Lusk on normative infant faith

In Rich Lusk’s Peadofaith, he seeks to make the case for the normacy of infant faith within the covenant community. For Lusk faith in covenant infants is to be presumed in order for one to practice paedobaptism as ‘to baptise unbelieving subjects would profane and abuse baptism just as much as inviting unbelievers to the Lord’s Table would abuse the sacramental meal.’ While some may affirm paedofaith as normative from a judgement of charity, Lusk prefers to hold this as being the case from God’s covenant promises.

To support the claim that paedofaith within the community was considered normative within Scripture and therefore should be considered as normative by Christians today Lusk quotes Psalm 22:9-10, 71:5-6 and 139:14-15 as examples of infant faith in the Psalter.

Ps. 22:9 Yet it was you who took me from the womb; you kept me safe on my mother's breast. On you I was cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me you have been my God.

Ps. 71:5 For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from my birth; it was you who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.

Ps. 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

He suggests that these passages demonstrate not just God’s knowledge of David as an infant but also David’s corresponding knowledge of God. This, along with the language of the Psalter as a whole demonstrate David’s covenantal relationship with God from birth and thereby acts as a rebuke to today’s prevalent conversionist mentality of believing parents to their children. Thus ‘you have been my God’ and ‘upon you have I leaned from my mothers womb’ is David’s testimony even though whilst not requiring self-conscious knowledge in his earliest days. Indeed the fact that the Psalmist claims to have had paedofaith at a time when he was unconscious of it based solely from his understanding of the promise of God, demonstrate that this is to be the paradigm for all within the covenant community as they view their infancy. Thus Lusk states that before a child of the promise can do either good or bad, God is already his God as David evidences as he views his infancy from those promises (Gen. 17:7).

Importantly Lusk is keen to stress that the paedofaith owned by the psalmist it not a ‘one-in-a-million’ case. The description of his faith is located in Israel’s public hymnbook to be used in corporate worship so that each covenant member would have been encouraged to own this liturgy as their own and ‘would have been expected to be able to identity with them in some sort of fashion.’ Thus paedofaith is claimed to be ‘normative’, ‘paradigmatic’ and ‘expected’ within the covenant community, both for Israel then and Christians now, founded on God’s promise. This is God’s ordinary dealing with covenant infants from the womb.


In response to Lusk, it would firstly be wrong to deny the possibility of infant faith, with the Holy Spirit working as he will to regenerate from conception thereby causing even the youngest embryo to move from being in Adam to in Christ. The larger question that Lusk asks and seeks to answer affirmatively is whether this possession of faith from earliest life is to be considered normative within the covenant community.

With respect to Lusk’s use of the language found within these Psalms one need not however resort to a normative understanding of paedofaith to explain it. Cannot any member who has entered the covenant through an adult conversion truly say that God’s hand was upon them to call them to himself even while they lived consciously and unconsciously in rebellion against him. Certainly the language of Ps. 22 and 139 appear to be understandable this way without implying infant faith. Before God works in the lives of the pagan, Hindu or the Muslim to cause them to own Christ as their Saviour and King, the one true God is in a very real sense already their God, which they will testify to after conversion in their recognition that previously they had worshiped idols and false gods.

But it is quite possible to affirm Lusk’s understanding of these passages and to agree that the Psalmist never knew a time when he did not trust the Lord. We must therefore read ‘you have been my God’ in Ps. 22:10 to denote not only that the Psalmist considers that God is the only God and Lord whether one confesses him to be or not, but that as Ps. 71 apparently intimates, he had owned and trusted God from his earliest moments.

However is this experience, which as Lusk rightly points out became part of the covenant community’s liturgy, to be considered as paradigmatic for each member as something they could identify with ‘in some sort of fashion’? It is only if this is true and paedofaith can be considered normative that paedobaptism is warrantable on the basis of presumed faith in the infants of believers.

