Truth Magazine

By George T. Eldridge

Individually Purchased Income Protection Insurance

Individuals can pay for their health insurance or the employer (the church) can pay all or part of the premiums.

Question: Are premiums paid for income protection insurance tax deductible as a medical expense? Answer: No.

Question: Are income protection benefits tax free? Answer: Yes (Internal Revenue Code, 1, R. C., Section 104).

Question: Are premiums paid for accidental death coverage and specific loss coverage (loss of limb, loss of sight, for example) tax deductible as a medical expense? Answer: No.

Question: Are the benefits received tinder accidental death and specific loss coverage subject to income taxes? Answer: No, these benefits are tax free (L R. C. Section 101 a; Regulation 1.101-1 [a]).

Tax Tips

Since all benefit payments received from income protection coverage are tax free, this money can be very helpful during the period of disability, A broad selection of benefit periods are available, with the best plan being Lifetime Accident with Sickness to Age 65. How many preachers could have had it easier during their disability if this income protection insurance had been bought? I can think of two preachers whom I know well that could use this insurance now, but their health status would make them be rejected by all insurance companies. It would be scriptural as well as with much wisdom being shown if churches would pay for this coverage. This would be on the same basis as churches aiding the preacher in the payment of his Social Security.

Individual Hospitalization, Surgical, Medical Insurance

Question: Are premiums paid for hospital, surgical, or medical coverage tax deductible as a medical expense? Answer: Yes. In itemizing his deductions, the policyholder may deduct one-half the premiums paid for insurance to reimburse him for hospital, medical, or surgical expenses (not to exceed $150.00). This is a basic deduction. The balance of the premiums paid for such coverage may be included in his regular medical expense calculation. If all his medical expenses, including the balance of the premiums, are more than three percent of his adjusted gross income, the excess may be deducted.

Question: Are the $5.60 monthly premiums paid for Part B of Medicare included in the above rule? Answer: Yes. The individual $5.60 payments may be included in the regular medical expense calculation.

Employer Paid Health Insurance Plan

Under the Internal Revenue Code, an employer may establish a health insurance for one or more employees. Based on that Code, the church is an employer and the preacher is an employee. If the church establishes such a plan, the tax principles set out in the following paragraphs apply.

Question: If the employer does pay all or part of the premiums, whether for an individual policy or group policies, are the premiums taxable as income to the employee (preacher)? Answer: No. This situation is just like General Motors, General Electric, Texaco, Ford, Inland Steel, or any other employer paying the premium for the brethren who are employees of these companies. If the church does pay all or part of the premium, the elders or someone approved in the business meeting must sign for the church on the application. Also, the premium must be paid on the church’s checking account. The church cannot make the check payable to the preacher and he in turn write a check to the insurance company!

Question. What benefits under a church-purchased plan are tax-free to the employee (preacher)? Answer: 1. Medical expenses. Any benefits received to pay the preacher’s medical expenses are tax-free. Benefits exceeding expenses are taxable income to the preacher it all attributable to the church’s premium. 2. Limb or eye loss. Benefits are tax-free if the preacher receives them as payment for the loss, or loss of use of any member or function of the body or for permanent disfigurement. These benefits apply only to the specific losses incurred. 3. Disability income. After the 30th day, all benefits are tax-free up to $100.00 a week. From the 8th to the 30th day, the benefits are tax-free up to $75.00 a week, if the benefits received are less than 75% of the employee’s regular weekly wage. If the employee is hospitalized for one day or more, this rule applies from the first day of disability.

Conclusion

The brethren frequently have employers providing these fringe benefits. There is nothing unscriptural in churches paying for these benefits for the preachers. Many heartaches, sleepless nights, and financial hardships could be avoided if elders saw that the preacher had an adequate insurance program.

(Editor’s Note: Although articles of the following kind seldom appear in Truth Magazine, the following article was prepared at my specific request so as to inform churches and preachers as to some specific benefits that may be applicable in their cases.. The article was prepared by an accountant, but is not offered as irrefutable tax advice by Truth Magazine. We assume no liability as to the accuracy of the tax court rulings on specific statements made herein. We recommend that you procure your own information from an accountant, tax consultant, or tax attorney. But, since the information in this article affects so many brethren, we thought its general circulation might be profitable.)

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 729
November 18, 1976

By Raymond E. Harris

History In The Making?

