9.
While the New Testament does not contain any specific texts which assert that
the infant children of believers are members of the church by virtue of their
birth yet the New Testament abounds in passages which cannot be reasonably
explained but in harmony with this doctrine.
The
first passage I would like to adduce is not actually a New Testament passage,
but a passage from Isaiah which speaks of New Testament times. Speaking of the
glory of the latter days when the wolf and the lamb will feed together, Isaiah
declares, “Behold, I create new heavens, and a new earth, and the former shall
not be remembered, nor come into mind. For as the days of a tree are the days
of my people, and my elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall
not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed
of the Lord, and their offspring with them (Isaiah 65:17, 22, 23).
What
Christ said in Matthew 19:13-15 cannot be understood without presupposing the
church membership of infants. When Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to
come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” there
are a couple of things which are very notable. First of all, when we compare
this passage with its parallels, we find that these children were, indeed,
infants (βρέφη). After all, Christ “took them in his arms.”
But
what is more remarkable are his words, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” In
other words, the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. It is the same form of
expression Christ uses in his Sermon on the Mount when he says, “Blessed are
the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven;” “Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness
sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
This precludes the objection appealed to by some that the words “of such is the
kingdom of heaven” means that the kingdom of heaven is made up of such as
resemble little children in spirit. If we must take that to be the meaning in
Matthew 19, why aren’t we forced to take that to be the meaning in the
identical expressions found in the Sermon on the Mount? We might as well say
that the kingdom of heaven doesn’t belong to those who are poor in spirit, but
only to those who resemble the poor in spirit. Or that the kingdom of God does
not belong to those who are persecuted righteousness sake, but only those who
resemble those who are persecuted for righteousness sake. Christ’s language
obviously means that the kingdom of heaven was really theirs of whom He spoke,
that it truly belongs to them, that they are the heirs of it, just as the poor
in spirit and those who are persecuted for righteousness sake.
But
what do we make of the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” as it is used in this
passage? Obviously, we have to understand as referring to visible church, i.e.,
the visible kingdom of Christ. Anywhere in the New Testament where this phrase
is used, one will find that this is the general import of the expression. If
this be the case, then we have Christ asserting in direct and pointed terms the
divine warrant of infant church membership. But even on the supposition that
the “kingdom of heaven” refers to the kingdom of glory our argument is not
affected, but rather strengthened. If the kingdom of glory belongs to the
infant children of believers, how much more would they have a right to those
privileges in the church on earth?
Few
people defend the automatic salvation of those who die in infancy with as much
vigor as do Baptists. This is ironic, it seems. They trip over themselves to
make sure infants have automatic rights to heaven, but with equal vigor deny
them the automatic right to church-membership. Affirming this about the
children of believers who die in infancy is inconsistent enough, but most
Baptists affirm that all who die in infancy go to heaven,
regardless of their parents’ spiritual state.
There
is another passage of Scripture which strongly speaks the same language. I’m
referring, of course, to Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost. When a
multitude of the hearers on that day fell under the conviction of the Holy
Spirit, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brothers, what
shall we do?” What was the answer of Christ’s inspired apostle? “Repent and be
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of
your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for
you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God
will call.” Obviously Peter was speaking of the promise of God to His covenant
people, namely, the promise in which He engages to be their God and to constitute
them as His covenant people. This is the covenant promise God made to Abraham
which He sealed by the sacrament of circumcision. Peter cites the covenant
promise which was sealed by circumcision in the same breath as his admonition
for them to be baptized. If the tying together of these two ideas in one breath
has no significance, then we search in vain for a connection in anything
Scripture links together.
One
final passage I will adduce is 1 Corinthians 7:14. – “For the unbelieving
husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy
because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is,
they are holy.”
The
big question here is: In what sense does the believing parent sanctify the
unbelieving one so that their children are holy? It can't possibly mean that
the believing spouse is always instrumental in the regeneration and
sanctification of their partner and their children. No one who intelligently
reads their Bible could understand this. Not to mention the fact that we all
frequently observe the opposite. Some have understood this to mean that the
children in these mixed marriages were illegitimate; meaning that the
Corinthian Christians were under the impression that wedlock between believers
and unbelievers was invalid. This is, of course, nonsense. No other passage of
Scripture containing the words “holy” and “unclean” gives countenance to such a
construction.
It’s
actually the words “holy” and “unclean” pitted against each other that give us
the insight into how to understand this passage. These two terms have a long
history of ecclesiastical usage in the Old Testament. Levitical law labeled
everything “clean” or “unclean.” By these two terms all of life was
spiritualized. The pious Jew was brought face to face in his daily mundane
activities with the spiritual reality that sin and the spiritual defilement
that came with it was transferable and/or communicable; while cleanness or moral
purity was not. Human society itself was divided into these two categories
based on their relation to the covenant of God, which is why the Jews were
constantly called a “holy people.” They were separated from the rest of the
world which was left by God wallowing in the filth of sin.
In
the Corinthian situation, it appears that there were many believers who were
married to unbelievers. Some were obviously married before their conversion.
Others were foolish enough to marry unbelievers after their conversion. We know
this from Paul’s later admonition against being “unequally yoked.” Paul's
intention here is, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to assure the
believer that, even though they had an unbelieving spouse, they did not have to
fear that their children were thereby excluded from the covenant of God.
This passage clearly
establishes the church-membership of infants in yet another way. It operates on
the assumption of the principle that children of whom both parents are
believers automatically belong to the Church of God. Without this assumption
the question Paul is handling would never have come up. The difficulty arises
when, assuming that the children are in God's covenant when both parents are
believers, - when we have children of whom only one parent is a believer. This
is the only circumstance in which this question would arise. A Corinthian would
say, “I see the children of my Christian brothers owned as members of the
Church. I also see the children of unbelievers rejected along with the
unbelieving parents. I get that. But, here is my concern: I believe in Christ,
yet my husband (or my wife) does not believe. What is to become of my children?
Are they to be admitted with me or are they to be cast off with my
partner?" It is hard to see why Paul would dissuade believers from
separating from their unbelieving spouse on any other supposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment