Quotation of the Four Major Points

What follows is my quotation of the four major points asserted by the Declaration of Principles adopted by the 1952 Synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (explicit confessional proof is attached to each point, along with some further important statements in the original document):

On the basis of this Word of God and these confessions [the Three Forms of Unity as well as the ten minor forms]:

1. They [the Protestant Reformed Churches] repudiate the errors of the Three Points adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, 1924, which maintain:

   1. That there is a grace of God to all men, including the reprobate, manifest in the common gifts to all men.

   2. That the preaching of the gospel is gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all that externally hear the gospel.

   3. That the natural man through the influence of common grace can do good in this world.

   4. Over against this they maintain:

      1. That the grace of God is always particular, i.e., only for the elect, never for the reprobate.

      2. That the preaching of the gospel is not a gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all men, nor a conditional offer to all that are born in the historical dispensation of the covenant, that is, to all that are baptized, but an oath of God that He will infallibly lead all the elect unto salvation and eternal glory through faith.

      3. That the unregenerate man is totally incapable of doing any good, wholly depraved, and therefore can only sin.

2. They teach on the basis of the same confessions:

   1. That election, which is the unconditional and unchangeable decree of God to redeem in Christ a certain number of persons, is the sole cause and fountain of all our salvation, whence flow all the gifts of grace, including faith.

   2. That Christ died only for the elect and that the saving efficacy of the death of Christ extends to them only.

   3. That faith is not a prerequisite or condition unto salvation, but a gift of God, and a God-given instrument whereby we appropriate the salvation in Christ.

3. Seeing then that this is the clear teaching of our confession,

   1. We repudiate

      1. The teaching that the promise of the covenant is conditional and for all that are baptized.

      2. The teaching that we may presuppose that all the children that are baptized are regenerated, for we know on the basis of Scripture, as well as in the light of all history and experience, that the contrary is true.

      3. [We also repudiate] the teaching that the promise of the covenant is an objective bequest on the part of God, giving to every baptized child the right to Christ and all the blessings of salvation.

   2. And we maintain:

      1. That God surely and infallibly fulfills His promise to the elect.

      2. The sure promise of God which He realizes in us as rational and moral creatures not only makes it impossible that we should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness but also confronts us with the obligation of love, to walk in a new and holy life, and constantly to watch unto prayer.

         All those who are not thus disposed, who do not repent but walk in sin, are the objects of His just wrath and excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

         That the preaching comes to all; and that God seriously commands to faith and repentance; and that to all those who come and believe He promises life and peace.

      3. [We also maintain] that the ground of infant baptism is the command of God and the fact that according to Scripture He established His covenant in the line of continued generations.

4. Besides, the Protestant Reformed Churches believe and maintain the autonomy of the local church.

Lutheran baptism does NOT save you

A Lutheran may say, "Baptism saves you!" And to charge that not all baptised are saved, their response may be: "Baptism only saves by faith"

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" I Pet. 3:21

The Lutherans, like Romanists, are guilty of confusing the sign with the reality when considering the sacraments. If the sign is the reality, then it is no longer a sign, which by definition points away from itself to something else. In this verse, Peter makes a difference between the sign of baptism, and the reality of baptism. Washing with water is a sign of baptism because it points to the washing of regeneration and of our consciences by the blood and Spirit of Christ.

If it was the spiritual reality, it could not be called a sign. Consider John's baptism, was the washing with water their repentance and remission of sins (on the basis of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God to whom John pointed)? Or was the washing with water a sign of that, insomuch that those who repent and believe in Christ are as surely washed from their sins as water washes away the filth of the body?

If the reality of baptism is spiritual regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, then how is the reality of circumcision not the exact same?:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" Col. 2:11-13

So then the sign of NT baptism and the sign of OT circumcision are two different signs pointing in a different way to the same spiritual reality. And then if this outward circumcision in the flesh is called a sign and seal, is not the baptism with water also a sign and seal in the exact same way? A sign and seal of the righteousness which we have by faith:

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised" Rom. 4:11

If then a man has received the reality that is signified by both the sign of circumcision and of water baptism, he is regenerated, has a conscience cleansed, forgiven of all sins, and righteous by faith in Christ, how then can he fall away to damnation? So then, the apostasy of all who have received the sign of baptism attest to the fact that the sign is not the reality of what is signified by it:

"Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things." Acts 5:9-11

"Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized ... Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Acts 8:13-23

Concerning those who are regenerated by spiritual baptism:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin [the Christian sins by the old sinful nature not the new]; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." - I John 3:9.

So if those who received the outward sign of water baptism all received the reality signified by it, they could not fall away. Rather:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." - I John 2:19.

So the sign of water baptism does not save, but as Peter says, "the answer of a good conscience toward God" which is the spiritual baptism signified by the external washing with water.
Since the reality signified by water baptism is regeneration, and faith is the fruit of regeneration, spiritual baptism does not save conditioned or dependent on our faith - rather it is the source of our faith. Our faith depends on our regeneration. Only an Arminian could say that his regeneration saves him, depending on his faith.

Navigating between the false views on baptism

God specifically tells us that not all the children even of believers are elect (let alone regenerate/believing), therefore Scripture provides no warrant for presuming election, regeneration, or faith in the children of believers. And the sign of baptism may not be administered on this presumptive speculative basis.

