Baptism: Questions and Answers Pt 2

In this session, we continue our April study on the doctrine of baptism by addressing an important and often misunderstood passage: 1 Corinthians 7:14. Picking up from last week’s Q&A, we explore whether this verse supports the practice of infant baptism, particularly in connection with so-called "household baptisms" mentioned in Acts. While some argue that this passage implies covenantal inclusion of children and therefore justifies baptizing infants, we take a closer look at the context and meaning of the word “holy” used in the text. Rather than indicating salvation or covenant membership, “holy” here refers to relational or positional sanctification within a family structure where one spouse is a believer. It does not teach that children born to a believing parent are automatically members of the covenant or should be baptized.

We also explore the broader theological implications of baptism in relation to the old and new covenants. By comparing Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant with Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, we see a clear distinction between physical descent and spiritual rebirth. In the old covenant, circumcision was administered indiscriminately to all male descendants and even to those in the household, regardless of faith. In contrast, the new covenant emphasizes inward transformation—knowing the Lord personally and having His law written on the heart. Baptism, as the sign of this new covenant, follows personal faith and regeneration, not family association. Thus, withholding baptism from infants is not a rejection of children, but a commitment to uphold the biblical pattern that baptism is for believers who have been born again through faith in Jesus Christ.