The New Birth Parts 5 & 6: The Way of the Wind & 'Paedofaith'

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8).

In this chapter, we shall look at a further aspect of the nature of the New Birth. A question that is often asked is this; “Is there any sort of pattern to this great event by which I can perhaps judge my own experience to assess whether it is genuine?”. The short answer is, “not really”. Different people go through experiences when they are born again which differ enormously one from another both in length of time and depth of emotion. The puritan, John Bunyan, in his book, Grace abounding to the chief of sinners(1), describes his conversion as lasting eighteen months, during which suffered the very depths of conviction of sin, hopelessness and despair before he came to know forgiveness. For others, however, particularly in times of revival, conversion can be almost instantaneous, a veritable Damascus Road experience. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (2), on the other hand, would never put a date on his conversion. His rebirth came upon him as a growing conviction that what he had once thought of as Christianity was really nothing of the sort. All that unites these three examples is the knowledge those involved have that they have changed; like the man born blind in John 9, each of them could say, “One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.” We must not judge a Christian on his conversion experience, save to this limited extent; Jesus Christ calls us to ‘repent and believe’ (Mark 1:15). Surely, therefore, anyone who is born again must have seen himself as a sinner, turned away from sin and trusted in Christ for his salvation? Deeper understanding will surely come later, but these three things must comprise an irreducible minimum. They must come at the very outset of the Christian life

In the next threads, we shall consider some of the terms used to describe different aspects of the New Birth. First, however, we shall look at some additional information that the Lord Jesus graciously gave to Nicodemus. This poor fellow had shown himself to be completely confused about what our Lord was telling him. So very patiently, Our Lord explained a little further. To be born of the Spirit, He said (John 3:8), is something like the wind. Now in Greek, Spirit and Wind are expressed by the same word, pneuma. This has led some translators to suggest that verse eight should be rendered, ‘the Spirit blows where He wills’, but this idea does not stand up to scrutiny for our Lord is obviously making a comparison. He starts off talking about the wind, and then concludes, “So is everyone who is born of the Spirit”. There are four points that He makes about the wind, which, He says, can be compared to the operation of the Spirit. We shall look at each of these in turn.

1: The wind blows. There is reality.

‘Who has seen the wind?
Neither I nor you:
But when the leaves hang trembling,
The wind is passing through.’

‘Who has seen the wind?
Neither you nor I:
But when the trees bow down their heads,
The wind is passing by.’ R. L. Stevenson

You can’t see the wind, you can’t touch it; you can’t bottle it or parcel it up and take it home with you, but nevertheless, the wind blows. Sometimes, it is the slightest breeze that cools us on a hot summer day. At other times it is a mighty hurricane that can blow down trees and even demolish buildings. The fact that it is invisible does not entitle anyone to suggest that there is no such thing as wind. The Holy Spirit is just the same. The Spirit is invisible and intangible but He is no myth. Sometimes He is the ‘still, small voice’ of 1Kings 19:12, as the Lord whispers peace and forgiveness to some troubled soul. On the Day of Pentecost, He was a tempest and blew three thousand souls into the Kingdom of God in a single day (Acts 2:41). As we have observed, when some believers are born again, it is a dramatic event, with others it is so calm that they cannot name the day on which it occurred, but it is the same Spirit who gives new life in every case. ‘But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. ……But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He Who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit Who dwells in you’(Rom. 8:9,11).

2: The wind blows where it wishes. There is sovereignty.

One of my friends is a very keen sailor. Some years ago he invited me to go for a sail in his new yacht. Whilst we were preparing to set sail, he was telling me how fast the boat was and how responsive to the very lightest of winds. Much to his chagrin, however, no sooner had we come out of harbour and reached the open sea than the wind dropped completely and there was a dead calm. For an hour or more the boat rocked to and fro in the gentle swell whilst we waited in vain for even the least breath of wind, but there was none.

There was nothing we could do; it was no good ‘phoning the coastguard or the meteorological office and asking them to supply a breeze for us- the wind blows where it wishes, and eventually we had to start the engine and make our way back to harbour.