However, the Baptist goes to the other extreme of presuming that all infants are unregenerate, and ignoring the promise of God that He elects from the children of believers. The sign of baptism may not be refused on the basis of this presumptive denial that of such [the children of believers] is the kingdom of heaven.

Rather, as in the Old Testament, the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith (the faith that is produced in us by regeneration, so that we are spiritually washed) is given on the basis of the promise of God to us and our children, since His promises are given to the children of the church no less than to the adults (since not all the adults who call themselves Israel, or believers, or church are regenerate). But God deals with His people, His church, as an organic whole. Sure there is chaff, there are tares among the wheat, but it is still addressed as a wheat-field. We do not presume the salvation of the adult professors, but we treat all the members of the church as God's people, no less the children. Always His covenant has been established and maintained in the line of continued generations, and the sign has reflected that:

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." - Isaiah 59:21.

According to the new covenant (the old fulfilled in Christ), the sign must change to suit the differences in the New Testament age - because if new wine is placed in old wineskins, they will be ruined. Rather it is placed in new wineskins. So that in everything the new covenant is BETTER (the keyword of Hebrews). The sign of water baptism is better than circumcision, because it puts no difference between Jew or Gentile (seeing that this new age is characterised by the salvation of the ends of earth, every tongue, tribe, and nation). It is better because it is not bloody (seeing that Christ by His blood has put an end to the shedding of blood for sins). It is better because it can be applied alike to both male and female, old and young.

The new covenant would not be better if suddenly children were to be excluded. If there had been some strange new doctrine, that the children of believers were now to be excluded from the sign of the covenant, there would certainly be something in the New Testament to explain such an outrageous change. Rather, the New Testament is filled with confirmation that God's promise of salvation is still to elect believers and their children, but explained more fully and explicitly (especially in Romans 9), is that this promise was never to all the children without exception, but that God's purposes with election and reprobation run through the children of believers.

Review: John MacArthur's Five Arguments Against Infant Baptism

Most baptist arguments are both commonly used, and very poor. They rely on people's ignorance of the Reformed position. John MacArthur's arguments here are representative, and taken from this article: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-369/is-infant-baptism-biblical#.Tp7nQpsUq30

I've tried to be succinct in my criticism, while providing effective refutations of these very common baptist arguments. John MacArthur's points are listed briefly as headings, and my answers are below. Thanks to a Lutheran (with whom I have strong disagreement), Charles Wiese for directing me to this article. Some of his arguments are also repeated here.

A Short Note on the Anabaptists

I have pointed out where possible the connection with the philosophies and the heritage of the Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation. This was a group which became infamous for being violent revolutionaries, hyper-spirituality, and even trying to set up a millenial kingdom of God on earth. An extreme example would be the city of Muenster which was taken in an Anabaptist rebellion. Jan Mattys, a self-styled prophet, called it “New Jerusalem.” His successor, John of Leiden, became notorious for polygamy and abuse of communism, before the city was captured and the rebels tortured and executed gruesomely. They were sometimes called the Radical Reformation, but not all the Anabaptists were as radical as this. Nevertheless, they formed a third separate group in distinction from the Reformers and the Romanists at the Reformation. They rejected Rome, and yet also claimed that the Reformers didn't go far enough. Today, this threefold distinction is still clearly seen, and readers must consider with which group they must be identified, to be in communion with the true church of the past.

Their commonly held views included refusing to submit to civil government in favour of setting up an alternative theocracy via rebellion (or alternatively, strict pacifism), refusing to take oaths, communion of goods, denial of personal property, direct revelations via prophecy, a future millenial kingdom, and of course, re-baptising converts to their religion. They did this because they judged the baptism of other churches as false and worthless. For these reasons, they were greatly persecuted as a dangerous, violent, and divisive sect. Many Baptists today deny their connection with these more radical groups, but really it is the theological heritage of their position, and their philosophy is closer, especially among Pentecostals (who are almost without exception Baptists), than they would like to admit.

Introduction: Infant Baptism Was Introduced in the Fourth Century

This was the same claim made by the Anabaptists. It's wrong. Today, many baptist groups are still trying to rewrite history to support their position, even trying to paint a rosier picture of the Anabaptist movement. Actually the historical defence is so painfully absent for the Anabaptist position that many resorted to a theology of restorationism. In contrast to successionism (the idea that there were always those who denied infant baptism), this view is that the gates of hell did actually prevail against the church for many years until God restored the church through the super-spiritual Anabaptists. This is much like the Mormon view of church history invented by Joseph Smith who claimed to be an apostle. MacArthur later concedes further to say that infant baptism "started appearing in the second and third century." While this view of church history could be effectively shown as totally false, the authority is Holy Scripture, not differing views of history.

1. Infant Baptism Is Not in Scripture

The Lord's Supper being administered to women is not in Scripture either, yet we all practice this. This shows that it is indeed legitimate to study scriptural principles by which it can be deduced. The baptists cannot fault us for doing this to prove infant baptism. We do not need to give baptists one single verse that proves it. This is a wrong view of Scripture and logic. This kind of argument, which downplays the use of deduction by “good and necessary consequence,” was the same philosophy of the Anabaptists. The baptist confession that is closest to the Reformed faith, is the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (LBCF) which is mostly the same as the Westminster Confession (WCF) of the Presbyterians. In WCF 1:6, the authority of that which “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” is asserted. This statement is absent from the LBCF!

a. The Reformers Didn't Jettison Infant Baptism out of Fear of Persecution

Baptists claim the Reformers didn't go far enough because they were afraid of Rome. Unless they can answer the following question, they need to drop this argument. Why would they compromise on this issue, when justification by faith alone was already more than enough to have them burnt?

b. Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, and Luke 18:16 Only Mean That God Has a Special Care for Children.

