Due to a belief in hereditary depravity (and an immature understanding of "household" baptisms), some people choose to baptize their children in order to impart upon them a perceived state of holiness in the sight of God. As a defense for the practice, 1 Corinthians 7:14 (which says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified because of the wife, and the unbelieving wife because of her husband. Otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.") is used to imply the children under consideration were baptized by the believing parent, else they would be unclean in the sight of God. But is this "implication" a vindication of the practice?
Like all other verses, the context of 1 Corinthians 7:14 is vital for doctrinal viability, and the context (1 Corinthians 7:10-16) has nothing to do with the subject of water baptism but rather everything to do with Paul’s apostolic advice concerning the spiritual state of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever. The advice does not live in a vacuum separate from a knowledge concerning the Lord’s commandment for marriage, divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:9) nor does it forget God’s view of sexual activity outside of marriage, which applies to believers and unbelievers alike (Hebrews 12:8; 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Sexual activity outside of a holy marriage is unholy, and the children who are products of an unholy marriage are themselves unholy. This does not mean the child is guilty of sin and condemned by God (Ezekiel 18). It means if a marriage between a believer and unbeliever is holy in God’s sight (again, see Matthew 19:3-12), then so is its fruit. But if the marriage is unholy in God’s sight, it is only capable of producing unclean (i.e. illegitimate, illegal, unauthorized, common) children when it comes to the will of God for marriage and the family. Paul’s emphasis is not the spiritual state of the child. His emphasis is upon the totality of the spiritual state of the marriage and whether or not the believer should remain in the relationship with God’s approval.
An "implication" that rests upon the application of water baptism for the holy state of an infant would also require the "implication" of application of water baptism for the sanctified state of the unbelieving spouse ("holy" and "sanctified" being distinct words without a difference). This practice would be completely void of apostolic authority from the Lord (Matthew 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47). No matter the age of the individual, the church is not authorized to baptize unbelievers! When the whole counsel of God is considered, we find that baptism is not necessary for something to be considered holy or sanctified when the subject is not salvational. In the eyes of God, the ground Moses worshipped upon was holy (Acts 7:33), the Old Covenant was holy (Romans 7:12), kisses can be holy (Romans 16:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:26), and the scriptures are holy (2 Timothy 3:15), just like an infant born into a marriage acceptable to God.
“1 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.” (Acts 16)
- Can an infant be holy without being baptized? - 2026-02-23
- God desires repentance more than judgment - 2026-02-18
- God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill - 2026-02-16