A Decisive Argument against Infant Baptism

Georgia Baptist John Leadley Dagg wrote A Decisive Argument Against Infant Baptism: Furnished by One of Its Own Proof-texts. I haven't found this tract, but it is included in Tracts on Important Subjects (Charleston SC: Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1854). [Use the Google Search and look for "infant baptism".]

Dagg's argument is based on I Corinthians 7:14: 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.

He shows that the unbelieving spouse and the unknowing child have the same sanctified relationship to the believer.

"The church at Corinth was a Pedobaptist church, or it was not. If it was a Pedobaptist church, the argument of Paul was invalid; because it was based on the false assumption, that the children sealed with the seal of God's covenant, dedicated to Him in the holy rite of baptism, and admitted within the pale of the church, were in like circumstances with unbelieving and unbaptized adults, who were out of the covenant, and out of the church. But Paul did not use an invalid argument: therefore this church was not Pedobaptist; and the same must be true of all the churches planted by the Apostles, since they were, doubtless, all similarly organized." -- From A Decisive Argument Against Infant Baptism by J. L. Dagg

What do you think of I Corinthians 7:14 in regard to infant baptism?

 

The passage is not addressing water baptism.
It cannot mean covenant inclusion as if we have been given the right to become OT members before being members of the New Covenant.

 

Iconoclast, I agree that 1 Corinthians 7:14 is not addressing water baptism. Paul is making a point about marriage. I think his point about marriage, rightly understood, means that the Corinthians were not baptizing their babies.

 

http://www.paedobaptism.com/replying-to-mike-bulls-critique-of-you-and-your-household-strawbridge/

 

In my opinion, 1 Corinthians 7:14 has no relevance whatsoever to infant baptism because this verse is not about salvation, and infant baptism is all about salvation. Before I write anything more, however, I desire to make it expressly clear that I have NEVER baptized an infant or a child too young to have saving faith in Christ; and that my church has NEVER baptized an infant or a child too young to have saving faith in Christ—and we have no intention of doing so in the future.

As for J. L. Dagg, who let him out of the Cuckoo cage? :oops: :) :Biggrin

 

Did you read what he wrote, other than the clip I pasted?

 

The same question might be asked of your good self. :D

 

Yes, but only by J. L. Dagg! ;)

 

Yes, I read the whole of his article and it is very well argued.
I re-cast it in my own words and posted it here:

https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/holy-infants/

 

Thanks for the link, Martin. I look forward to reading it.

 

Martin, I also put up a blog post on 1 Corinthians 7:14. I had been working on it off and on for awhile, but yours inspired me to finish mine. I think we come to pretty much the same conclusion, though I may approach it slightly differently that you did. I found your post very helpful.

Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children