Tag: salvation

Revisiting Baptism and Young Children

~ Bob Hayton ~ 28 Comments

I’ve considered this question before. As Baptists, when should we baptize our children? A few blog posts recently give reasons why we should or should not delay baptism until our children are more mature (apx. ages 10-12).

First, Trevin Wax gave 4 points on his position relating to this question (which is that we should delay baptizing children until they are around 10 years old or so).

John Starke at The Gospel Coalition Blog then gave 4 reasons why we should baptize small children.

On the heels of these posts, Mike Gilbart-Smith at 9 Marks Blog posted his own “9 reasons why we should not baptize young children“.

For my part, I have a hard time getting around the household baptism passages in Acts. Presbyterians point to household baptisms as evidence of the batpism of small children and infants. Baptists demur and say these passages are silent about the age of children, and often give evidence that all the members of the households evidenced faith. Now, however, when it comes to young children old enough to express faith, Baptists are free to let these children wait in some cases years before affirming their faith through baptism? The very same passages in Acts where all members of a household (presumably including children) believe and then are immediately baptized, now have nothing to say about children below the age of 12. It’s one thing to assume the passages don’t refer to infants, now we are supposed to believe they don’t refer to children under 12? Just who should we include as being in the households of the Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer and others?

As Starke points out, “the Bible doesn’t seem to give us any examples of an un-baptized Christian”. Furthermore, Justin Taylor in linking to Starke’s post above, added this insight:

There is an irony in the discussion””namely, that Jesus tells us to have faith like a child, and we often tell children that they first have to have demonstrate faith like an adult.

All things considered, at the risk of being considered a closet Presbyterian, I tend to think that the symbolism of Baptism is as much about the objective work of Christ for us (washing our hearts clean), as it is about the subjective experience of our testifying to our belief in the gospel (being buried with Christ in baptism). What happens in Baptism is an identifying with Christ and a celebration of what He has done, ultimately, not what we have done. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for young children who have demonstrated faith in Christ. And since baptism doesn’t save, I am not persuaded by arguments for delaying baptism. I may not agree fully with Vern Poythress’ thoughts about how even 2 and 3 year old children can have saving faith, but I also think he has a point.

I’m interested in what my readers think about this. I understand that some of us find ourselves in churches with an official policy of delaying baptism. I’m not advocating that you disregard your church’s teaching on this subject. Please don’t misunderstand me. But I think a more biblical position is to accept the little children that come to Jesus, and allow them after a period of evaluation, to be baptized.

Still a Fundamentalist at Heart: My Stance on Roman Catholicism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Some readers of my blog dismiss me as having in effect abandoned the faith. They are so committed to certain fundamentalist practices and positions that they refuse to look on me with any grace. I am a hopeless liberal to them, and have abandoned important implications of the Gospel, and rejected Scriptural teaching.

My blog professes to stand “for the Unity of the Faith for the Glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3,13; Rom. 15:5-7”. In fact I strive for that. Much division in the body of Christ is avoidable and harmful. I’ve expressed my concerns over a radical separatism which views anyone who doesn’t self-identify as a fundamentalist with suspicion and distrust — even scorn.

I have found a wider grace in Christ through my experience with Reformed Theology, which rather than making me more narrow-minded has freed me to hope the best in people and let God do His work. This charitable spirit which many have taken time to thank me for, is nevertheless acknowledged by some critics to be just the spirit of this post-modern age. I’m nice and want to be nice. And niceness is all this is about. I don’t have the backbone needed to defend the faith as fundamentalists really should.

So I find it somewhat ironic that I am now being taken to task for my stance on Roman Catholicism by people to the left of me. I guess this is proof positive that I am still a fundamentalist at heart! In my recent review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill, I added the following caution:

I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule. Perhaps those faiths are more open to the struggle for faithful celibacy and so have something he can identify with. As a Protestant, I fear the gospel can be at stake in so easily recommending Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy with their denial of justification by faith alone.

I am now said to be the harsh judgmental one, who refuses to extend grace to the millions of Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians around the world. I’m being denounced in no uncertain terms; here, here and here, and especially here. I’m hindering “the unity of the faith”, I’m the one who isn’t nice and is making harsh judgments.

Let me be clear, I still hold that the Bible does lay down guidelines and boundaries to the faith. We are not given the right to just blur those boundaries whenever we want. We don’t find Paul doing that, he names names and contends for the faith (as do the other Apostles). There is “another gospel” which is no gospel. The danger of false teachers looms large all over the New Testament. It behooves those who prize the Gospel, to defend the Gospel. Unity goes up to a point, but ultimately it must be tethered to the Gospel. Where the Gospel is in danger of being lost, unity can not continue.

So that makes me a fundamentalist, I guess. I think some doctrine is so vital to the essence of Christianity, that it must be defended and cannot be denied without serious consequences.

And I am not alone in my assessment of Roman Catholicism. Consider the words of one of the original fundamentalists from the 1920s:

I am aware that, if I undertake, to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called “bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.” Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions. [T. W. Medhurst, “Is Romanism Christianity?” in The Fundamentals, edited by R.A. Torrey, online here]

Or consider the eloquent and large-hearted Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

There are, of course, individuals who are both Roman Catholics and Christians. You can be a Christian and yet be a Roman Catholic. My whole object is to try to show that such people are Christians in spite of the system to which they belong, and not because of it. [source]

I must say I haven’t read primary Catholic authors writing after Vatican 2. But in what I’ve heard and read about Vatican 2 it never abrogates the Council of Trent and it doesn’t change church teaching on additional things “necessary unto salvation”. I’m foolish enough to trust the Reformers and evangelical Protestants up through the middle of the 20th Century who have studied these matters and conclude that Roman Catholic doctrine on salvation is confusing at best and damning at worst.