Luke says specifically that infants were carried by their parents, and that Christ blessed them. If Christ blesses someone, and all authority on heaven and earth belongs to him, surely they cannot be cursed, and are therefore saved. He also told his disciples, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” If these infants brought to Christ are actually citizens of the kingdom of heaven, how can we refuse them baptism? One cannot be a citizen of this spiritual kingdom and not be a member of the church. Therefore citizenship in the kingdom, just as much as membership in the church, is symbolised in baptism.

What does "a special care for children" even mean? If anything, Baptist theology teaches that God has a special care for adults. Besides, if all children were equally precious to God, how does he explain the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women, and children, the slaughter of the Amalekites, or the dashing of Babylon's little ones against the rocks in Psalm 137?

c. All members of the households that were baptised all believed first.

Yet before Paul even met the Philippian jailor's household, he told him, "Believe and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Surely this meant that if he believed, his household would also be saved? We know it did not necessarily mean that there will be no reprobates in his house, as Rom. 9:6-8 explains. Scripture simply doesn't say that they all believed first in any of the examples of household baptisms. Nor does it ever say there were no infants. This is unlikely notion is forced on into the text by baptists. Admittedly it doesn't say explicitly that there were, which is why we would prefer to use stronger arguments. Even so, the only examples of specific baptisms in which households were not also baptised, are Christ, the eunuch who was a eunuch, and Paul who was single.

2. Infant Baptism Is Not New Testament Baptism.

This would mean that all Reformed and Presbyterian churches are full of people who have never been baptised. This position is not simply baptist, it is Anabaptist, because it means we all need to be re-baptised.

a. Baptise Means Immerse.

What about I Cor. 10:1-2? Who was immersed at the Red Sea, the children of Israel (which definitely included infants!), or wicked Pharoah and his armies? What would “immersed unto Moses” even mean? Many more examples could be given which demonstrate a use of “baptise” which cannot mean “immerse.” Consider also why the translators went to the trouble of inventing a new English word “baptise,” if using the word immerse would have been sufficient. We hold that to baptise something indicates a change being made to something by means of contact with something else. Most generally the idea of washing seems to be intended, as being a very basic change from dirty to clean by use of water. The word has also been used to describe dyeing clothes a different colour, a person becoming drunk with wine, or in the example above, the children of Israel all taught under the ministry of Moses.

b. Baptism Is a Picture of Union With Christ in His Death, Burial and Resurrection.

How does submerging symbolise Christ's death of being nailed to the cross? How does full immersion symbolise Christ's burial in a tomb above ground by a stone rolled in front of the cave? How does emersion (lifted out of the water) symbolise Christ's resurrection? The picture ought fit the reality. And if baptism means immersion, how can emersion be part of the symbolism and their practice? And even if it was meant to symbolise modern burial practices, why use water instead of soil, dirt, and earth? In the baptist picture, there's no logical basis for using water. Their error comes from thinking that Romans 6 is speaking about the sacrament. It's not. Even so, it doesn't speak about immersion. It's speaking about the further implications of the reality of being united to Christ which it calls baptism in Christ, and describes as being “planted.” If it was speaking about the mode of the sacrament, then planting would be appropriate picture.

Baptism is union with Christ; spiritual baptism, not water baptism. There is no water in Romans 6. Water baptism pictures spiritual baptism; the washing of regeneration which saves us (I Peter 3:20-21; Titus 3:5). By this we are united to Christ, and therefore united also in His life, suffering, death, burial, resurrection, and even with His session at the right hand of God in heaven (Eph. 2:6). Since it symbolises spiritual washing from sin, water used for washing is most appropriate. And since Scripture speaks of this reality never as immersion, but as being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, and having the Holy Spirit poured on us, then sprinkling or pouring are the most appropriate methods.

c. Infants Can't Have Faith.

Instead of considering Scripture, the baptists resort to rationalism, scoffing at the very idea of infants having faith. Yet Scripture even speaks of infants not only having faith, but exercising it! Consider John the Baptist who leaps for joy in the presence of Christ (Luke 1:15, 41, 44), Jeremiah who was sanctified before birth (Jer. 1:5), David who was made to hope when a suckling (Psalm 22:9), or even Christ. These are not unique examples; God is indeed praised by babes and sucklings (Psalm 8:2), and Christ refers to this in order to rebuke the Pharisees for complaining at the praise of young children (Matt. 21:16).

3. Infant Baptism Is Not a Replacement for Circumcision.

In contrast, Colossians 2:11-12 identifies baptism with circumcision.

a. Circumcision Was Just a Sign of Ethnic Identity.

Romans 4:11 calls circumcision a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. Isn't this also what the sign of baptism is? Yet, John MacArthur claims that circumcision has nothing to do with symbolising salvation. He is a dispensationalist who believes (like many Anabaptist did), in a future millenial kingdom, specifically for the ethnic Jews. If it does mean ethnic identity in addition, this means the circumcised are to be counted as the children of Abraham. In fact, one cannot be counted as a child of Abraham without the sign of the covenant. Remember that this is an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7-11). We see in the New Testament that Abraham is called the father of the faithful (Rom. 4:11-14). Gentile Christians are called true Jews (Rom. 2:27-28), and children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7).

