Customer Reviews

Paedofaith

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Paedofaith is a very readable and challenging study of the Scriptural teaching on infant and child faith. I urge everyone who has always "taken it for granted" that small children and even infants cannot have faith to read pastor Lusk's book with a mind open to the Scriptures. Lusk writes in a clear and Scripturally-probing style. No sentimentalist, as critics of paedofaith might wrongly presume, pastor Lusk tackles the hard questions. This book should be a great encouragment to parents and church pastors in the blessing and duty of nurturing Christ's little ones. Get it, read it, and read it again!

The modern enlightened man characteristically scoffs at the idea of infant faith. Even in churches that teach and practice infant baptism, you rarely find anyone teaching that infants are capable of anything we could ever properly call "faith."

Thank God for Rich Lusk, pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham Alabama. His recent book Paedofaith sits all alone on the shelf reserved for books written to address this topic Biblically. He asks us to consider the Biblical evidence, starting with Psalm 22, the nature of God's covenant promises, and along the way he gently rubs our reluctant noses in the implications of the incarnation itself for infant faith.

Of course the whole question of infant "faith" depends on how you define "faith." If you have your mind made up that faith can only be something that requires an intellectual assent to nice theological propositions, then, fine, you've just defined infants out. But Lusk is asking us to define faith in a way that is more in line with what the Bible actually says.

Rich Lusk presents an intriguing book about the possibility of "paedo" faith. Although he bounces back and forth between infant faith (even fetal faith) and child faith, he does present an interesting text that creates much conversation without too much controversy.

Lusk attacks revivalist's theology's emphasis on conversion by embracing Reformed theology's stance on the people of God being in the covenant. Needless this to say this has created many great discussions in my church and staff.

I do believe that his exegetical work is creative at best, sketchy at worst. He makes some very large theological stretches in his exegetical arguements that need to be re-evaluated. I am glad I read the text as it has broaden my understanding of child faith and helped me to see areas I had ignored previously.

I would recommend this text to anyone working in children's ministry, particularly in Reformed churches. Churches outside of the Reformed tradition will have a harder time understanding the theological jumps he makes; however, that shouldn't discourage someone from reading it.

Much of Christian thinking today is conversionistic i.e. thinking that says salvation comes ordinarily through the means of a "Damascus Road" experience.

Rich Lusk shows just how far this kind of thinking is from the biblical paradigm. The Bible speaks of God growing His kingdom and Church through the chief means of the family. Because we are in covenant with God, our children also belong to Him. They are His children; and as His children He blesses them with the gift of faith in seed form.

It is then given to us as parent-stewards to nurture this faith in our children so that they might grow in this faith, that it might mature and bring forth fruit in abundance.

As parents, we should treat our children as Christians, not as pagans. This will make a world of difference in how we train and instruct in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

Lusk, Rich. 2005. Paedofaith: A Primer on the Mystery of Infant Salvation and a Handbook for Covenant Parents. Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press.

Rich Lusk serves as pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama. He has been a prolific writer and ardent defender of The Federal Vision. This book is a brief historical and theological defense for the idea of paedofaith (the idea that infants are born as believers). The implications of such a view affect ones ecclesiology, sacramentology, and to a lesser degree, one's church/state convictions.

Synopsis:

Pastor Lusk offers persuasive defense for the idea of paedofaith within a covenantal framework, drawing heavily upon such passages as Psalm 22:9-10, Psalm 71:5-6, Psalm 139, Psalm 8, Psalm 127:1-5, Psalm 128, Matthew 18:1-14, Matthew 19:13-15, 1 Corinthians 7:14, among others.
Lusk then proceeds to offer a brief historical analysis, citing from such heavyweights as Luther and Calvin, as well as the confessions and catechisms, to defend the legitimacy of paedo faith as a valid framework with covenantal theology. Lusk's history also encompasses the early debates on the American continent within Presbyterianism, highlighting the awakenings and Jonathan Edwards influence in moving Presbyeterianism further away from the idea of paedo faith. Lusk essentially concludes that the church sold out to a baptistic paradigm for conversion/initiation of children into the church. Infant baptism was reduced to nothing more than a "Wet dedication". Included within this analysis is the issue of infants who die in infancy and how the church has spoken to the status of such children.
The book progresses to cover some nuanced and necessary qualifications to the author's thesis and then concludes with some practical advice on how children should be nurtured within the church and home assuming the paradigm of paedo faith.

