A question on "household."
- Thread starter Andrew P.C.
- Start date
- Status
This passage was brought to your attention for the purpose of making you wrestle with the concept of corporate salvation -- that is all. You cannot accept the prima facie meaning of Acts 16:31 because you cannot grasp the concept of a household salvation. You instinctively think of salvaiton in individualistic terms, and this requires you to understand the apostle's charge to the Philippian gaoler in a manner which is foreign to the text.
Look at 1 Cor. 10. It speaks of all Israel enjoying the blessings of "salvation" in the baptism at the Red Sea and in the wilderness by means of the Rock that followed them, infants included. As events unfolded many of them displeased God and were overthrown in the wilderness, so that we conclude they only partook of the ourtward phenomena of salvation, not the real, spiritual blessings. Nevertheless, as far as Scripture is concerned, the body is dealt with on a corporate scale.
Having seen the principle of corporate salvation at work in 1 Cor. 10, you are no in a position to grasp the same principle in operation in the passage of Acts 16, and will not have to understand "salvation" in the individualistic sense in which youare accustomed to take it. This, you will soon find, shall aid you immensely in understanding the text as it is written.
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
1.
to what Rev. Winzer said.2. It would be beneficial for you to get some language study under your belt before continuing to make foolish remarks about the text.
3. As for your objections to "they all believed" meaning that even the infants would have to have believed, think about this: My family consists of my wife and I, and seven children from the ages of 10 yrs. to 14mos. (with one or two in the womb). Lets say that we all gather together on a family night to watch a movie that was recommended to us by a friend. The next day my friend calls us up and asks, "How did you like the movie?" I respond, "It was great, my whole family thought it was a hoot!" Now does that mean that my 14 mo. old really thought it was hilarious? Probably not. What about the children in my wife's womb? They are a part of the family, but they couldn't even see the thing. Should I instead have said, "It was great, my whole family thought it was a hoot! Well, everyone except my 14 mo. old who didn't understand it, and my in utero children who couldn't even hear it..." No! He would know exactly what I meant. He would not have called me on the floor and said, "Man, I know you really thought the movie was funny and all, but be real, there's no way that your youngest, not to mention the babes in the womb, thought that it was funny, you really should be more truthful." In the same way, Baptists push an overly literal interpretation of these passages merely to support their own position. I have no problem with understanding these passages in this way at all (psst, and I used to be a Baptist!).
Hope that helps shake things up a bit for you.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Brother, I see that you have an inner hate for baptists, but lets get something straight before you misrepresent the baptist side again.
First off, baptists do not say :
A baptist scheme would have to say that all of these households did not include infants.
Or:
And since infants don't have developed cognitive faculties, then we cannot, says the baptist, say that anything like teaching or preaching could "affect" a household that had infants in it.
This is misrepresenting baptists and you are showing your color of ignoarance.
Further more, I would agree that an infant could not understand the gospel or the teachings of the judaizers.
No one has truly given me a response to Acts 16:31 yet, and I am still waiting for this response. If you are wondering what I'm looking for, it is in the particular dealing of the "household." Why is the household added in this sentence? You have given me many responses about what it doesn't mean, but what does it mean? That's all I want.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
1.
2. It would be beneficial for you to get some language study under your belt before continuing to make foolish remarks about the text.
3. As for your objections to "they all believed" meaning that even the infants would have to have believed, think about this: My family consists of my wife and I, and seven children from the ages of 10 yrs. to 14mos. (with one or two in the womb). Lets say that we all gather together on a family night to watch a movie that was recommended to us by a friend. The next day my friend calls us up and asks, "How did you like the movie?" I respond, "It was great, my whole family thought it was a hoot!" Now does that mean that my 14 mo. old really thought it was hilarious? Probably not. What about the children in my wife's womb? They are a part of the family, but they couldn't even see the thing. Should I instead have said, "It was great, my whole family thought it was a hoot! Well, everyone except my 14 mo. old who didn't understand it, and my in utero children who couldn't even hear it..." No! He would know exactly what I meant. He would not have called me on the floor and said, "Man, I know you really thought the movie was funny and all, but be real, there's no way that your youngest, not to mention the babes in the womb, thought that it was funny, you really should be more truthful." In the same way, Baptists push an overly literal interpretation of these passages merely to support their own position. I have no problem with understanding these passages in this way at all (psst, and I used to be a Baptist!).
Hope that helps shake things up a bit for you.
This is interesting. Thank you for responding to the "household".
Then my question for you would be, where do you find support for the "household" in baptism if you use this method of interpretation for "household"?
Can a Baptist who understands what Rev. Winzer was trying to tell Andrew, pipe in and say the exact same thing so that Andrew can accept the grammar lesson?
Alternatively, Andrew, you could pretend, for a moment, that Rev. Winzer is somebody who is teaching you something about grammar and accept what he said:
1. If the jailer believed...
2. He and his household would be saved.
This is what the text says. Now, if you want someone to add to or subtract from the Words of Scripture to make it say more or less than it does then you're going to need to go to a different place for answers.
Thanks for pointing this out Josh.
No, Andrew, let's get something straight. Paul's mother is a Baptist. One of Paul's best friends is Pastor Gene Cook - a Baptist.
Let's make something even clearer: This is your fastest route to suspension if you continue in such ad hominem attacks upon the character of a brother in the Lord on this board.
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
There have been several responses to your question about Acts 16:31. They have dealt with what the passage actually says, rather than the way that you choose to interpret it.