It is difficult to see how Lusk can make a case for this, especially in the light of Psalm 22 as a whole. Lusk rightly notes that the experience described in the Psalm cannot be split, attributing some of it David and some to the Messiah. All recounted was true, in somewhat various ways of both David and David’s greater son. Yet if Lusk is seeking to make a case that paedofaith is normative within the covenant community based on the fact of each member of the assembly identifying with the words of the Psalmist, then it is odd that the language of v. 1-2 of the Psalm should also be considered as paradigmatic for them:

Ps. 22:1-2 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest.

Again one must agree that the language of the whole of Psalm 22 is a true description of both David’s and Messiah’s experience, but are we to understand that all of the community are to experience the feeling of being forsaken by God – and that this is in fact ‘normative’, ‘paradigmatic’, ‘expected’! I’d want to affirm that this can be the case, but whether it’s something is normative is highly questionable.

Even if Ps. 22:12-20 contains metaphorical language as Lusk claims, read in the same manner that he suggests for those verses he uses to support normative paedofaith, it must still in some way be paradigmatic for all of the covenant community but it not clear that this language is meant to be taken as normative for each member in the community.

Ps. 22:12-20 Many bulls encircle me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled; I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me; they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots. But you, O LORD, do not be far away! O my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog!

This leads one to consider whether the Psalms are meant to be read and ‘owned’ by each member of the community, as readily and in as un-nuanced a fashion as Lusk seems to claim. The Baptist need not deny the possibly of infant faith within the community, but it appears that certainly from these Psalms, one need nor ought to imply that paedofaith is normative and to be presumed. Where this cannot be done the practice of paedobaptism is questionable on Lusk’s own admission.

Representing opponents fairly

Guy Waters' new book on the Federal Vision has come in for some heavy criticism by those he seeks to critique, over his mis-representation of their position. Sadly they have a point. In failing to agree to meet with those whose doctrine he considers in the book, especially when several of them had offered to meet with him in advance of publication to confirm he had represented them faithfully, Waters surely shot himself firmly in both feet.

As someone who is by no means convinced by Federal Vision theology and yet wants an informed critique it has been frustrating to read this book. Indeed, it's difficult to see how this book will progress the debate in any constructive manner and one fears that it will only see proponents on either side of the debate further entrench themselves behind party lines.

Of more concern, the current level of interaction and debate around this issue shows little willingness to seek to understand nuances within their opponent's position or to demonstrate brotherly love that believes, hopes and endures all things and forgives seventy times seven.

Presumed Child Covenant Membership

Those who baptise children in infancy often question the Baptist's reluctance to administer the sacrament to those young children who profess faith due to the difficulty of determining the genuiness of such a profession. Whilst acknowledging that the real debate lies elsewhere in the assumptions that are being made for any children born into the covenant community, the Baptist is entirely justified to redirect the question back to their Paedobaptist friends.

If one assumes that children of believers are within the covenant until they prove otherwise, exactly what manner of behavior from the three year old would be deemed as evidence of covenantal unfaithfulness and worthy of community discipline and possible future excommunication should they not repent? Or is there a certain age under which this does not apply and if so where would one find evidence for this? As hard as it may be for the Baptist to discern when young children may be admitted as full members of the community, it seems equally as difficult for the Paedobaptist to discern when a child's behavior shows covenant breaking, especially when the assumption is that God's promise is to their children as much as to professing parents. A subjective call is required by both Baptist and Paedobaptist parents alike.

For how long should those who understand their infants as being fully fledged members of the covenant maintain a judgement of charity when a child shows more and more evidence of lacking a new heart?

To therefore take an agnostic view in terms of the state of the young child and wait for evidence seems wise. However as we'll consider in future posts, the real debate is not over what one thinks of a childs subjective profession but rather over how one considers God's promises to Abraham and Isreal to function in the New Covenant.

Whence this blog

Because this is so important. And because although I think that there is a lot of great stuff spoken here, here and here, confessionally I'm here.