The same principle applies to the New Birth; it can not be forced; it is not in the gift of man. Going to Sunday School as a child, attending church, reading the Bible- all these things are excellent, but none of them can, of itself , make anyone a Christian. “No one can come to Me,” said Jesus (John 6:44), “Unless the Father Who sent Me draws him”. We looked at this in Chapter Three, but it bears repetition; the Gospel is, ‘The power of God to salvation’ (Rom. 1v16). The truth of this can be seen from time to time in many Sunday schools. One child attends regularly and seems very keen, whilst another is bored and restless and comes only occasionally; but often it is the first who will fall away as he or she grows older and the things of the world become more interesting, and the second who, perhaps after many years, will return to the Lord, brought back to the fold by the Good Shepherd. Likewise, Judas Iscariot was to all appearances a true follower of Jesus. He lived, walked and talked with Him for three years, but his heart was never changed (John 12v6). In the end, he followed his unregenerate instincts by betraying his Master for money. On the other hand, there was no greater opponent and persecutor of Christ than Saul of Tarsus (eg. Acts 22v4). If any member of the infant Church in Jerusalem had been asked who was the person least likely in the whole of Israel to become a Christian, Saul’s name would have been right at the top of the list! Yet in the very midst of his persecutions, as he hurried on his way to Damascus to bring terror to the Christians in that city, the wind blew. The light shone from Heaven, he heard the voice of the Lord and was changed forever. The wind blows where it wills, and men and women are born again not by the will of man, but by the power of God.

[Continued]
3: You hear the sound of it. There is evidence and observability.

Of itself, the wind makes no noise to the best of my knowledge. The sound that you hear is that of the trees rustling as the wind passes through them or the sound of the air as it passes over various surfaces. In the same way, the New Birth itself is silent and invisible but it invariably causes observable effects. Some people weep when they are born again, other people may laugh; many others do neither. Emotional reactions depend on emotional disposition of those affected, and also on the circumstances. If a person has been under deep conviction of sin for some time and then is brought to see that Christ has paid the price for his sin and stands able and willing to receive him, it is natural for that person to rejoice and perhaps even to laugh out loud. On the other hand, if someone has been careless of his sinful condition and then comes suddenly to see the true wickedness of his heart, and how his sin drove the Lord Jesus to the cross, he might well be brought to tears. Other people, however, who are less openly emotional, might feel just as deeply but keep their feelings inside. Emotions are not a reliable guide to the genuineness of conversion. I must say as an aside that personally I would love to see more emotion in the churches. We’re a dry-eyed lot these days, and it seems strange to me that we can hear of the sufferings of our Lord without a tear, and of the glory that is laid up in heaven for us without an ‘Alleluia!’ What is the matter with us?

However, the true indication that someone is born again is not emotion but a changed life. This will be discussed (DV) more fully in a subsequent chapter, but let it be said here that if a man or women has been washed from sin, given a new heart and been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, there must be a change in behaviour. ‘If we say that we have fellowship with [God] and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practise the truth’ (1John 1:6). Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to say that the New Birth affected the whole man, mind, heart and will, and he quoted Romans 6:17 in support; ‘But God be thanked that though you were slaves to sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered’. Doctrine speaks of something which comes to the mind or intellect; the heart is the centre of the emotions, and ‘obeyed’ tells of the will which must be submitted to what has been heard. Modern-day claims of revival which are heard in America and elsewhere should be judged by the effect that they have on people’s behaviour. ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ After the great revival in Wales in 1904, crime dropped dramatically for several years and drunkenness decreased to such an extent that many brewers and distillers were threatened with financial ruin. Similar effects have been observed in other revivals. True regeneration will always prove itself by a changed lifestyle.

3: You hear the sound of it. There is evidence and observability.

Of itself, the wind makes no noise to the best of my knowledge. The sound that you hear is that of the trees rustling as the wind passes through them or the sound of the air as it passes over various surfaces. In the same way, the New Birth itself is silent and invisible but it invariably causes observable effects. Some people weep when they are born again, other people may laugh; many others do neither. Emotional reactions depend on emotional disposition of those affected, and also on the circumstances. If a person has been under deep conviction of sin for some time and then is brought to see that Christ has paid the price for his sin and stands able and willing to receive him, it is natural for that person to rejoice and perhaps even to laugh out loud. On the other hand, if someone has been careless of his sinful condition and then comes suddenly to see the true wickedness of his heart, and how his sin drove the Lord Jesus to the cross, he might well be brought to tears. Other people, however, who are less openly emotional, might feel just as deeply but keep their feelings inside. Emotions are not a reliable guide to the genuineness of conversion. I must say as an aside that personally I would love to see more emotion in the churches. We’re a dry-eyed lot these days, and it seems strange to me that we can hear of the sufferings of our Lord without a tear, and of the glory that is laid up in heaven for us without an ‘Alleluia!’ What is the matter with us?

