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

First, I did respond to your definition with a two paragraph definition of the term holy here. Second, as far as John Gill’s definition, I have no problem if it is properly applied. But, this is not what you did. Now Gill’s definition did not deal with a person’s righteousness/justification, did it? Your quote says, [color:"0000FF"]Gill and others say that this word ('hagiazo') is used frequently in Jewish wedding rites meaning to 'espouse' or 'set apart in marriage'. The unbelieving partener has been sanctified in that sense.[/color] But, you then state, [color:"0000FF"]If the children are 'holy' enough to be baptized without a confession of faith, so is the pagan husband or wife,”[/color] relating the term holy to righteousness/justification. Thus, you state on one hand, [color:"0000FF"]the words 'sanctified' and 'holy' in v14 NKJV mean the same thing. They come from the same root ('hagiazo', hagios'), [/color]but then on the other hand, you use the term in two different ways. Which is it? Is the Apostle Paul using the term as Gill says, set apart in marriage, or in reference to righteousness/justification? If you do not mind I will agree with the Apostle Paul, against your view, “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.....”

First, I am glad you finally concur that the Old Covenant included children. Maybe we can even say circumcised children? But, I am rather disappointed that you think that none of the Old Testament saints were saved? The Old Covenant looked forward to Christ and we can be assured that the saints of the Old Covenant were saved (Heb 11, et. al.). Circumcision did not save, but to say that there is no economy of salvation under the Old Covenant is false. The Old Testaments saints entered the economy of salvation by faith. They could look back to their circumcision as a sign and seal of the eternal Covenant God had made with them. Prior to salvation they were a part of the covenant (visible/invisible church distinction).

While I fully agree with the Scripture, that 'Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved, it does not say one cannot be baptized prior to their call, thus being consistent with all of Scripture—including the Old Testament. Since there is continuity in the Covenants then this same hermeneutical value (known as Covenant theology) would hold for Acts 2:36-41, Abraham and Ishmael, etc. As Berkhof says, It is this Abrahamic covenant, set forth in Genesis 15 and 17, that underlies the whole subsequent development of God's redemptive promise, word, and action. It is in terms of the promise given to Abraham, that in him and in his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed, that God sent forth His Son in the fullness of time in order that He might redeem them that were under the law and all without distinction might receive the adoption of sons. It is in fulfillment of this promise to Abraham that there is now no longer Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond nor free, that Christ is all and in all, and that all believers are blessed with faithful Abraham. The redemptive grace of God in the highest and furthest reaches of its realization is the unfolding of the promise given to Abraham and therefore the unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant.

Well here we concur. My schedule unexpectedly changed this week so I could interact more, but that time is now over. So, now I will see you in a few weeks, unless…