This is explained to mean that through faith, not through the law, we are the recipients of all the promises and blessings of God in Christ, Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:8-29). The gospel of the justification of the heathen was preached to Abraham when he was told that all nations would be blessed through him. It is through faith in the promise that we receive the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed, because the covenant of God is everlasting and unconditional, and therefore cannot be disannulled. This is because the covenant is with Christ, the promised seed of Abraham, who is also the only Mediator of the covenant, and we, with Abraham and all who believe, are in Him. Notice also, that this means we are the proper recipients of the inheritance promised to Abraham, described to him as the land of Canaan to given as an “everlasting possession.” Romans 4:13 explains that this meant that Abraham, with us, would be heir of the world. Since baptism signifies then that we are Christians through faith, that is, the true children of Abraham, it has exactly the same meaning and function as circumcision did. And if circumcision could legitimately be applied to children (indeed it had to be!), then baptism can be too. In fact, when one considers that it is the sign of the covenant with us and our children, it must be!

b. People Believe Infant Baptism Saves Them

Many have wrong superstitions about the Lord's Supper too. The consistent Reformed view is that just like the preaching, the sacraments are only of benefit to the elect through faith.

c. Presumptive Regeneration and the Federal Vision Are Wrong.

MacArthur is right to condemn this false doctrines. Nevertheless, God does promise to save our children, not head-for-head, but according to the election of grace (Rom. 9:6-8). Therefore, just as Scripture teaches, we believe in the promised salvation of our children (and therefore promised regeneration, not presumed), even though we also believe and bear in mind that there may be reprobate children of the flesh too. And we believe this not because we have baptised our children, but we baptise them because of this covenant promise of God. The promise of salvation is given just as much to adult believers as to their children (Acts 2:39), though we know that there may be reprobates among the children of the flesh, just as much as there may be hypocrites among the adults. The promise is to the elect, whom God draws unto Himself.

Yet, we cannot differentiate between the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:29). In time the reprobate may manifest themselves by their wickedness, and be put under discipline and eventually excommunicated, yet others remain hidden hypocrites, and still others who are elect may be excommunicated and later brought to repentance (I Cor. 5:1-8; II Cor. 2:6-8). This doesn't make us lazy in bringing up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4), but rather gives us confidence that it's not all in vain!

4. Infant Baptism Destroys the Nature of the Church.

Another old Anabaptist belief was the idea of a pure church with only regenerate membership. This also shows that they really exclude in every sense their children from the church and kingdom of Christ, since they deny that an infant can be regenerate. But Christ said, "of such is the kingdom of God," and, "Forbid them not to come unto me" (Mark 10:14). He was not simply referring to the infants who were not even able to come of themselves, but to the parents who had to carry the babes in their arms! This false belief about the church also means that Reformed and Presbyterian churches are not true churches at all.

Their inconsistency is that baptised adults can be unregenerate, hypocrites, and apostatise, just as much as those who were baptised as infants. Their idea of the reality of a regenerate church is never a reality. In a great house, there are vessels present for different purposes; some noble, others ignoble (II Tim. 2:18-20). There are always tares among the wheat. While the Reformed recognise that God has a purpose with hidden tares in the church, the baptists try to root out the tares and in doing so root out the wheat (Matt. 13:29, 38). The Reformed recognise that the goal of church discipline is not to rigorously try to root out all the reprobate, but to seek the holiness of each member. The baptist will point out that Christ said that “the field is the world,” as if this meant that the tares in the world are not also present in the church. Since the wheat is also in the world, we cannot imagine that Christ meant that there are no tares in the church. This would completely overturn his presentation of the tares being mixed among the wheat, and the difficulty in discerning the difference between the two until harvest time. The church most certainly is in the world (but not of the world; John 17:11, 14-16), and therefore the tares sown in the world will be found in the church also. This is the reality in baptist churches too. If Christ commands the very angels not to try to uproot the tares before the final judgment, in case they uproot the wheat, how much more should the baptists heed this command?

Historically the Anabaptists have been guilty of world-flight, thinking that the key to holiness lies in a physical, even geographical separation of the church from the world. Even if it were possible to flee the reprobate entirely, we still bring the wicked world with us in our old sinful nature. Instead God has a purpose with close contact of the elect and reprobate, even placing reprobate children, like Esau, in covenant homes, amidst elect children. God wills for them to be hardened in the church, and for the elect to be tested by them for their sanctification. We could deduce many more reasons also.

5. Infant Baptism Is Not Consistent With Reformed Soteriology

This claim is very short-sighted. Doesn't the sprinkling of water on a helpless baby who does nothing far better illustrate that God is the one alone who saves us by the sprinkling of the blood and Spirit of Christ, entirely of grace, according to His unconditional election, before we have done any works whatsoever? Since the Reformed believe in infant salvation, it would be totally inappropriate if we did not baptise infants. The baptist complains that not all the babies are saved. Yet Isaac was commanded to circumcise reprobate Esau even though he would not be saved, as a sign of God's everlasting covenant with us and our elect children. Not all baptised adults are saved either. Does this nullify the symbolism of baptism, and its benefit to the elect through faith? And how can the claim be made that God has a special care for children when the claim is also made that they are not regenerate, not members of the church, and cannot have faith!

