36. 1 Corinthians 7:14

This morning I have the privilege of baptizing [child] and bringing her into church membership. Just as Jesus took infants into His arms, blessed them, and said “for of such is the kingdom of God,” I take joy in doing the same in His name. Isaiah 40:11 says that God has been with [child] even in the womb, long before she was born. It says, “He will feed His flock His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those who are with young” (Isa. 40:11). What a marvelous promise! And I praise God for the many, many promises that God gives to our children, that He will take our children to Himself. In fact, in Ezekiel He speaks of our children as “children born to Me” (Ezek. 16:20; 23:37), and in one verse as “My children” (Ezek. 16:21). And He rebukes the Israelites for failing to treat their children as His property. In the same vein, Galatians 4:1 says that our children don’t belong to us. We parents are guardians and stewards of our infants, and that they are heirs of the Abrahamic promises. But if we are just stewards, that implies that our children belong to God, and God expects us to raise them to put their trust in Him and to serve Him. So there is no regeneration that takes place when I baptize a baby. Instead, it is God’s solemn pledge of ownership and it is our solemn pledge to be stewards, to draw the hearts of our children to Him.

But since Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and some others believe that baptism regenerates a person, and since they often point to 1 Corinthians 7:11 to prove it, I want you to turn there with me and I want to first explain why the passage does not prove what they want it to prove, and then secondly, I want to show how it is a repetition of God’s many promises to set apart our children to Him and to apply the sign of the covenant to our children. It’s 1 Corinthians 7:14.

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.

The Roman Catholics say, “See? The child is clearly called holy. Only regenerate people are holy.” And since the word “clean” and “unclean” are synonyms in the Gospels and in the Epistles for baptized and unbaptized, this means that baptism gives the child a holy status. Well, I can see why many would be convinced by this exegesis. There is a certain logic to it:

Premise one: Only regenerate people are holy.

Premise two: The word unclean is a synonym for unbaptized.

Premise three: It is when they move from an unclean to a clean state that they become holy.

Conclusion: It is baptism that brings about the regenerate state of a child.

If those three premises are correct, the conclusion has to be correct. It’s just simple logic. But the problem is that two of those premises are false. Let me discuss the one premise that is true: The Lutheran and Anglican premise number two states that the word unclean is a synonym for unbaptized. And it’s true. The Greek word for clean and unclean is used over and over again for baptized or unbaptized. It is a synonym. This is precisely the word that was used of John the Baptist’s baptisms. This is the word used of the twelve apostles when they baptized in John 3:25. It is used of Christian baptism in Ephesians 5:26. And there are other references to unbaptized people like Cornelius (for example) being called “unclean” and after being baptized being called clean. Baptism is a ceremonial cleansing. I agree with them on that. The meaning is clearly, “otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are holy.” My argument with them is not on the presence of infant baptism in the passage. That is crystal clear to me.

But the other two premises are false. Premise one is that only regenerate people are holy. That is absolutely false. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, this word “holy” is used for holy pots and pans, a holy nation, a holy city, the holy temple, and the Holy of Holies. It just means “set apart.” And by the way, it’s the same word that is translated “sanctified” in this verse with reference to the unbelieving spouse. Our text explicitly says that the believer makes the unbelieving spouse “holy” – exactly the same word. The moment a woman or a man gets converted and saved, his or her unbelieving spouse is sanctified (literally, “set apart to God”). It doesn’t mean they are saved, because verse 16 denies they are saved. It tells the believer not to divorce the unbelieving spouse, “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” So you can be holy or sanctified without being saved. Verse 16 is clear. The comfort of the passage is not automatic salvation. That’s missing the point. The comfort is that the whole family is instantly set apart to the working of God’s Spirit. For the first time, elect angels invade that home and protect that home. For the first time, the Holy Spirit lives in that home and is at work in its members. That’s the comfort. They are set aside. So premise one, that only regenerate people are holy, is clearly false.

And premise three, that it is when they move from an unclean state to a clean state that they become holy, is also false. John the Baptist was already regenerate within his mother’s womb before he received the cleansing sign of the covenant. Same with David’s baby that died before the eighth day. Same with Jeremiah and with Jeroboam’s son. And when it comes to adults who come into the kingdom, there are many examples of them being regenerated before baptism. Lydia was given a new heart before baptism. Malachi says that it is the fact that the parents are in the covenant that is key to the holiness of the infant within the womb. It’s the covenant that set’s that child apart as holy. He is set apart based on the parents’ faith. He is in the kingdom based on the parents’ faith. And Genesis 17 says that it’s only when parents refuse to apply the sign of the covenant to the child that the child is cut off from the covenant because he has broken the covenant. That implies that the child was in the covenant before they received the sign. And that’s why I started with Isaiah 40:11 and the other Old Testament passages that say that God claims our children in the womb, protects them, leads them, and calls them His own. That’s why I started with the statement of Jesus in Luke with regard to the babies he blessed – for of such is the kingdom of God. It’s God’s covenant that sets our children apart because He has promised to be a God to us and to our children after us.

So if the two premises are false, the conclusion is obviously false. The comfort of this passage comes from the fact that all it takes is one believing parent and the whole household is outwardly set aside to God and to His working in that family even before other members have faith. If it had not been for that holy state, our children could not be baptized or ceremonially cleansed. It is only those who are in the covenant by faith who may have their children baptized. We do not baptize the children of unbelievers. This is a sacrament of faith — in this case, the faith of the parents. So this morning let’s especially rejoice that this baptism is God’s pledge of ownership and care for [child] and it is the parents’ pledge to seek to be faithful stewards of God’s property, and to raise her to put her faith in God and to serve God with all of her heart.