April 1975, Lauderdale County, Alabama may well be remembered in years to come as a significant starting point of “The Church Of Christ denomination.” At that time an event transpired that may be unparalleled in the history of the Church in this century. I personally do not know of any previous effort to join so many congregations together into one body to accomplish a work! There was no sponsoring church smoke screen. There was no effort to “Put it under an eldership.” Rather forty five institutional churches in Lauderdale County banded together and formed an organization officially known as “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ.” The organization had a publicly designated secretary treasurer and an associate treasurer. They received monies from local church treasuries and from individuals. They purchased newspaper space and TV time. They did business with an office supply and printing company and they made a substantial contribution ($3,629.15) to a non-religious political-civic organization. The organization secured the services of individuals to write and place “Paid political advertisements,” and to speak on television. Yes, all of the fore said activities were openly and publicly declared to be the work of “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ!”

By What Authority?

All God fearing, Bible respecting members of the Church of Christ must ask some questions. By what authority was this done? Was it scriptural? Obviously it was not scriptural! The only religious organization known to the New Testament is the local church. In Acts 14:23 we learn how Paul revisited the cities where he had converted people and helped them set their congregations in order by ordaining “Elders in every church.” Later when he wrote his letter to Philippi he addressed the letter to “All the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). Each scripturally organized church is autonomous, independent, equal and sufficient. Each congregation is to be independent in its work and worship. God does not expect anything of any congregation that it cannot accomplish independent of all other churches. God has not commanded any work or activity by the universal church. Further, the “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ” could have no scriptural leadership, as elder’s authority is limited to the local church. Paul made such very clear as in Acts 20:28 he said, “Take heed therefore … to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” Later Peter concurred when he wrote, “Feed the flock of God which is among you.” Hence, the responsibility, work and authority of the elders begins and ends with the local congregation over which they serve as shepherds. Hence, the churches of the county, the state, the nation or the world are not authorized to band together and organize to do anything. It is obvious that in this matter these 45 individual churches relinquished part of their work, part of their money and their influence to the county organization, “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ.”

Also it is obvious that some individuals were quite presumptuous and brazen in this latest apostasy. What man or group of men has the right to form such an organization. Who has the authority to appoint a treasurer and call for church money to be put at his disposal? By what authority would one serve in such a capacity? Who has the authority to select advertisements, writers and TV speakers?

In the meantime where were the elders of these 45 churches? Don’t they know better than this? In this they relinquished their leadership, their authority and revealed the fact that they are either cowards or ignorant. Yes, they stand condemned one way or the other. If they are so ignorant of the scriptures that they did not know it is wrong to join their congregation to a county-wide organization, they are too unlearned to be elders. And if they knew better, but were afraid to stand up to gung-ho promotional preachers, they are too fearful and cowardly to be elders. Either way they prove themselves unqualified and unfit to elder. Truly with no more leadership than this in the local congregations of this county, it is easy to see why the institutional churches are well on their way to denominational status.

Nowhere in all the New Testament is there a command, example or inference that would authorize the tying or binding of local churches together. In fact when various things are bound together it changes their nature and status completely. To illustrate: (1) When iron links are hooked together they are no longer links, they are a chain. (2) When posts are hooked together they are no longer just posts, they become a fence. (3) When boxcars are hooked together they are no longer just boxcars, they are a train. And (4) when local churches are hooked together to form a larger organization, they are no longer local churches, they become a denomination!

Parallel Actions of the 1830’s

Since the early days of the restoration some have not been content with God’s simple way (the local congregation). Hence, they have longed to help God out by establishing larger and more far reaching organizations. Walter Scott as early as 1827 wrote in the Christian Messenger favoring conferences and cooperation meetings.

It was argued by those in favor of district, area and state organizations that most local congregations were too limited, especially financially, to do sustained and efficient work in carrying out the Lord’s work. They insisted that congregations through their messengers to the cooperation could pledge certain specified amounts to finance the preaching of the Gospel. The cooperations then could select evangelists and assure them their pay and authorize them to preach within a certain area. Organized efforts like this sprang up in Virginia in early 1831. A similar association was started in Illinois in 1834. Indiana had its first state meeting in 1839 and southern Kentucky churches organized in 1842. All this and more was done over the earnest protest of many brethren and without the first shred of New Testament authority. All such organization was defended soley on the basis of expediency and “the end justifies the means.” It was based on the false premise that the universal church has a responsibility and a work to do.