While the baptism of infants illustrates the sovereignty of God in salvation, as well as the covenant of God maintained from generation to generation, the baptist practice does not correctly symbolise the work of regeneration, or God's sovereignty in it, and certainly doesn't show anything about God's covenant with us and our children. The focus in immersion is entirely on the person going under and coming up, doing all the action, while the water does nothing. It is actually re-baptism that nullifies what baptism is supposed to signify. I grant that from their faulty perspective, this is not what they think they are doing, but if infant baptism is valid (as we have seen), then they are actually re-baptising.

The Children of Believers are Holy

"Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy [I Cor. 7:14], not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." - Canons (I) A17.

Inquirer: "Is this passage saying that children of the elect are also automatically elect or just that Godly parents will raise their children in such a way as that they also believe?"

Dear Inquirer,

In answer to your question, the verse we are considering is I Cor. 7:14. You asked whether this speaks of the children of the elect being "automatically elect" or just that godly parents raise their children so that they believe. What is the correct interpretation here?

I'll quote the verse:

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." - 1Co 7:14.

The immediate context is where Paul is answering some of the questions posed to him by a young predominantly Gentile church in Corinth, which was notorious even among the heathen for its rampant and particularly debauched and depraved fornication (they even coined the term, "to Corinthianize," meaning to fornicate). The situation was that some believers in the Corinthian church had been converted from heathendom, while their spouses had not been converted and remained unbelieving.

They had received the essential instruction not to have fellowship with unbelievers because they would be corrupted by such ungodly fellowship (which Paul refers to in I Cor. 5:9, and reiterates throughout that same chapter concerning their failure to discipline and excommunicate a man who was fornicating with his step-mother, and which he also reiterates in I Cor. 10:20; 15:33, and in the second letter to them; II Cor. 6:14-18). They already knew of his warnings not to have fellowship with unbelievers, and so it was natural for them, in godly concern, to ask him concerning their marriages with unbelievers, since ordinarily a marriage involves the greatest measure of fellowship (obviously the implication first of all, was that they should only marry in Lord--as Paul clarifies in verse 39--but here Paul considers the case of those who have been converted while their spouse has not been).

Their concern is that in this close fellowship of marriage, that they will be corrupted by their spouse, and they wonder if it is the will of God for them to divorce their unbelieving spouse. This was especially urgent because it was not a case that the Lord Jesus specifically addressed in his earthly ministry (or at least it is not recorded for us in the Gospels). Firstly, Paul reiterates Christ's command concerning divorce ("unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord" - v. 10), even though He did not specifically refer to this situation. This is helpful, because it teaches us to simply obey Christ, no matter how much we imagine our own situation to be a "special case". They must not leave their spouse, and if they do (for whatever reason, whether sinfully, or on account of fornication which is the only lawful ground for divorce), they must nevertheless remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouse (v. 10, 11). Remarriage is forbidden because marriage is an unbreakable life-long bond. Even after divorce (whether lawful or not), it is only if the spouse dies that they are free to marry again--otherwise they are committing adultery, according to what Christ has clearly taught as recorded in the Gospels.

Secondly, he treats their specific situation. He teaches them not to divorce their unbelieving spouses (v.12, 13). And he gives to them comfort to assay their fears in this situation based upon authoritative apostolic doctrine, which he proves based upon what they know about their children (v.14). This is what we need to examine in more detail.

Thirdly, he explains to them what their calling is if the unbelieving spouse is not content to dwell with them, but deserts them (v. 15). In this case, they may allow their spouse to leave. They are not required to go after them according to the requirements of their marriage, e.g., the responsibility to dwell with their spouse and give them "due benevolence" (v. 3, 5; Gen. 2:24; I Pet. 3:7; etc). According to Paul's apostolic authority, the deserted believer "is not under bondage in such cases". He does not say that the deserted believer "is not bound" any longer to their spouse, but rather that they are not "under bondage" (these are completely different words and concepts in the Greek). Bondage refers to slavery, not the unbreakable life-long union of marriage. It refers to the terrible hardship that they would have if they had to go after such an ungodly spouse. Instead, "God hath called [them] to peace". He does not even suggest in any sense that the marriage bond is broken, but merely that they may in a good peaceful conscience allow the unbeliever to depart. And he certainly does not suggest anything either about remarriage. The command of the Lord that he just mentioned is very plain here: "if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband". There cannot be remarriage while the spouse is still living--not only because marriage is a life-long bond, but also because this would destroy any possibility of reconciliation. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:14-16), and allows it only on the ground of fornication--but even in this remarriage is absolutely forbidden and clearly repeatedly declared to be adultery (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2, 3).

Finally, he gives them hope concerning their unbelieving spouse, that they don't know whether or not God may yet save them, and even use their witness in bringing their spouse to conversion (v. 16; I Pet. 3:1, 2).