However, the true indication that someone is born again is not emotion but a changed life. This will be discussed (DV) more fully in a subsequent chapter, but let it be said here that if a man or women has been washed from sin, given a new heart and been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, there must be a change in behaviour. ‘If we say that we have fellowship with [God] and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practise the truth’ (1John 1:6). Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to say that the New Birth affected the whole man, mind, heart and will, and he quoted Romans 6:17 in support; ‘But God be thanked that though you were slaves to sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered’. Doctrine speaks of something which comes to the mind or intellect; the heart is the centre of the emotions, and ‘obeyed’ tells of the will which must be submitted to what has been heard. Modern-day claims of revival which are heard in America and elsewhere should be judged by the effect that they have on people’s behaviour. ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ After the great revival in Wales in 1904, crime dropped dramatically for several years and drunkenness decreased to such an extent that many brewers and distillers were threatened with financial ruin. Similar effects have been observed in other revivals. True regeneration will always prove itself by a changed lifestyle.



Some readers may be thinking at this point, “hang on! I thought that salvation was supposed to be by faith alone.” So it is, but the faith that saves does not remain alone. Faith is not mere intellectual acquiescence to a proposition or agreement with fact. True biblical faith always leads to active obedience. Consider the heroes of the faith listed in Hebrews 11; every one of them was a man or a woman who went out and did something. Imagine Abraham saying to himself, “I believe that God wants me to leave Ur of the Chaldees”, and then staying right where he was. What sort of faith would that have been? No, no. The God who saved Abraham also gave him a disposition to obey. If someone puts his or her trust in Christ for salvation, the proof of that trust will be a life of obedience to God’s revealed will. “If you love Me,” said the Lord Jesus to His disciples, “keep My commandments.” Paul’s preaching declared that men and women, ‘should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance’ (Acts 26v20).

4: [You] cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. There is mystery.

‘Who can explain it, who can tell you why?

Fools may give you reasons; wise men never try.’ Rogers & Hammerstein

That wind which is blowing past your house as you sit reading this article, where did it come from? Where’s it going to and where will it end up? A weather expert could perhaps tell you that it originated as a depression off the Azores, but that doesn’t really answer the question. Despite all the advances in meteorology, we still cannot foretell the weather with any great accuracy much more than a day in advance, much less say where a particular piece of wind will end up in a week’s time. There is a mystery to the wind; how much more is there mystery to the New Birth! The Christian is a puzzle and an amazement to himself. What makes a man who has never been remotely interested in religion suddenly bury himself in his Bible for hours on end? How does it happen that ‘adult’ T.V. programmes that he has always considered perfectly acceptable are now offensive to him? Why is it that he hates to hear the name of his Lord profaned, when just a short while ago he used the same language himself? Can it really be that he, who never so much as darkened the door of a church, is now found there three or four times a week? The wind has blown and it has blown him not just into a new life but into a new Kingdom. The Lord Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) and Christians no longer seek the things that the world can give them, ‘But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country’ (Heb. 11:16). We can dissect and analyze all we will, but there comes a point at which we have to say, ‘this is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church’ (Eph. 5:32) and ‘this is the Lord’s doing and it is marvelous in our eyes’ (Psalm 118:23).

Notes.

(1) My copy is published by Whitaker House, 1993. ISBN 0-88368-259-1.

(2) See D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Vol 1(Banner of Truth, 1982. ISBN 0-85151-353-0), Chapter 4.

Paedofaith and Presumptive Regeneration.

