Earlier today, a colleague and I–both of us credobaptists–were discussing infant baptism and 1 Corinthians 7:14, in particulary, with yours truly trying to argue the paedobaptist position. But I may have missed a few points here and there. 1 Corinthians 7:14 reads:
For the unbelieving husband is set apart for God by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is set apart for God by the husband. Otherwise your children would be corrupt, but now they are set apart for God. (HCSB, emphasis added)
Why don’t you baptize your unbelieving spouse since they are “set apart for God” by the believing partner? This is the question that baffled my colleague and I. We shouted, “Inconsistency!”
Why this question?
Well, I’ve heard you, paedobaptists, use 1 Corinthians 7:14 to justify the baptizing of infants. You say that since infants are “set apart for God” by a believing spouse, and baptism, like circumcision, its Old Testament counterpart, is the New Testament sign to signify who has been “set apart” as God’s covenant people–so you baptize your infants, correct?
But not your unbelieving spouse.
Now you know why we both shouted, “Inconsistency!”
As I said above, there were no paedobaptists around to give a more reasoned and structured position–so our shout of “inconsistency” may not have been well-founded.
But I ask, Why not the charge of inconsistency?