But what exactly is the comfort for those who must dwell with unbelievers who are enemies of God and His Christ? Will believers not be utterly corrupted and destroyed by such a close relationship with such profane and ungodly people? Paul answers no, "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband". This doesn't mean that they are saved, because they are nevertheless "unbelieving," and this is also why the term "sanctified" is not qualified as "sanctified in Christ", as Paul addresses the Corinthian church at the beginning of the letter (I Cor. 1:2). In fact, this verse is the only place in the entire New Testament that this particular form of the Greek word translated here "sanctified" is used: ηγιασται. From the context, and considering that the husband or wife are nevertheless "unbelieving" we must understand it not to refer them being personally holy by union with Jesus Christ as if they have received the Holy Spirit and are also cleansed by His blood. Rather it can only refer to them being set apart in such a way that the believing spouse is not corrupted by their wickedness in the marriage, this is the sense in which they are "sanctified", on account of, and for the sake of, the believing spouse. Therefore the believer need not be concerned, because God sanctifies their unbelieving spouse, for their sakes to keep them from their uncleanness (even though He does not save them). Needless to say, every other instance of the forms of the Greek word upon which this word is based, always refers to true spiritual holiness, in devotion to God in Christ, washed in His blood and filled by His Spirit. Only because here it qualifies them as "unbelieving" (and later adds the question "what knowest thou, o wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?") can we conclude (and we must conclude), that it does not refer to this true holiness with respect to God.

But in order that this doctrine may be of great comfort to those in such situations, Paul grounds it and proves it to them based upon something even more incontrovertible and obvious: "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

Their children are holy. This is a word that is frequently used in the New Testament, and when used in reference to people, it always only refers to them being actually saved, washed in Christ's blood and Spirit. It is a true inner holiness, according to which the heart (and thereby the whole person) is consecrated unto God in loving fellowship with Him and in truly willing obedience. Along with this, it is also a true spiritual separation from the world and the devil, and every corruption. God makes His people holy, and therefore calls us "saints", which means "holy [ones]". In the same sense therefore that all God's graciously elect people are holy, the children referred to in this verse are "holy". It is very important that we first understand exactly and are entirely convinced about what this holiness is, before I answer your specific questions. In this verse, he is not merely saying "your children are elect," or "your children will be saved," or "your children belong to Christ." He is saying that they are being saved right now, they are "holy", they have been born again (are regenerate) since they have the Holy Spirit without which they cannot be holy, they are united with Christ the Holy One, they are now in holy fellowship with the Holy God, they are no longer unclean, but seperate from the world, they have been effectually called out of darkness into this holy light, and are necessarily members of Christ's holy church and His holy covenant, along with all His saints (i.e., His "holy ones").

But I hear your objection, and where your question is coming from. What about those children of believers who grow up and manifest themselves to be wicked unbelievers, hypocrites, and thoroughly reprobate, self-condemned, and are in the end damned to hell, to which dreadful end they were appointed? We need to be careful not to misunderstand Paul's language here. When he addresses the Corinthian church at the beginning of the letter, as "sanctified in Christ Jesus" and "saints," he was not denying there were no doubt hypocrites in their congregation. In fact he says as much in I Cor. 11:17-19, and urges them to purge out the old leaven of wicked unconverted members in chapter 5. Likewise when he refers to the children as "holy," he is not saying that every single child is necessarily holy. It is understood that there will no doubt be some exceptions, some reprobates among the children of God--just as there are tares in a wheat field. But we still call it a wheat field, and say that it is a field of wheat, and that we are growing wheat in that field, and this is the purpose of the field. If asked specifically, we certainly admit that there may be some tares in there among the wheat, but we view the field according to the wheat, not according to the tares, and we treat the field according to the wheat, not according to the possible presence of tares. And the tares and the wheat must grow up together and first bear fruit before any can be uprooted. This is the principle taught in the parable of the wheat field as Christ is explaining the kingdom of God. Since Christ is teaching the parable in order to explain the kingdom of God, He is speaking primarily about the church, and it is therefore entirely proper that the same principle applies to children in the church. This priniciple is also spoken of in II Tim. 2:19-21, explaining to a young pastor how it can be that those who seem to have been faithful members of the church can so suddenly manifest themselves to be rotten heretics and wolves seeking to destroy the church.

And this is not simply inference (though that would be enough, even if slightly less clear immediately), rather it is the clear and specific teaching of Scripture especially in Romans 9. Here the apostle Paul meets this very question head on, and explains it most fully. After explaining the glorious Gospel truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without works, and salvation for totally depraved sinners entirely by the sovereign grace of God by which He works all things for the good of His beloved elect (Rom. 8:28ff), Paul turns to answer some objections. What about the Jews? If what you're saying is true, that salvation is by grace alone and Christ has fully accomplished our redemption by Himself in His atoning substitutionary death on the cross paying for all our sins, how is it that so many Jews who were first of all promised this salvation in father Abraham, do not believe in Christ, and remain unconverted? He answers that his heart is heavy for them, and that he could even wish if it were possible, that he could be cut off from Christ (that is damned eternally), for their sakes, that they might be received in Christ. But he knows this is impossible. And he begins his answer, not by saying that God's promise has failed, or that salvation does not rely solely upon God's promise, but upon their free will or other works, or by denying the Old Testament which records the promises made to them, or by saying that the promises made to the Jews were merely earthly and carnal rather than spiritual; but rather, he asserts the Old Testament and all the things given to them, including the promises, and proclaims that it is not that God's word to them has failed.

This leads us to be all the more flabbergasted! How so, Paul? Can't you see the direct contradiction here?! But he answers:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." - Rom 9:6-8.