It seems that now may be a good time to discuss the Doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration. In this article, I shall not be criticizing infant baptism per se. Readers of this Blog will know that I am an unashamed advocate of Believers’ Baptism and I have written various articles on this subject (1). However, it has to be admitted that God has blessed the ministry of many paedobaptists and paedobaptistic churches just as he has that of many Credo-baptists and their churches. One must be right and the other wrong and Christians should know what they believe and why, but it may be that God is less concerned about the matter than we are.

My concern in this article is to deal with a belief of many paedobaptists, a doctrine which is, I believe, a virtual denial of the Gospel, that of Presumptive Regeneration, the teaching that because a child is born to a Christian parent, it may be presumed that the child is already born again. There is a slightly less objectionable view called Presumptive Election, which does not presume that the infant is already regenerate, but that it is sure to become so in due course. The practical effects of both doctrines are, I believe, much the same.

At quite an early stage in the Church’s history, baptism became associated with regeneration (2) due to Church Fathers’ misunderstanding of the term ‘water and Spirit’ in John 3:5 (3). For example, Cyril of Jerusalem (310-386) called baptism the ‘bath of regeneration’ and taught that baptism washed away the guilt of all sins previously committed, conferred spiritual union with Christ and set apart the one baptized as the temple of the Holy Spirit (4)

These beliefs, which were very common among the Church Fathers, led eventually to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. The Church of Rome teaches to this day that babies are born again through the sprinkling of water by the Priest. The Protestant Reformers rejected this doctrine and insisted that salvation comes through faith alone. However, in their writings, these same Reformers produced some statements which are, at the very least, highly misleading. For example, as we have seen (5) Cranmer’s 1552 Prayer Book makes the priest proclaim after baptizing an infant, ‘Seeing now…..this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church…..’ These very words remain in the 1662 Prayer Book and are still recited at christenings to this very day. It seems remarkable that a Protestant could write or recite such a thing, but in the 19th Century, Bishop J.C.Ryle argued that the words did not mean that the child was definitely regenerate, but that it was presumed to be so.

Even Martin Luther, who was so firm in standing up for Sola Fide, made some very worrying Statements; for instance, in his great commentary on Galatians, commenting on Gal 3:27 he wrote (attacking the Anabaptists):-

‘[They are] fond and fantastical spirits, which go about to deface the majesty of baptism, and speak wickedly of it. Paul contrariwise commends and sets it forthwith honourable titles, calling it “the washing of the New Birth, the renewal of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). And here also he says, that all they which are baptized have put on Christ. As if he said: You have not received through baptism a mere token whereby you are enrolled in the number of the Christians, as in our time many fantastical heads have supposed, which have made baptism a token only, that is to say, a bare and empty sign But as many (says he)as have been baptized, have put on Christ: that is, you have been carried out of the law into a new birth, which is wrought in baptism….Paul therefore teaches that baptism is not a sign, but the garment of Christ.’

Luther’s problem is that he has confused water baptism with baptism in the Spirit. The first is what man does and the other is what Christ does. This teaching is found first in Matt 3:11, where John the Baptist proclaims, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after Me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” That this is an important teaching is shown by the number of times it is repeated (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:3, 16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 13:24-26). Baptism by man is one thing- it is an ordinance of Christ and by no means to be despised. But what Gal 3:27 is talking about is baptism in the Holy Spirit. The verse is saying that everyone who is baptized by the Spirit into Christ- that is, everyone who is born again- is a true Christian. Water baptism is not ‘the washing of the New Birth,’ Spirit baptism is. Water baptism pictures it.

Calvin seems to have the same problem as Luther. His Strasburg Catechism asks, ‘How do you know yourself to be a son of God in fact as well as in name?’ He answers, ‘Because I am baptized in the Name of God the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’

Even the Westminster Confession seems at one point to conflate water baptism and regeneration. In Chapter XXVIII, it states,

‘Baptism…….is for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church……Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but the infants of one, of both, believing parents, are to be baptized….The grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs to….’

It is the word ‘conferred’ that worries me. The Confession seems to be stating that the infant children of believers (and how is that to be known infallibly?) genuinely receive the New Birth as babies. I understand that many Presbyterians would deny that their confession states this, but I find it hard to put any other construction on the words. In fairness, however, it must be said that the WCF elsewhere stands firmly for salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone.

