Vern Poythress.