Consider just a few of the statements from The Council of Trent, the reaction that Rome officially gave to the Protestant Reformation:

On Justification
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

On Baptism
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

On the Eucharist
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

On Penance
CANON VI.–If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

On the Mass
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

This is addition to the Gospel and hence it is “another Gospel”. See Galatians 5:2-6 and 1:6-9. That is my understanding and the understanding of the Reformers and most evangelical Protestant churches. I consider the trappings of the religious system which is Catholicism conspire to cloud out the simplicity of the gospel. Veneration of the saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, the role of priests, the place the Eucharist holds, penance, beads, icons, holy object, the holy pope “” all of these easily vie for central place.

UPDATE: I forgot to add this bit. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem anathematizing me. The pope has no problem not recognizing my church as valid. Why isn’t that a big deal worth getting upset about?

I freely admit evangelicalism has its problems, and in many places another gospel is preached there too. But I cannot turn a blind eye to Rome’s problems. Call me a kook if you will. There are intelligent and careful responses to Rome’s doctrine available for those who search. Perhaps some of my readers can recommend good resources on this. I do respect and appreciate much that the Roman Catholic Church stands for and has bequeathed to us. But it is dead wrong on salvation and is misleading countless millions of followers around the world.

I realize this won’t win me many awards (except negative ones), and it won’t make me popular. But I aim for faithfulness rather than acceptance by the biblioblogging community.

Salvation in the Present Tense: Are We “Being Saved”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

The chorus of a popular hymn from the early 20th Century1 goes like this:

Saved… by His pow’r divine,
Saved… to new life sublime!
Life now is sweet and my joy is complete,
For I’m Saved, Saved, Saved!

It certainly is a thrilling reality, to know oneself as saved by God’s grace. The American church over the last hundred years or more, has so focused on the past tense, completed sense of salvation, however, that they’ve ignored the idea of salvation being in the present tense. The Bible actually speaks of three tenses when it comes to salvation: we have been saved (in the past: Eph. 2:5,8, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5), we also will ultimately be saved (in the future: Rom, 5:91 Thess. 5:9-10, 1 Pet. 1:5), and we are being saved now (in the present: 1 Cor. 1:18, 15:1-2, 2 Cor. 2:15).

One of the key passages, as you see above, for this concept of salvation being a present tense “being saved” reality, is 1 Cor. 15:1-2. Which says, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you”” unless you believed in vain. (ESV)”

Bill Mounce, a Greek professor and author, recently addressed how we should translate the Greek phrase for “being saved”, which some Bibles (like the King James Version) have as “are saved”. His comments reveal how the context of a book and one’s theology often help determine the translation of particular phrases. This is how language works. There is no absolute sense where the tense of a Greek verb has only one translation choice when it comes to putting it into English. That being said, I think Mounce’s case for 1 Cor. 15:2 being understood as “are being saved”, is quite strong. I also like his stress on the idea of being on “the straight and narrow” path, as the ultimate descriptive of our reality as Christ-followers.

Let me know what you think of this present tense salvation concept. I’ve shared thoughts related to this idea previously. A few posts which might help are listed below:

________________________________________

1 Words and music by Jack Scholfield (1918). Hear the tune in a new, contemporary choral arrangement here.

Quotes to Note 20: Ulrich Zwingli on the Gospel

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The following is excerpted from Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. (IVP, 2010). The quotes by Zwingli are from his Commentary on True and False Religion, written in 1525.

Ulrich Zwingli also stressed the mercy of God for the justification of unworthy sinners. He wrote, “This is the gospel, that sins are remitted in the name of Christ; and no heart ever received tidings more glad.” Zwingli proceeded to expand on this teaching, eventually stating:

“For when man through repentance has come to the knowledge of himself, he finds nothing but utter despair. Hence, wholly distrusting himself, he is forced to take refuge in the mercy of God. But when he has begun to do that, justice makes him afraid. Then Christ appears, who has satisfied the divine justice for our trespasses. When once there is faith in Him, then salvation is found; for He is the infallible pledge of God’s mercy.“

He wrapped up his treatment by asserting: “Through Christ alone we are given salvation, blessedness, grace, pardon, and all that makes us in any way worthy in the sight of a righteous God.“ (pg. 120)

Debating Calvinism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 118 Comments

Over the years, I’ve hosted some serious debates on many of the issues relating to Fundamentalism. I’ve had debates on various aspects of Calvinism too.

Recently in an old post on my blog, buried where few can see it, have been some comments by Greg and Don wanting to debate me on Calvinism. The insinuation was recently left that I don’t want to debate that topic or that I won’t allow a debate on it. To make such an enterprise simpler, I had asked that Greg read my explanation of the 5 points of Calvinism.

He’s done that, but I keep missing his comments because on very old posts on my blog the comment notifier doesn’t work for me (since I ported those posts over to my blog from my free wordpress.com blog). So I’m going to move that debate to this post.

In the comments, you can expect to see some interchange on that topic, and I’ll copy Greg’s most recent comment over and give my reply. We’ll see where that goes.

Rules for this comment thread are you must 1) read my explanation of the 5 points of Calvinism, and 2) try to stick to the Calvinism debate and 3) debate charitably following the spirit of my commenting policy. If you’re up to the challenge dive in. Know that I’ve been under the weather lately and have some catch up to do at work so I may not be interacting over here as regularly or quickly as I would like. But I will see all the comments and be sure to respond.