[Continued]

In recent years, a new movement has sprung up among Presbyterian churches, named Federal Vision. Although it has been rejected by most Presbyterian denominations, F.V. still seems to be alive and well in the United States. It is not my purpose to attempt a detailed critique of F.V. teaching, but to consider a book by one of its leading advocates. The book is Paedofaith by Rich Lusk (Athanasius Press), and some of his teachings seem to be held by many who would not describe themselves as supporters of Federal Vision.

Lusk claims that every child born to Christian parents possesses ‘Christ and His benefits’ and that therefore they are included in the atonement. He writes, ‘The promise (of Gen 17:7) declares that from the very beginning of their lives our children stand in the same covenantal relationship with God that we are in by virtue of faith. God is our God if we are conceived and born into a covenant family.’ ‘Jesus regards covenant infants and children as believers.’

The only problem with all this is that it is utterly incorrect. John 1:12-13 tells us very clearly that the New Birth is ‘Not of blood’ and that it is those who genuinely receive Christ as Lord and Saviour who are accounted children of God. Paul tells us that ‘they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all Israel because they are the seed of Abraham’ (Rom 9:6-7). In John 8, our Lord told those Jews who were priding themselves on being the circumcised descendants of Abraham, “You are of your father, the devil!” Lusk’s teaching fails also at the historical level. Godly men like Samuel, David, Hezekiah and Josiah all had reprobate children, and Isaiah and Jeremiah feared that there was hardly a believer left in the whole of Judah (Isaiah 1:2-4, 9; Jer 5:1). All down through Church history, godly parents have had to mourn over unregenerate children. The New Birth is ‘Not of blood.’

To take these glaring inconsistencies in his teaching into account, Lusk has to shift his ground. He writes, ‘While the covenant relationship is a blessed relationship, it is also a conditional relationship;’ and again, ‘True regenerate believers not only can fall completely and definitely from justifying faith and also from grace and salvation, but indeed they often do fall from them and are lost forever.’ He continues, ‘The faith of those who believe for a time does not differ from justifying and saving faith except with respect to its duration.’

This is dreadful stuff! What has happened to Christ, the Good Shepherd? His sheep are utterly secure. “….I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand’ (John 10:28. Cf. also Rom 8:37-39). But of course, Christ’s sheep are a special breed. They are distinguished by their ears and their feet. They hear the Shepherd’s voice and they obey Him (John 10:27). They are those who have been born again of water and the Spirit, and they are no longer what they were.

That there are those who believe on Christ for a time and then fall away is perfectly true. This is the teaching of the Parable of the Sower. In that parable, the difference is not in the sower (the preacher), nor in the seed (the word preached), but in the soil (the heart of the recipient). An unregenerate heart can sometimes be persuaded of the Gospel for a while, but it will not be truly changed and after a time, it will return to its unregenerate ways (Matt 12:43-45; 2Peter 2:22). To such people Christ will say, “I never knew you!” (Matt 7:23). Not, “I knew you once and then forgot you.” People who leave the Church were never truly part of it. ‘They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that it might be made manifest that none of them were of us’ (1John 2:19).

The distinctive part of Lusk’s thesis comes when he admits, ‘’Everything in Scripture seems to connect faith to baptism. If paedobaptism is biblically warranted then paedofaith must be a reality.’ It is unfortunate that Lusk does not consider seriously the other obvious possibility- that paedobaptism is not biblically warranted- but there we are. He goes on to try to prove from the Bible that the children of believers are usually regenerated in the womb. If they then leave the faith of their parents, it is because they have ‘lost’ their regeneration as described above.

Lusk makes use of two texts of Scripture. The first is the story of the pre-natal John the Baptist in Luke 1:41. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb’ (cf. also v44). Now let us suppose for a moment that John was indeed born again before he was born the first time. What then? How does that prove that other children are regenerated in the same way? We read in Numbers 22 that a donkey once talked. Do we suppose from that that all donkeys can talk, and keep silent only because they have nothing worthwhile to say? We read in Joshua 10 that the sun once stood still in the sky. Do we expect this to happen regularly? No, no! This story is part of the Christmas narrative, and it was a miraculous sign from God, firstly to Elizabeth, to encourage her to believe Mary’s remarkable story, and secondly for Mary, to reassure her that what the angel had told her was indeed true. I no more expect to see unborn children regenerated than I expect to see, in this world, the heavens opened and angels singing, “Glory to God” or stars leading wise men to stables. I do not say that any of these things cannot happen again; God is sovereign. I do say that we have no reason to expect them to.