PROS:

First of all, Lusk's book is informative and we should all aspire to learn more and more about this precious topic of how God looks upon our children and how we ought to treat them and assimilate them into the church community. As a Baptist I've long been unsatisfied with the tradition's theological treatment of children. Baptists have varied in their theology of children, historically believing in an age of accountability, where our children automatically go to heaven because God would not be seen as just in condemning an infant who has no capacities to comprehend general revelation, which is usually seen as necessary for God's just wrath (Rom. 1). In this paradigm, children go to heaven primarily because God would not be just in condemning one with limited capacities.
Baptists who hold to original sin run into a problem with automatically placing infants and the disabled into heaven based primarily on their convictions that God's can't justly condemn. The problem resides in the fact that original sin still needs to be dealt with and God can't arbitrarily just look over the "state" of sin that the infant resides under, even if one is convinced that God can't justly condemn due to a lack of general revelation. In my reading of Baptists like Spurgeon, Piper, and MacArthur, they all want to ground their conviction of the infant's salvation primarily due to lack of general revelation, but then proceed to grant that God, in His inscrutable wisdom and goodness, is able to impute the righteousness of Christ to such infants apart from their faith. Lusk sees this as problematic because it would undermine "sole fide". Lusk's conclusion, then, is to state that our infants are in fact believers. While I still need to work on this issue some more, and do share some of Lusk's concerns with the Baptist position of infants. Most Baptists believe that all infants and mentally handicapped, regardless of parental status, automatically are brought into Christ at death.
What's ironic of the Baptist position, if I'm allowed to criticize my own camp, is that they deny to Presbyterians and Reformed the claim that their children are born into some sort of covenantal status because they think the Scriptures do not teach such; but are willing to pronounce with certainty that all children and mentally handicapped automatically go to heaven and are imputed with Christ's righteousness when they die. Where can the Baptist speak with such unflinching certainty of the status of children when they happen to die, but are entirely agnostic and even opposed to the idea that the child had any objective status before they died? This is a contradiction that should force Baptists to either, be a bit more gracious to their Presbyterian and Reformed friends, or claim an agnostic position about what happens to our children if they should die young. Baptist brethren, you can't have it both ways!
I don't share all of Lusk's convictions, but am willing to grant that his answers regarding children of believers is far more rooted in Scripture and Church history than any Baptist treatment of this topic. I say this to the Baptist's shame. Perhaps, I will one day offer a Baptist reassessment of a theology of children (it is something I have been working on for several years). After reading Lusk's book, one ought not laugh mockingly at the idea of paedo faith. He is persuasive enough to at least garner some respect for the position.

CONS:

While Lusk presents a strong case for paedo communion based on his understanding of paedo faith, he does not satisfactorily explain why the likes of Luther, Calvin, and confessional Presbyterianism/Reformed have required some qualified understanding of active faith for the Eucharist. Lusk even cites Luther and Calvin as advocates of paedo faith in his historical defense of the doctrine, but seemingly doesn't struggle with why the Lutheran and Reformed tradition have required some form of confirmation for participation in the Table.
Lusk conveniently highlights the awakening and the likes of Jonathan Edwards as the enemies to paedofaith and proponents of an unbiblical rigorism with regards to initiation of children into church membership, even claiming that Baptists essentially won the day. Why does Edwards get pegged as a foe in this debate, while Calvin and Luther get ignored in that their practice was not markedly different from what Edwards was advocating?
Quoting from Lusk (2005:98),
Edwards' theology tended to downplay the biblical themes of paedofaith and covenant succession. The hyper-emphasis on a conversion experience led to a decline in attention given to the nurture of covenant children in their infancy and youth.
Lusk proceeds to offer this footnote on the previous quote:
Of course that makes it rather ironic that the Edwards family is one of the greatest illustrations of covenant succession in American history. One generation after another in the Edwards family tree served God faithfully in the church and world.
Edwards' family line is so impressive that some have cited him as proof of eugenics. I would submit that Edwards was not functionally different from what Calvin's childrearing would have looked like. I would also submit that their piety would be much similar in the home. What Lusk wants to call a "hyper-emphasis" on religious affections may very well be consistent with the Scripture's emphasis on proper religious affections. I would suggest John Piper's, "Desiring God", as an able defense of "Christian Hedonism" as being anything other than Scriptural.
I don't appreciate how Lusk seemingly wants to cite Edwards lineage as "ironic", almost as if it were in spite of Edwards "hyper-emphasis" conversion. Pastor Lusk, is it possible that it's no irony at all and that Edwards "Biblical-emphasis" on affections actually played a part in emulating for his children what the converted Christian life should look like?
Lusk also offers some qualified praise for Ted Tripp, a Baptist, whose books have been a blessing to many on the topic of parenting. Lusk positively cites that Tripp believes that God's grace attends discipline so as to work in the children. I would submit to Lusk that we Baptists are not as monolithic as he would like to portray. We are no enemies of children. A recent study I read (which I can't find), ranked Baptists as first among the retention rate for children who go on to affiliate with the Church into adulthood.

Closing Thoughts:
Lusk's book was well worth my time and I shall refine my own position even further based on some thoughts derived from this work.

Does a child in the womb recognize voices and sounds? Does a suckling infant know its mother? If you answer these questions with a 'yes', then wouldn't you agree that these babies can also know and recognize God?
Read the book to fill in the discussion of this and more.

Rich does a great service to the workings out of the historic struggle in this area. Very readable and well cited. Read along with Leithart's.