And he goes on to give concrete examples, of Isaac, and especially of Jacob and Esau (v. 9-13). According to God's sovereign election, He does maintain His covenant with us and our children, and truly saves our children, but he does not save every single one, because there are those who are merely children of the flesh, who are merely "of Israel", and not truly "Israel". Not every single child of believing parents is actually in the everlasting unconditional covenant of grace which was first declared in Paradise (Gen. 3:15), and revealed again to Noah (Gen. 9:8-9), and also to Abraham (Gen. 17:7), and which God has confirmed by Jesus Christ. Abraham is especially important, because he is considered the father of the Jewish people, and the New Testament explains that he is the father of the faithful, and it was especially to him, that God revealed His promise to save the Gentiles in Christ. The New Testament is very clear about this (Gal. 3:6-9). So the promises made to Abraham are exactly the promises made to every one who believes in Jesus Christ who is united to Him by true faith, that living spiritual bond worked in us by the Spirit of God. And God promises, "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." - Gen. 17:7.

So, as it was with the children of true believers in the Old Testament, so it is in the New Testament. God's covenant is with us and our seed "in their generations for an everlasting covenant." And it consists in this, "to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee". He is our God, and the God of our children in their generations. As Paul also teaches in Rom. 11:16, "For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches." This is why Abraham was required to administer the sign of circumcision, and why Moses was nearly killed by God for not giving the sign of the covenant to his child. And this is why the children of believers are baptised, not because we believe that God saves every single child, but because we believe in His covenant of grace with us and our children according to election.

And this is why it was so obvious to the Corinthians that their children were not unclean, but holy--because baptism is a sign and seal of our cleansing from sin by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ. The whole idea of baptism is seen in that it involves water, and therefore it symbolises washing, not physical washing, but spiritual (I Pet. 3:21). Not that their children were made holy by the outward sign of baptism (which the reprobate and hypocrites also receive, yet only to their condemnation), but rather, they were baptised because they were already holy. They must receive the sign which corresponds to the reality which they have already received. Our children are not made holy by receiving baptism; they receive baptism because they are holy, as this verse (I Cor. 7:14) tells us most plainly and clearly. They do not become members of Christ's church and covenant by baptism, rather, they receive baptism because they are already members. That there may be reprobate among them according to the purpose of God makes no difference, in as much as it makes no difference that there may be hypocrites among adult who profess faith. Esau had to be circumcised, even though his parents were told he was reprobate, and even the apostles themselves occasionally baptised hypocrites, such as Simon Magus. Again, we treat the wheat field according to the wheat, not according to the possible presence of tares. In that the Corinthians knew that their children were baptised according to God's gracious covenant and were holy not by nature (since we are all born by nature totally depraved and dead in trespasses and sins, cf. Eph. 2:1-5; Rom. 3:10-18; 8:7-8), but by virtue of His everlasting unconditional covenant with us and our children in Christ; they knew that their children were not unclean but holy, and therefore their spouse was certainly sanctified to them in the sense that they would not be corrupted by this close fellowship with an unbeliever, in as much as their children were not polluted either.

The other alternative interpretation which you offer for this text is quite impossible. A totally depraved sinner cannot be brought to faith in Christ simply by the faithful nurture and instruction of parents. Regeneration is a sovereign work of God's grace (John 3:3-8). God uses such faithful nurture and instruction of parents for the good of His children (and casts away children in the way of the unfaithfulness of parents; Hos. 4:6), but such instruction cannot be of any value to one who is unregenerate. In fact, that God promises to use the faithful instruction of parents for the good of His children is further proof to us that in general, our children are regenerate from infancy (apart from the possible exception of those who are perhaps regenerated much later in life, but even then there is no proof that they were not regenerate at all earlier, and of course in particular the exception of those reprobate who remain unregenerate). If you think it is impossible that a child can be regenerate from infancy, then consider that how early an age David had faith (which is the infallible fruit of regeneration): "thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." - Psa 22:9. And even more strongly, consider John the Baptist who leaped for joy in his mother's womb when she was in the presence of Christ (Luke 1:41), of whom it says "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15). Therefore we need not worry if our feeble minds can't comprehend the mysterious and effectual work of God's grace in a baby who is still in her mother's womb, since God's ways are infinitely higher than our ways, and He has given us clear examples in His word of this gracious work.

And so it is when we understand God's everlasting covenant of grace, and therefore the real holiness of our children (with the exception of some reprobate children), we understand why the Canons of Dordt say that godly parents have no reason to doubt the salvation of their children who die in infancy. Indeed we ought not to doubt their salvation, as much as we ought not to doubt the salvation of any member of the church, and perhaps even more so, since such infants have given us no reason to doubt their salvation, whereas we can more easily see the sins of our fellow church members (though even then, and even when they are under discipline, we ought to give them the judgment of charity). And further, the Bible gives no example of any child of a believer who died in infancy who was reprobate, but the pattern with reprobate children in the Bible is always that God allows them to grow up and manifest their wickedness and develop in it (e.g., Cain, or Esau). So, we perhaps have even more confidence in the salvation of the children of godly parents whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy, than the many adult members in the church who perhaps boldly and loudly profess their faith. But we ought not to doubt the salvation of any member.

In Christ,

Sam.

"The Generation of the Upright Shall Be Blessed"

"Praise ye the LORD. Blessed is the man that feareth the LORD, that delighteth greatly in His commandments. His seed shall be mighty upon the earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed." - Psalm 112:1-2.

How wrong is Baptist theology? :|

I'm not sure I could put it in a nutshell for you, but let me try an illustration... Do you know exactly what the covenant is?

