Articles
Unexceptional Exceptional Arguments
Despite the Bible’s clear teaching on the saving nature of baptism (i.e. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:4-7; Gal. 3:27; 1 Pet. 3:21), many refuse to believe it. There are several arguments against the necessity of baptism (none of which are biblically sound), but consider one particularly popular argument, which sounds like this: “What about the man in Africa who has no water around? Are you saying he cannot be saved?” or “What about the woman who is bedridden in the hospital and cannot be baptized – can she not be saved?” The following is a two-fold approach to dealing with these questions.
First, we need to understand that these questions are built on assumptions: the asker is creating a scenario which he assumes is an exception to baptism. To be fair, most of us like to assume these are exceptions as well. We know what the Scriptures teach about baptism, but we think, “Surely a compassionate God would not hold someone accountable who was physically unable to be baptized.” However, when we make those calls, we are placing ourselves in the shoes of the one true Lawgiver and Judge (James 4:12). When a person asks us these questions,he puts himself and us in a position we have no right to be in.
Logically, it does not seem like God would hold them accountable, because in order for us to have responsibility, we must have the ability to respond. If we are physically unable to respond to God’s command to be baptized, it seems logical that God would not hold us accountable. However, we must recognize that is only our opinion, and the asker must realize he cannot assume those people are off the hook either (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9). God decides.
At this point, you won’t feel like you’ve been much of an influence on the asker, but there is another major fallacy behind these questions: the bottom line is, the asker is trying to create a rule out of an exception. His argument is basically, “Since the man in Africa with no water will still be saved, that means we in America don’t need to be baptized in water to be saved either.” Since we’ve already shown how the whole premise of his argument is built on assumptions, all that remains is to expose the faultiness of his conclusion.
To help the asker see the problems with his logic, ask him this: “So you’re saying if a 90-year-old woman is bedridden and can’t come to church, that means nobody has to go to church?” or “If a man is blind and can’t read the Bible, does that mean none of us have to read the Bible?” The asker may claim “that’s not the same thing,” but it is.
Those are examples of creating rules out of exceptions, and it never works logically. With this approach, hopefully we can help the asker see his “exceptional” arguments against baptism aren’t so exceptional after all.
