Some Objections to Baptism Part 3

IV. "Paul only said 'believe' in Acts 16:31"

Acts 16:30-32

For some opponents of the place that the Bible gives to Baptism in the plan of salvation all that matter is the thief on the cross. Never mind what Jesus said *after* His resurrection to the apostles and never mind what the apostles themselves preached and wrote throughout the rest of the New Testament. The members of the "First Church of the Thief On The Cross" have in their minds that only *his* story matters and shows us the way of salvation. Others, as in this objection, like to focus on any Scripture that they can find where the apostles didn't directly say the word "Baptism" and say "Ah-ha! There! See? They didn't directly say 'Baptism' so it isn't important!" So now Acts 16:30-31 is all that matter and we must disregard the whole rest of the New Testament Scripture on the subject? It is expected that we should now believe that the entire plan of salvation is only given in these verses and everywhere else where the apostles *did* directly say "Baptism" should be ignored. We are also expected to ignore the facts surrounding these very verses as well to arrive at the "Baptism is option" conclusion that the proponent of this objection wishes us to accept.

Let's look at the facts. Paul and Silas are prisoners in a Roman jail in Philippi, also known in the Empire as "little Rome" because of their modeling their city, political structure and social life after that of Rome. You couldn't be in a more Roman place outside of the Italian peninsula. Paul and Silas have been beaten severely with rods, which would leave them in a state where moving around a lot would be extremely painful... meaning that you didn't do it any more than you would have to. To go out and do something "immediately" that was "optional" and not a required step for salvation in that condition would be absurd. By the thinking of the opponent of biblical Baptism it could have been done a day, a week, a month, a year, ten years later... or *never* for that matter. Additionally, it is the middle of the night and *anyone* found on the streets at that hour could be subject to Roman punishment.... let alone two men who are *supposed* to be in chains in the "innermost prison" and their jailer whose job it was *supposed* to be to keep them there and *not* out wandering the streets of Philippi looking for a watering hole. If we are to believe the Baptism opponents' case, these men braved those dangers and the possible consequences to accomplish something that was "optional" and could have been done later... such as after Paul and Silas were released and they could do so legally. Are we to believe that Paul and Silas were stupid? OR Should we believe that reasonable men don't do such things unless it is not merely *important*, but *vital* to the salvation message?

An additional fact of the matter is that we are not told *every single word* that was spoken by *everyone* in the book of Acts in the presentation of the gospel message. The fact that Paul is not reported by Luke as having directly said the word "Baptism" in the message is no indication that he didn't do so. The actions of all involved as I have detailed them above most definitely give strong indication that he most certainly *did*. If you believe that *all* Paul said was "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved..." and didn't tell him what "believe" meant (some here don't seem to understand what the Bible means by that!), Who Jesus Christ was/is and why He is Lord and what "saved" means and the jailer became a Christian then you have a strange idea of what "preaching the gospel" means... and no idea what Luke meant when he said in verse 32 "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house."

"The Word of the Lord" can be seen in Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16. The preferred reading of this verse among the opponents of biblical Baptism is "He who believes and is saved will be baptized...". or the strangest argument of all: they cite the fact that Jesus didn't mention "baptism for unbelievers" as evidence that He really didn't mean the first part. Peter’s understanding of these commands is shown in Acts 2:38 These all come under the heading "the Word of the Lord" that Paul most certainly would have preached in explaining Messiah and salvation to a Gentile Philippian jailer.

Finally, look at the history of the Church which had occurred just prior to the Second Missionary Journey of Paul, of which Philippi one of the stops. According to the record in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 the leaders of the Church met several times and discussed every aspect of Paul's message, including but not limited to the freedom from the ceremonial Law of the Gentile.

What Jesus said is recorded in the Matthew and Mark verses cited above. What Peter preached is recorded in Acts 2:38 as well as in 1 Peter 3:21 as we previously discussed. What James preached is recorded in the general epistle of James. If Paul's message was different from that of Peter, James and John it would have come out at the Conference. The fact is that Paul preached the same gospel that Jesus had commanded and that Peter, James and John preached and the Church echoes today: "Repent", "Confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" and "Be Baptized".