Final Fruits of Such Cooperation

Earl I. West in The Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 1, pg. 155, observes: “Thus cooperation meetings were logical forerunners of the organizations and societies, both state and national, later to be found in the brotherhood. Any defense that could be made for them was the same that could be made for later Missionary and Bible Societies.” Brother West in the satue volume, pg. 159, shows that the fallacy of such action (and that of “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ”-REH) is the same that spawned the Roman Catholic Church and the many protestant synods and conferences. This was the idea that the church universal, as such, has specific work to do. I urge you to consider well the following statement from brother West’s book. “The church universal, as such, was not left with any specific work to do, but all work to be (lone was left up to the local congregations. Hence, in New Testament times, the only organization of Christians to exist was a local church. It is obvious, then, that the plan of the New Testament, by which the world was to be converted was the establishing of local churches in everv communitv of the world, and these local churches, in turn, under Christ, convert those within its reach. From Jerusalem to Judea, thence to Samaria and finally to the uttermost parts of the earth, churches were planted in New Testament times without the aid of any other organization than the local church, and souls were thus converted to Christ.

Ecclessiasticisms unknown to the church owe their origin directly or indirectly to beginning with the church universal. This has been carried to the farthest extreme in Roman Catholicism. Beginning with the consideration of the church uniNersal, they reasoned that an earthly pope must reign in the place of Christ. The apostles must have their successors, and so the bishops became this. On these two major assumptions, both starting with the concept of the church universal, Roman Catholicism has built its structure. The Synods, Conferences of Protestantism all have started from the same premise, but have not gone to the extreme of Romanism. For the brethren of a century ago to begin at this point and work toward general organizations was likewise to start on a false premise and in these concepts the differences arose.

However despite the warnings and pleadings of faithful brethren, in 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society was formed. This was followed rapidly by the use of instrumental music in worship in the 1850’s and the forming of the Christian Church by 1906. And now in our time a great part of the Christian Church has become identified as the Disciples of Christ., They have undergone what they called “restructure” and are now numbered with the denominations of the land. This very day they have their societies, (missionary, educational and benevolent) they have their instrumental music and they have their progressive streamlined, man made ways-but they have not God! Who wants to follow in such a way?

Where Do You Stand – Or Do You?

We call upon every member, every elder and every preacher in the church to think seriously about this matter! Where is the local church where you attend headed? Where are you headed? Each one is responsible for his own actions. Do we dare tag along with the majority where ever it goes and regardless what it does? Surely we have some that will still read and study God’s word and think for themselves. Is this generation void of the spirit of Lipscomb, Franklin and Lard?

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 727-728
November 18, 1976

By Johnny Stringer

In the July, 1973, issue of mission messenger, edited by W. Carl Ketcherside, there is an article by F. L. Lemley entitled “The Alternatives.,” In this article Lemley maintains that we are not required to follow the scriptural pattern regarding. such matters as the organization, work, and worship of the church.

Says Bible is Unclear

Lemley blasphemously charges God with giving a revelation that is so unclear that we cannot understand it and apply it., He argues that since “all scripture must be interpreted,” different interpretations will arise and “we should long ago have made room for them.” The fact that the scriptures are not clear, he says, is proved by the fact that even “our Ph. D’s” err, as is demonstrated by the fact that they disagree. “If the pattern is all that clear,” Lemley asks, “why the discussion?” He then affirms that “if the pattern is clear surely the Ph. D’s ought to be able to agree on it . . .”

The fact that the educated men differ, Lemley assumes, is because the revelation is not clear. He then concludes that if the message is so unclear on certain points that even Ph. D.’s disagree on those points, we should not take such a strong stand on those matters.

But think: Ph. D.’s differ on such matters as the existence of God, the divine origin of the scriptures, and the necessity of baptism. According to Lemley’s reasoning, the fact that Ph. D.’s differ on these matters proves that the evidence concerning these matters is not clear and we should not take a strong stand on them. Will he accept this conclusion? It is the logical result of his reasoning, and if he rejects it he is inconsistent.

Of course, Brother Lemley’s position is not new. He is simply parroting the denominationalists who have long asserted that “we cannot all understand the Bible alike” and “everyone has a right to his own interpretation.” The refutation of Lemley’s contention, therefore, is the same as the reply that brethren have long been giving the denominationalists: (1) To say that the revelation of God cannot be understood is a reflection upon God-it is to say that God is at fault for our divisions because He gave us an inadequate revelation; (2) We are commanded to understand God’s will (Eph. 5:17), and God does not command us to do anything that we are unable to do; (3) If we cannot understand the Bible, then why did God give it to us? It is utterly useless if it cannot be understood.

