Household Baptism = Infant Baptism?

At Philippi, a woman named Lydia “and her household” were baptized into Christ (Acts 16:15). Also at Philippi, the jailer was baptized, “he and all his household” (Acts 16:33). And at Corinth, Paul baptized “the household of Stephanas” (1 Corinthians 1:16). Do these baptisms of entire households imply that Paul and other first-century preachers baptized infants?

Some people say yes. They reason that a “household” likely included at least one baby, therefore babies were among those baptized in these cases. For example, commentator Albert Barnes wrote that the case of Lydia “affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism.”

Can you see the problem with this reasoning? It’s simple: a household may contain infants, but it also may not. We simply can’t tell from the mere use of the word “household.” What is there to prove that Lydia, the jailer, or Stephanas had any infant children? What Barnes calls “presumptive proof” is really just presumption.

Proponents of infant baptism assume that “household” necessarily implies “infants.” But let’s look at some other passages and try that on for size. In each of the following verses, substitute “infant children” where the text has “household.”

● In the case of the Philippian jailer: “And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with his infant children” (Acts 16:32). “And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his infant children” (verse 34).

● In the city of Corinth, “Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his infant children” (Acts 18:8).

● “You know the infant children of Stephanas…that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints” (1 Corinthians 16:15).

Does any of that make sense? One might answer, “Of course not; infants can’t listen to gospel preaching, believe, or devote themselves to service.” Right! Yet New Testament baptism always followed a person’s hearing the gospel, believing on Jesus, and repenting (see Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:35-38; 18:8). Since infants can do none of those things, they cannot be scripturally baptized. That is why it is impossible to conclude that infants were baptized at Philippi, Corinth, or anywhere else.

25 Years of MTV

[This article was originally published in August to mark MTV's 25th anniversary.]


August, 1981. Reagan’s presidency was just hitting stride. NASA’s new space shuttle program wowed the world. And cable TV brought a new sensation into American homes: a 24-hour channel featuring video clips of pop and rock music stars performing their songs, plus news items from the popular music world. It was called “Music Television,” better known by its acronym: MTV.

MTV was an instant success. Youngsters all over America clamored for it, and soon it was part of every basic cable package in the country. I was just entering my teen years, a huge music fan. To me and my junior high school friends, MTV was the greatest thing since the microwave oven. Lots of our parents, however, thought it was a tool of the devil.

As it turns out, our parents were right.

August, 2006. MTV has now been part of American culture for 25 years. It has redefined the music industry, spawned an entire category of TV channels (think VH1, CMT, BET, etc.), and made household words of names like Sting, Prince, Madonna, Bono, and Eminem. According to Nielsen Media Research, MTV is the most recognized network among people ages 12 to 34. About 75% of teenagers watch MTV, consuming an average of more than six hours every week.

MTV has changed a lot over the past quarter-century. As its popularity grew during the ’80s and ’90s, the network added more feature programming to its lineup. And the focus of that programming slowly shifted from music to lifestyles and social issues. Eventually the fare included game shows, talk shows, documentaries, cartoons, political interviews, dramas, sitcoms, and even the original “reality” show, The Real World, now in its 17th season. Today barely half of MTV’s air time has anything to do with music.

As the content evolved, so did its emphasis. Clear­ly, today’s MTV aims not just to entertain kids, but to shape their view of the world. And that’s the problem. Because the world view that MTV pushes is one where rebellion, obscenity, alcohol/drug use, and unrestrained sex are all normal and good. Where such behavior should be not just tolerated, but encouraged; not just encouraged, but celebrated.

In 2004, researchers with the Parents’ Television Council studied MTV’s programming during just one week — 171 hours total. They found that MTV’s levels of sexuality, profanity, and violence (day or night) were far higher than those of prime-time network TV (the 9-11 pm slot). For instance, an average hour of MTV contained nearly twice as many sexual scenes (sex, various forms of nudity, and/or verbal sexual dialogue) and more than four times as many instances of profanity (“bleeped” or otherwise) as the 10 o’clock hour on broadcast networks. Remember, most 10 o’clock network shows are aimed at adults; MTV is aimed at kids.

There’s more — you can read the entire PTC report at www.parentstv.org — but I trust you get the idea. This is what three-fourths of America’s teens watch for nearly an hour every day.