Even though the covenant of God is a theme which runs through all of Scripture, Baptist theology seriously misunderstands it. If I used the phrase "the church in the Old Testament", would you know what I mean, or consider it an incorrect term?

It is true that the Bible speaks of "covenants", but it also speaks of the covenant of God, which He calls "my covenant" and "the everlasting covenant". It consists most fundamentally in this: "I will be your God, and you will be my people." The church in its strictest sense is the people of God, that is, those and only those included in this covenant of God, who truly believe in the promised Messiah who came 2000 years ago. But of course, there is also the visible church in the world, and we all know that in any wheat field there are weeds which do not belong.

But the people of God existed in the world before Christ came too. And this is why Stephen calls the children of Israel (Acts 7), "the church in the wilderness". Because there is only one everlasting covenant of God, and only one promised Messiah (Greek: Christ) by which it is established, there can only be one people of God from the beginning of history to the end of the world. This is why for example, Paul speaks about a true Jew being one who is one inwardly, not outwardly (Rom. 2:28-29), and that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham (Gal. 3), and why he speaks of the Gentiles being made fellow-citizens who were once strangers (Eph. 2:11-3:6). And since there can only be one God, one Christ, one covenant, and one people of God, then all the promises of the covenant are one in Christ, as it also says in II Cor. 1:20, and likewise in Gal. 3 where it explains that the promises given to Abraham and his seed were to Christ, and all who are united to Him by a true faith (which we know is worked in us by Holy Spirit according the grace of God alone).

But what did the promise of God to Abraham consist of? Not a merely earthly land of Canaan (that was nothing but a picture), but that he and his descendents in their generations would inherit the world (Gen. 17:7; Rom. 4:13), and this is why, for example Eph. 1 and Col. 1 and many other places also speak about the inheritance of the saints. The point is, that everywhere in Scripture that we see a promise of God, we know that it is for those who are one in Christ. And the promise quoted in the Psalm above, just like the promise given to Abraham, is that the children of believers will be blessed, although obviously not every single one of the children (since there are children of the promise and children of the flesh as Romans 9 explains, and the example of Jacob and Esau illustrates - and I recommend you read and study Romans 9 very carefully because it is THE key chapter on this subject, and for various reasons, probably the most avoided chapter in the Bible today).

Since our children have always been included in the church and the people of God throughout all history (and this was signified by the sign of the covenant, circumcision given to the male children - which Rom. 4 says was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, even though many who were outwardly circumcised were not truly inwardly circumcised), and since there is nothing in the New Testament which would even hint that this has been changed (except that the sign of the covenant has been changed to baptism, for various important reasons because Christ has now come, which is administered to all those who are part of the church, whether they join from outside or are born inside), but rather, many re-iterations of it, such as the particular mention of children by Peter in Acts 2:39 and almost all baptisms recorded in the New Testament were entire households being baptised (except for, obviously Paul who was single, and the Ethiopian eunuch, who was in fact, a eunuch).

I could go on, but the issue that Reformed theology has against Baptist theology is that it Baptists think that a credible profession of faith is a necessary condition for baptism. They point to examples of converts in the book of Acts - but these are converts. Of course it is true for converts to the faith from outside the church, like Gentiles from heathendom, just as much as it was a requirement for them to be circumcised in the Old Testament too. But as regards children born in the church and the people of God, they cannot prove that this is a prerequisite, and it certainly was not in the Old Testament - rather Abraham (and by extension, all believers) was commanded to give the sign of the covenant to his household, because God saves His people in the line of generations. Because He ordinarily saves families as families, not as individuals. You can perhaps see this even in your own family. It is not that children brought up in a Christian home are "more likely to believe", because after all, we are all born equally depraved and at enmity with God, such that unless God changes our hearts by His grace we only reject Him with scorn.

Baptists will often say, "Give me one example of an infant being baptised in the New Testament!" But this is a backwards approach to Scripture. It has already been proven that the children of believers are included in the covenant of God, and the people of God (the church), and therefore must receive the sign of the covenant. The burden of proof is on the Baptist to show from the New Testament where it is taught that children are no longer included in the church of God, and ought not receive the sign of the covenant.

Of course, there is at least one undeniable example of infants being baptised recorded in the New Testament, I Cor. 10:1-2. All the children of Israel were "baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea". And who would dare claim that there were no infants present among the children of Israel when they passed through the Red Sea? And the point of the verse is this: many of those who were baptised were not saved, but became idolaters and were destroyed - therefore take heed lest you fall and flee idolatry (for there are always wicked weeds in the wheat field of God, as I said earlier). Trust in Christ alone, not in baptism or any other thing, and in Christ alone you have full confidence that you are righteous in the sight of God, and will be preserved to the end, and conformed to the image of Christ to the glory of God.

Sam W.

P.S. I should say that since the essence of the covenant is "I will be your God, and you will be my people", it is most fundamentally a loving relationship of fellowship and a bond of friendship with God. Marriage is also described as a covenant, and although we talk about "marriage vows", the vows themselves are not the marriage, the marriage is a bond of fellowship and love, and the joyous relationship within that bond. It is the same idea with the covenant of God, and that is why marriage is called the mystery of Christ and the church (Eph. 5).

And I should also refer you to a comprehensive supply of resources on the subject, because although it is not complicated, when coming from a Baptist background, with Baptist thinking, it can seem difficult to figure out. http://www.cprf.co.uk/covenantbaptismresources.htm