“Fatal” Errors Vs. “Unimportant” Ones

Lemley goes on in the article to say that only certain mistakes are fatal, while others are “of little importance” and “innocuous.” He then says, “Now the question arises, ‘Who is to decide which truths or doctrines are indispensable, and which mistakes are fatal” Lemley evidently thinks that the one to make that decision is Lemley, for he then presumes to issue his authoritative pronouncements regarding just which mistakes are important. I suppose he figures that someone has to sit in judgment upon God’s word and decide just which parts of it are really important, so it might as well be him.

Thus, he offers some “guidelines,” saying that a mistake is fatal if it: (1) “contradicts the nature of God,” (2) “destroys faith in or discredits the work of Jesus as the Messiah and Savior,” or (3) “leads to immorality.”

For the second guideline he gives 2 Tim. 2:17 and 2 John 9-11 as scriptural references. For the third guideline, regarding immorality, he gives 1 Cor. 5. But does he not consider the fact that he has to interpret these passagess? He is grossly inconsistent when he uses scriptures to prove a point, for he has already said that since scriptures have to be interpreted we cannot be certain about their meaning. If Lemley is correct, we cannot know that immorality is a “fatal” sin, for I Cor. 5 and all other passages dealing with immorality have to be interpreted-and someone might not interpret them the same way as Lemley does! If Lemley can be so broad-minded as to make room for differing interpretations on the organization of the church, then why not allow for such differences on immorality. His inconsistency glares. The scriptures that pertain to church organization are just as clear as those that pertain to immorality (Acts 20:17, 28; 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

False Concept of Grace

Lemley then charges that those who insist upon strict adherence to the divine pattern are guilty of legalism and “allow no grace whatsoever.” Legalism has grown to be a dirty word in the eyes of many, and it is quite often used against those who love the truth. The popular idea seems to be that if you cannot refute the scriptural arguments a man presents, then the thing to do is to call him a legalist for invoking the scriptures-that’ll take care of him!

The concept that adhering to the scriptural pattern does not allow for grace is one of the absurdities that is gaining an ever increasing degree of acceptance among brethren today. Everyone who reaches heaven will be there because of the grace of God. This is because we all sin (Rom. 3:9-10, 23) and therefore deserve to go to hell, not heaven. But by God’s grace we can be forgiven of our sins so that we will not have to be punished for them.

God will graciously forgive us, however, only if we meet His conditions. Peter sets forth the conditions of forgiveness for non-Christians (Acts 2:38) and for the Christian who sins (Acts 8:22). Whether one is a Christian or a non-Christian, repentance is a necessary condition for forgiveness; thus, salvation by grace does not mean that one can persist in sin and expect God to overlook those sins. Whether it is a sin of immorality or the sin of ignoring the scriptural teaching regarding the organization of the church, it must be repented of if it is to be graciously forgiven.

The fact that we must adhere to the scriptural pattern (2 Tim. 3:16-17) does not nullify grace; for regardless of how conscientiously brethren follow the scriptural teaching in worship and in the work and organization of the church, they still have not lived sinlessly and must be forgiven of their shortcomings by God’s grace upon compliance with His conditions of pardon. Thus, to say that adhering to the divine pattern on these matters does not allow any grace is utterly ridiculous.

Furthermore, I cannot understand why it is that adhering to scriptural teaching that pertains to church organization nullifies grace, while adhering to scriptural teaching regarding immorality does not. Yet, Brother Lemley says that immorality is a “fatal mistake.” In Lemley’s view, evidently, grace takes care of some sins which are persisted in, but not others; and Lemley has presumed to decree which sins grace will overlook and which ones it won’t. The scriptures, however, do not indicate that grace will overlook any sin of any type that is unrepented of.

Brethren, do not be deceived by those who would lead vou to believe that God will overlook the sin of ignoring His teaching regarding the organization of the church-or anything else.

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 726-727
November 18, 1976

By Cecil Willis

This week we want to study the conversion of the woman, Lydia, found in Acts 16:5-15. This woman, Lydia, was a remarkable person. She has some very outstanding traits, which we must understand if we are to properly understand what follows. “And on the sabbath day we (that is, Paul, Silas and Luke) went forth without the gate by a river side, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down, and spake unto the women that were come together. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped God, heard us” (Acts 16:13, 14).

