How Can Paul Say That?

As I have led evangelism teams now in two towns called Louisville (KY and IL), I have encountered a large number of Roman Catholic people at their doorsteps and attempted to share the gospel with them. I am always surprised at how they answer my most basic question, "What do you believe it takes for a person to go to heaven?" Those who grew up in or currently attend some form of Protestant church usually reply with something like, "You have to believe or have faith in Jesus." The Roman Catholics that I talk to, on the other hand, never fail to answer, "You have to be a good person."

Several times now, when I have been given this response, I have asked the person why Roman Catholics tend to answer that way, and I have asked what place Jesus has in the equation. To their credit, all of the ones I have inquired of in this way have clarified their answer to include the grace of God in the sacrifice of Christ for forgiveness of sins. Still, the initial focus on works instead of grace is troubling.

As I was thinking about what I could say or ask that would introduce a wedge of doubt into their theology at this point, I came upon the Philippian jailer's question to Paul in Acts 16:30, "What must I do to be saved?" I thought to myself, that should be the question that I ask these Roman Catholics! If they answer anything other than, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved," then I'll be able to confront them as to why. After all, Paul didn't say anything about sacraments or mass or confessions and penance and venial and mortal sins; he just said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus."

But this morning I got to thinking about the rest of Paul's statement. He did not just promise that the jailer would be saved if he believed in the Lord Jesus; he promised that his whole household would be saved! I realized that I would fail my own test. If someone asked me what he must do to be saved, I would certainly tell him that he must believe in Jesus, but I would definitely not make any promises about his family. They would have to believe in Jesus on their own.

So how could Paul say what he said, then? How could he promise this man that his whole household would be saved? There has been so much debate between paedobaptists and credobaptists on whether or not there were children in the house (since later they all got baptized) that I think that we have overlooked the fact that Paul made this man a promise that didn't seem to take into account the individual faiths of the various members of the jailer's household. Someone might argue that this was a different time and that the members of the household all would follow the lead of the head of the family, but we must remember that though cultural experience has changed in the last 2000 years, human nature has not. Paul was either making a promise that included the instant manifestation of genuine faith in every member of the household, or he was promising that the faith of the head of household would 'cover' the rest of the family (perhaps only until they manifested genuine faith).

Standing as I do in my current convictions as a Reformed credobaptist, I cannot understand how Paul could make this promise with either of these intentions. If anyone would argue that Paul was not making an actual promise that ALL of the household would be saved, I would just point out that they all in fact were, apparently (verse 33). Now, if Paul can make promises like this, can we? In Baptist circles, though we like to talk about male headship in the home, we do not like to talk about the realities of headship in the faith. We have no place in our understanding for a concept like "you and your household," because we believe that each person must have their own experience of Christ. I'm not sure how to resolve the issue, but I love it when I run up against things in Scripture that challenge my current understandings, because that is when I grow.

If anyone reads this and has a personal interpretation or understanding of the issue, please comment and let's continue the discussion.