Tough Question (revised due to typo's)

Have you had opportunity for someone to ask you a question you think you should already know the answer and in reality you freeze up for a moment with that deer in the headlights look?

This happens to me a lot, mostly because I am easily confused by slick questions.

There are a lot of "spiritual" issues with which we may have an opinion and yet there seems to be no Biblical reference to back up these beliefs.

It's easy to start believing that that rich people won't go to Heaven and the poor are a 'shoe-in', but the Bible does not say that the rich will go to Hell, only those who do not believe.

You may also believe that living in a house with a street number of 666 or stepping of the elevator on the 13th floor of a building is bad. The black cat that ran in front of you this morning as you walked under a ladder after breaking a mirror, won't have as profound an effect we may think. So stop looking for pennies facing up and don't worry when you break shoe lace, it's all going to be ok.


On the other hand, we do face some seemingly unanswerable questions such as:

• "Does the Bible teach about believing in ghosts or demons roaming about?"


• "Can a person actually sin in their dreams?"

-and here is one that sounds simple but can still catch you off guard

• "Why not baptize infants?"

On the surface an evangelical New Testament believing Christian would say babies should not be baptized. We would argue that baptism is not "salvific" in other words getting dunked won't get you through the pearly gates.

Christians can argue that there is really no difference between sprinkling a baby and calling it baptism and "dedicating" that same child before a congregation to the Lord. I would argue that if this is the case then why use an ordinance such as baptism to promise that you will pray for a child and bring them up in the way of the Lord? Baptism clouds the issue.

So what is the point of baptism in babies? Good question. Before you think I have stepped off the deep end and become a flaming liberal, allow me to clarify from the beginning that I do not see baptism in anyone as legitimate without faith and since babies have no way of expressing it, let alone understanding it, infant baptism is ludicrous and unbiblical at best.

But in all fairness, lets take a look at the Word of God:

The New Testament talks about several occasions where the act of Baptism was a result of faith. In other words, baptism did not precede believing.

With regard to Lydia and the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16, these are two examples where faith (belief) precedes getting baptized.

In vs. 14 the Lord opened Lydia’s heart to the message Paul was preaching. In other words, Paul was preaching, Lydia heard the words and responded and then she was baptized; regarding “her household” there is NO indication that she had infants or even small children. Scripture does not even indicate she was married; “her household” could have been her servants. the fact that he was a business woman and a ‘dealer in purple cloth’ is all the information we are given to work with.

Later in the same chapter Paul and Silas were in jail and had been singing and praying and they were obviously vocal about it because the scripture said that the other prisoners were listening to them. At midnight there was an earthquake and their chains were broken and the doors were opened. When the dust cleared the jailer thought for sure that everyone had escaped so he was ready to take his own life, but Paul spoke up and said they were all still there.

The jailer asked ‘what must I do to be saved'. It is important to know that since the jailer had been there all along, he was an audience to the singing and prayer and obvious conversation regarding the Gospel, so it was only natural that he ask such a question. Paul's answer was simple yet concise: ‘believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved', then the statement followed 'you and your household'. The same applies to the Jailer's household, if they believe they too can be saved. In scholarly circles this is called a "PRESUPPOSITION". The obvious fact that his household was saved and baptized meant that they must have also had faith. They had to, because scripture indicates in other passages that faith is a requirement for salvation and baptism follows as an act of obedience and identification.

Later after the Jailer helped Paul and Silas to get cleaned up he and his family were baptized. Obviously they must have believed in the Lord Jesus as well. The scripture once again does not indicate that there were infants in the household, this is where many make an mistaken assumption; household does not instantly imply infants.

The ultimate point is that the two requirements of salvation are faith and repentance: Romans 10:10 clearly states: “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” As is the case with infants they are not capable of either one; however many young children can and do come to salvation in Christ because they have heard the Gospel, realize their sin, repent and believe. Its as easy as ABC Admit ~Believe ~Confess(Commit)

-John