Paul and Silas were now in the city of Philippi. You will remember that Paul was now on his second great evangelistic tour. They had preached over the greater portion of Asia Minor, and now, by the direction of the Lord they had been brought over into the district of Macedonia, unto the city of Philippi. They had come there to preach, and when they arrived, they began seeking out those that might be receptive to their message of the gospel. So they went down to the riverside where there was a place of prayer, and there they met this woman, Lydia. Philippi, though, was not the home of Lydia. She was on a business trip, as we would say it. Actually, her home was in the city of Thyatira. “Thyatira, the home of Lydia, was a city of proconsular Asia (Rev. 1:11), situated on its northern border; and Paul’s company, in ‘passing by Mysia’ on their way to Troas, had probably passed near it. It was noted for the excellence of its purple dyes, and it is still a pleasantly situated town of about ten thousand inhabitants” (McGravey, Commentary on Acts, pg. 88). Lydia was on a business tour and had come over to Philippi to sell some of her goods. Her hometown, Thyatira, was almost three hundred miles away.

You will notice that the text says that she was a seller of “purple.” Purple, was not a material or a certain kind of cloth, but it was a dye. So expensive was the dye, that only the very best qualities of materials were dyed purple, and so instead of wearing the name of the material, the goods wore the name of the dye put in them. Rich kings were often described as being “wearers of purple.” In considering the very expensive product which she sold, the probability is that Lydia was at least comfortably fixed financially.

The outstanding trait of her character is that she was a faithful worshiper of God, as best she knew how. It is not often that one finds a successful, or wealthy business person that is a faithful servant of God. One frequently will find businessmen who attend the services of some church thinking that it might better their business prospects, but not very many of them are truly devoted to the Lord. But here we find this businesswoman, Lydia, in a city almost three hundred miles away from her home, and when the Sabbath day came, she put aside her business cares and went down by the riverside to pray. It was while she was by the side of the river praying that the apostle Paul, came to her with the message of God.

There are several incidentals regarding the conversion of this woman which has been used improperly to try to prove some doctrines that are not true. But before we notice some outstanding examples of this, let us call attention to one other point.

In this present series of studies, we have looked at what the Bible says about the conversion of Paul the Apostle, the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius the Gentile convert, and now of Lydia. If you will think back over the record of each of these individuals, you will remember that they were worshipers of God according to some manner before their conversion. In other words, they were religious people, yet unsaved people. Yet, in most cities, there are many, many preachers who will tell you that it does not matter how you worship, just so long as you worship God, yet here we have four Bible examples of where either men or women worshiped God, yet were not saved. If Lydia was alright in the eyes of God, why did Paul preach to her? There would have been nothing he could have told her if she was already doing what God would have her do. To worship God is not enough. It must be worship of God as He has commanded. You must worship as He said do it, or else it will be in vain.

The Lord Opened Lydia’s Heart

Many have misunderstood, and misapplied the teaching of Luke concerning the opening of the heart of Lydia by the Lord. The passage says, “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Our problem is, “What does the expression, the Lord opened Lydia’s heart mean?” Does it mean what denominationalists say it means? They teach that one is so totally depraved that he cannot even so much as listen to the preaching of the gospel until there has been some miracle wrought upon his heart to open it in order that he might give heed to what is spoken. But this passage not only does not teach this; it denies it. Before any mention is made of the opening of the heart of Lydia by the Lord, she is said to have heard the preaching of the apostle. The opening of the heart of the woman was not to make her in such a condition so as to be able to hear the preaching of the Word, for she heard the preaching before her heart was opened.

Well, what does it mean to open her heart? “The statement that the Lord opened Lydia’s heart implies that previously her heart was in some way closed. It was certainly not closed by the hardness of a sinful life, or by inherited depravity; for such a supposition is forbidden by the steadfastness with which, under great temptation, she had previously clung to the worship of God. It was closed in the sense in which the pious and earnest heart of a Jewish worshiper might be closed. Every Jew, and every Jewish proselyte, was at that time so wedded to the belief that the coming of Christ would establish an earthly kingdom, as to have the heart very tightly closed against the conception of a crucified Christ, whose reign as a king is purely spiritual. It was this that had caused the mass of the Jews to reject the Christ while he was still on earth, and it continued to be their ‘stumbling block’ (Jn. 5:44; 1 Cor. 1:23). Whether Lydia was a Jewess or a proselyte, this was ‘the home of Israel’ in which she had been instructed, and for which she had been taught to devoutly pray; and if the natural effect of it had not been removed from her heart, she must have rejected the gospel, as did the mass of those who bad been her teachers. The statement then that the Lord ‘opened her heart’ means that he removed this mistaken conception which would have prevented her from receiving Christ” (McGarvey, Commentary on Acts, pg. 90, 91). It simply means that the mistaken view that she had of Christ was taken away, so that she might receive him as Savior, and thereby be saved. The reason for her heart’s being opened, or cleared of mistaken conceptions of Christ was in order that she might “give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul” (verse 14).