[Continued]

The second of Lusk’s supposed proof texts is Psalm 22:9-10. ‘But you are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. From My mother’s womb you have been My God.’ Lusk claims that this verse proves that King David must have been born again either in the womb or as a tiny baby.

The first thing to notice is that Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. It is talking about the Lord Jesus Christ who, of course was born totally without sin. But even if we suppose that it also refers to David, what of it? Let’s look at some similar verses.

Psalm 58:3. ‘The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.’ Are we really to suppose that wicked people are born with the ability to speak so that they can tell lies immediately after birth?

Job 31:18. ‘But from my youth I reared him as a father, and from my mother’s womb I guided the widow.’ Does Lusk suppose that Job, as a new-born infant, guided and helped widows? The whole idea is preposterous. These verses are poems and are employing poetic imagery.

Texts like these cannot be taken literally. I once read about a British politician who was said to have imbibed socialism with her mother’s milk. Did this person’s parents really mash up pages of the writings of Marx or Beatrice Webb and feed them to her along with her bottle? It was the error of the Pharisees to take our Lord’s words in a crassly literal manner (John 3:4; 6:52). The Bible is a spiritual book and must be read with Spirit-anointed eyes. Inasmuch as it refers to David it says that for as long as he can remember, he has believed in God. That does not mean at all that he had a saving knowledge of God as his redeemer and was looking forward to the coming of the Messiah while still a tiny infant. David knew quite well what his spiritual state was as an infant (Psalm 51:5). There will have been some point in his life, whether he could remember it or not, when, under the teaching of his parents, he came to understand that he was a sinner and that he needed look to God for salvation. This could have happened when he was still quite young, but not before he was born. ‘Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (Rom 10:17).

Does it really matter if people believe in paedofaith? I suggest it does. How can parents, Pastors, Sunday School teachers and others tell their young people to repent and trust in Christ if they believe they already have at birth? Instead they will (if they are consistent with their beliefs) be teaching their children that they must act like the Christians that they are supposed to be. So works will be taught instead of faith. Even if they do preach the Gospel faithfully, the young people will be thinking to themselves, “This doesn’t apply to me. I already am a Christian.” This is how Pharisees are bred. Young people sit in church thinking that the exhortations to repentance that they are hearing apply to others but not to them. They can go through Young People’s groups, University Christian Unions, even seminary, assuming that they are Christians because that is what their church tradition has taught them, never realising that they are lost and hell-bound.

If ever there was a man who could have believed in paedofaith, it was Nicodemus. Doubtless he was circumcised on the eighth day; doubtless Mr and Mrs Nicodemus taught him well in accordance with Deut 6:6-9; doubtless he underwent extensive training to become a Rabbi and rose to become a leading member of the Sanhedrin, ‘the teacher of Israel’ (John 3:10). Yet he understands nothing of true religion; “How can these things be?” He asks. He hasn’t got a clue and our Lord has to say to him, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (v12).

The only thing we know for sure about our children when they are born is that they are lost sinners, ‘brought forth in iniquity and in sin…..conceived’ (Psalm 51:5). We need to teach our children as soon as they can understand that they are sinners and that they need to trust in Christ for salvation. Even more importantly, we need to be in earnest prayer for them day by day, crying out to God, ‘We gave them life in the flesh; You, Lord must give them life in the Spirit!’

Notes

(1) See my various articles under Baptism – Martin Marprelate or Covenants – Martin Marprelate

(2) Justin Martyr (d. 165 AD) was the first writer to describe baptism as regeneration. Whether he actually meant to say this is less certain.

(3) Almost every Church Father from Tertullian onwards seems to have regarded the ‘water in John 3:5 as referring to baptism. See however, my article here: The New Birth (4) Its Nature

(4) Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures. See especially Lecture 3, Sections 3 & 4.

(5) In an earlier article on the nature of the New Birth. See (3) above.