I’ve recently picked up again on discussions about paedobaptism. One of the things that came through in responses that although I suspect still a minority, there are a significant number of people who believe that the baptised child does have faith, not merely might have faith. It is worth noting that the two things are different. It is also worth noting that whilst I think the two things are more closely related than often acknowledged, there is a distinction between saying that children should be included in some way within the covenant community and its benefits and saying that the children themselves definitely do have faith.
What is particularly concerning is the notion which I referred to in my first article which seems to have come primarily from Federal Vision quarters is that we can say that the child has faith because the parent has faith. I believe that when you reach that position as a consistently held view that you are holding to serious and dangerous false teaching. Fortunately, or better, providentially God often protects us from the most serious error through our own inconsistencies in belief and practice.
It is important to remember again what the basis for such a claim is. Normally you will hear Acts 2:39 quoted.
“The promise is for you and your children.”
The claim then is that believing parents have the assurance that their children too are guaranteed beneficiaries of the New Covenant. However, as I’ve frequently pointed out, this is to rip one phrase out of context and so to seriously distort it in a manner that we should never do with God’s Word. I would suggest that the mishandling of God’s Word is itself a form of false teaching and we must note that there is a level of knowingness to this when it is done by those who are well versed in appropriate Bible handling.
The full text states
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
It is important to observe two things. First the nature of the promise. It is a promise that if and when you repent and are baptised then you will receive the Holy Spirit. Note also that the baptism is for forgiveness of sin and so we might observe that the receipt of the Holy Spirit is the confirmation of this.
Furthermore, it is crucial to observe that it is repentance that is primarily in focus, that is what Peter is asking them to do. Baptism follows on from that and significantly it is consistently the case in the New Testament that baptism is a follow on from repentance, a visible sign of it. Indeed, on a side note, whilst I have no problem with the idea that someone may not be able to remember a time when they did believe, I am concerned when there is also no accompanying testimony that they always recognised that they were a sinner, that they had repented, that they had received forgiveness.
Secondly, the promise is not merely “to you and your children”, rather it is “to you, your children and to those who are far off, for all whom the Lord our God will call.” It is worth observing that here, Peter addresses a Jewish audience, so that he is making clear what “The promise” is for God’s people. He is not saying that you and your children are automatically saved. Rather, the point is that God calls people to himself, Paul will later in Romans say that the calling needs a preacher so that those who are called can respond with heart belief and verbal confession in order to be saved. The point is not to guarantee at this point faith based on genetic heritage but rather to show the extent of the good news. It draws in not just the physical descendants of local Jews but those “far off”. It is possible that this might have been understood at the time as referring to the diaspora but becomes clear through Acts and Paul’s teaching that it includes Gentiles.
The reference to you and your children will have immediately reminded Jewish hearers of the call in the Torah to “teach your children and your children’s children.” The children needed to hear the Law and understand it if they were to be faithful to the covenant. The equivalent to Old Covenant faithfulness is faith in Christ. The correct response to the promise in Acts 2 is not to presume faith in your kids and baptise them but rather to preach the Gospel to them.
This helpfully reminds us of the connection between faith, righteousness and belonging to the Covenant. You are “justified by faith.” Whilst NT Wright is wrong to make righteousness narrowly and exclusively about covenant faithfulness, the two are linked. It is the righteous who belong within the Covenant and are the beneficiaries of its blessings.
This is important because when we baptise someone on the basis of their faith, we are recognising that God declares them righteous, that they are justified. So, it is important then to check back the basis on which we are making that statement about the infant. It is clear that they are being baptised and so anything that the baptism declares about them, is on the basis of the faith of their parents and the confession those parents make. This in effect leads to a second-hand faith and a second-hand righteousness. The parent steps in to speak and hear on the child’s behalf. In effect, the parent’s faith and righteousness is imputed to the child.
We need to be clear that there is one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. It is his righteousness and his righteousness alone that is imputed to us. Our faith is in him and it is that faith which justifies.
Faithroots 