And if you believe this barrage of coarseness and sensuality doesn’t affect the way young people think, wake up. According to the PTC report, “research shows that watching MTV changes the attitudes and perceptions of young viewers.” For instance, one study found that “seventh and ninth graders were more likely to approve of premarital sex after watch­ing MTV for one hour.” One hour?

I know some younger readers will think I’m getting worked up over nothing. I know some parents will think I must be exaggerating. But the facts speak for themselves. I’d tell you to watch MTV for a few hours and see for yourself, but I really can’t do that in good conscience. If you do, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Young Christian, what’s your standard going to be for deciding how to dress, talk, think, and act: MTV or the word of God? Take the pledge of David: “I will set no worthless thing before my eyes” (Psalm 101:3)? Follow Paul’s instruction: “…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, what­ever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things” (Philippians 4:8).

Christian parent, what will you do? Will you stand by and let your kids become victims of the MTV mind set, or will you get involved and point them to a better way?

Will Non-Christians Be Saved?

Can a person be saved without being a Christian? The answer from many of our unbelieving neighbors is “Yes.” But other folks are answering “Yes,” too — and who they are may surprise you.

A Catholic Priest Says “Yes”

Some time ago I read a newspaper article titled “Why do Catholics believe that ‘non-Christians’ can be saved?” The article, by a “Father Pasquini,” affirms that a person who knows nothing of Christ or His gospel can nonetheless be saved in that condition. The column includes this gem: “The [Catholic] church, however, makes adamantly clear that there are those who through no fault of their own will be saved.” Read that sentence again and let it sink in before you continue.

Pasquini quotes from “Lumen Gentium,” a decree issued by the Second Vatican Council in 1964. This “constitution” of the Catholic Church says that those who “do not know the Gospel of Christ or his church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

The author argues that “moved by grace” really means moved by Christ, and that “Christ consequently is the source of salvation for a person of authentic holiness, whether that person is specifically aware of it or not.” He offers the example of Indian leader Mohandas Ghandi, who made a gesture of forgiveness toward the assassin who gunned him down. “Is this not a holy act?” Pasquini asks. “Does this not require grace? Is one not saved who performs such an act?”

A Protestant Evangelist Says “Yes”

If you’re surprised to hear that the Catholic Church teaches this, get ready for another surprise. Listen to this excerpt from a 1997 interview between popular evangelists Robert Schuller and Billy Graham.

Graham: “I think everybody who knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ … whether they come from the Muslim world, Buddhist world, the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus … and I think that they are saved, and that they are going to be in heaven with us.”

Schuller (overjoyed): “What I hear you saying is that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and souls and life even if they’ve been born into darkness and never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying?”

Graham: “Yes it is, because I believe that.” [1]

So Billy Graham says that someone can know Christ without being conscious of it. He says that some who “may not even know the name of Jesus” are nonetheless part of His body and are saved. This is probably an eye-opener for many of Graham’s fans!

Observations

I’m not sure, but I suspect that such positions stem in part from the influence of men like Augustine and Calvin, who taught that salvation is something God unconditionally and irresistibly thrusts upon a person. If one believes that, then it’s really not much of a stretch to theorize that God brings some people to Christ without their ever being aware of it.

Such thinking flies in the face of New Testament teaching about salvation. In John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” “Father Pasquini” deals with this passage by simply asserting that a person can be in Christ and not even know it! But the Scriptures say no such thing. Jesus told the Jews, “unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). Paul wrote that God will deal out retribution “to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

It defies both Scripture and common sense to say that one can know Jesus without being conscious of it, that he can be in Christ without believing in Christ. But that’s exactly what these men are proposing. I have to wonder if their teaching may reflect a desire to make the gospel a little less exclusive, a little less offensive. After all, why tell a devout Buddhist or Muslim (or atheist?) that he’s lost without Jesus, if he already has Jesus and just doesn’t realize it? If some men are saved without ever hearing the gospel of Christ, then why preach it? The great commission (Mark 16:15-16) loses its force.

“…for ‘whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.’ How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:13-14).

God, of course, has the right to save whomever He wants. He will judge all men righteously and fairly (Romans 2:11). Whatever exceptions He may choose to make are His prerogative. But we have no right to presume that God will save a person on any basis other than what He has revealed. And God has revealed that salvation is in Christ alone. “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). That is what we must proclaim to the world.


[1] Transcribed from a May 31, 1997 interview, cited in Phil Sanders, Adrift: Postmodernism in the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 2000), p. 176.