Not only have men been mistaken as to what was meant when the Bible says that the Lord opened her heart, but they have been mislead as to how the Lord opened her heart. This instance is often used to show how the Lord must perform some direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the sinner in order that the sinner might hear the gospel sermon, but this is not what happened here. Truly, the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, but it was done through the word of this great preacher. If you will remember, Paul had been concentrating his efforts in preaching to Asia Minor, and had made no preparation to go over into Macedonia where Lydia was at the time, but the Lord sent him to Macedonia. “And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not; and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: There was a man of Macedonia standing, beseeching him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. And when he had seen the vision, straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them” (Acts 16:6-10). So you see, Paul had not intended to go into Macedonia to preach, and therefore would not have contacted this notable woman, Lydia, but the Lord Jesus sent him there. It was by the work of the Lord that the preacher was instructed as to where to go preach, and consequently, it was the Lord that opened Lydia’s heart, through his chosen and sent messenger, the apostle Paul.

Our purpose in studying this case of conversion is to learn all that we can that pertains to one’s conversion today. Notice, this woman did the same things that every person who becomes a Christian today must do. Upon hearing the word of Paul, she must have believed them, even though it is not so stated, for she obeyed what he commanded. Certainly she would not have obeyed the commands that he gave had she not believed what he said. Second, she repented. In studying the important subject of repentance, it was seen that to-repent simply means to change one’s mind. It is a change of mind preceded by godly sorrow, and followed by a reformation of life. She must have repented also, for she changed her mind about living the life as did the Jew, and consequently she changed her action. She quit being a Jewish worshiper, and became a Christian. Then thirdly, she obeyed the gospel by being baptized. The Scripture says, “and when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there” (Acts 16:15). She did three things. She believed, she repented, and she was baptized. This is exactly the same thing that you and I must do in order to be saved from the sins of our past lives. If you are not willing to do these things, you do not have enough faith to be saved by obedience.

Lydia’s Household

But there is another matter with which we must concern ourselves for the remainder of our time this week. It is also related to the conversion of Lydia, and it is also a point on which many people are confused, and many more deceived. Verse 15 says, “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us saying This passage says that Lydia and her household were baptized. There are many denominations who practice “baptizing” of infants, or at least they sprinkle babies. When called upon for proof for their action, they will cite this instance, and one or two other similar ones, in which a household is said to have been baptized, and they surmize from it, that therefore there must have been some babies baptized. It should be apparent from the very outset that this argument from this instance seeking to justify infant baptism is based wholly upon conjecture. The Bible says absolutely nothing about infants in this household.

In fact, one might have a household comprised wholly of servants or helpers, and Lydia might well have had this inasmuch as she was a business woman. We do not even know that she was married. Furthermore if she was married, we do not know that she had children. This must also be supposed to justify infant baptism. One must also assume that she had them with her. Remember, Philippi was not Lydia’s home, but a city almost three hundred miles away was her home, a city called Thyatira. It is hard to conceive a woman’s carrying an infant or several small children three hundred miles while on a business trip. But not only must one suppose that this woman was married, had children, had them with her, he must also assume that these children were infants. So you see, any argument drawn from this text seeking to prove that there were infants baptized in this household has to be read into the text. It says absolutely nothing about any infants. Men are very hard pressed when they make such an unfounded argument. The Bible plainly teaches that only penitent believers are fit subjects for baptism, and an infant can be neither a penitent, nor a believer. It cannot be penitent, for it had done no sin of which it needs to repent, and it cannot be a believer, for it has not yet acquired the mental strength to examine the testimony, and yield mental assent to the propositions stated in the word.

This conversion of Lydia, is but another instance in which God sent a preacher to preach to an individual, the preacher preached, the sinner believed and obeyed the commands sent of God by this messenger. You too can be saved by obeying the gospel. Resolve to do it immediately.

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 723-725
November 18, 1976