And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
(Acts 16:31)
It does not say "Believe, you and your household, and you will be saved." It says "Believe, and you will be saved, you and your household." As we have said before, believe is singular, directed at the jailer only. Therefore, the household cannot be being addressed in this context, so your question is invalid.
Also, accusations of hatred are a bit much.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Would you care to show where Paul has expressed, either explicitly or implicitly, a hatred, either inner or outer, for or toward Baptists?
In fact, having asserted such about a brother, you should provide explicit examples.
Thanks!
I agree. It is a pretty heavy accusation to accuse someone of hatred for the brethren.
......we know we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren...
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
How does this prove your point?
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Sorry, I should have made myself clear, Baptist Doctrine. Yes, it is my fault for saying Baptist. Sorry.
He attacks the baptist view by calling it "a baptist scheme" like it's some heretical doctrine. This is all i'm saying, I apologize for not being clear.
Forgive me brother Paul.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
No, I understand. But to rephrase my question: Why is household added then? Where does household come into play. You have only stated about the jailer and the singluarity of "believe".
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
I really didn't intend that, i'm sorry.
Once again, I do have alot more to learn, and language is apart of it.
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
"Household" is added so the jailer would know that if he believed, as the federal head of his family, he would be saved as well as his household.
I'd shoot the same question back at you... given the singularity of "believe", why is "household" added? If he were just talking about individual salvation, why does he add "household"?
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Brother, taking in all that you guys have written, I don't know. I'm just not understanding this particular text. I'm not some exegetical master obviously, but it's hard for me to understand this text. My thoughts are: if you conclude that the father's salvation was seen by the family, so they believed, wouldn't you be putting too much into the text? Also, on the other hand, verse 34 does tell us that the whole household did believe, so, do you include infants?
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, to start with, the text itself is a statement of fact rather than a premonition or a statement of something likely to happen. So to push it to that conclusion (that the family saw his faith, and believed) would destroy the nature of this verse.
A more literal rendering of verses preceding v34 give it it's context.
And taking them in that hour of the night, he washed from theirstripes. And he and all those belonging to him were baptized at once. And bringing them up to the house, he set a table before them, and exulted whole-housely, believing God.
(Acts 16:33-34)
All those belonging to the jailer were baptised. At once. There really is no way to get away from this text...
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Well, to start with, the text itself is a statement of fact rather than a premonition or a statement of something likely to happen. So to push it to that conclusion (that the family saw his faith, and believed) would destroy the nature of this verse.
A more literal rendering of verses preceding v34 give it it's context.
And taking them in that hour of the night, he washed from theirstripes. And he and all those belonging to him were baptized at once. And bringing them up to the house, he set a table before them, and exulted whole-housely, believing God.
(Acts 16:33-34)
All those belonging to the jailer were baptised. At once. There really is no way to get away from this text...
Lol, I like the chained up guy. Just curious, where did you get that more literal rendering from? Do you have an interlinear bible? Just curious.
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
It's an E-Sword plugin I've got. Sovereign Grace Publishers put it together. It's not too bad, best read parallel to a good translation like the ESV or NASB.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Really? Where would I find it? 
hmm...
I agree that grammatically speaking the sense of this verse is that the jailor is told to believe and told that the effect of his believing would be that both he and his household would be saved.
But in what sense would this 'saved' apply to adults in his household? So for instance if there was an adult member of his household who refused the gospel, in what sense would he or she be saved?
Just as a side note, I would also note that regardless of who was saved or not, verse 32 says that anyone who was baptised at least had the word of the Lord spoken to them first. So 'will be saved' need not equal 'will be baptized', or the verse does not necessarily mean all that was needed for the jailor's house members to be baptized would be his believing.
I agree that grammatically speaking the sense of this verse is that the jailor is told to believe and told that the effect of his believing would be that both he and his household would be saved.
But in what sense would this 'saved' apply to adults in his household? So for instance if there was an adult member of his household who refused the gospel, in what sense would he or she be saved?
Just as a side note, I would also note that regardless of who was saved or not, verse 32 says that anyone who was baptised at least had the word of the Lord spoken to them first. So 'will be saved' need not equal 'will be baptized', or the verse does not necessarily mean all that was needed for the jailor's house members to be baptized would be his believing.
Vaughn,
Just to be clear, this probably is the case but the text doesn't say why Paul told him that. It only reports that he did.
I want to make this abundantly clear because I don't want paedobaptists to do the same thing that baptists do with historical narratives. I can hardly rebuke a baptist for misuse of historical narrative if I don't do the same when we do it.
Now, the idea that Paul is reinforcing the idea of a federal head acting on behalf of his household may be established from other portions of Scripture that teach, didactically on that subject. In effect, this is what Rev. Winzer was demonstrating to Andrew in 1 Cor 10.
Thus, the principle needs to be preserved here that neither paedobaptists nor credobaptists should make the passage itself say more than it does. At best we can point out that it complements our position while, gramatically, it creates great challenges for the credo-baptist.
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
Agreed, and apologies for not making myself clearer. I brought up the federal headship thing because it seemed that the whole stack of previous answers to the original question had been ignored, and I got a bit fed up. My bad.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
This is for me. But I wish another Baptist would come in and talk about this some.
Rich, A study of the Westminster Standards Scripture proofs will show that historical portions are drawn upon frequently in order to establish credenda and agenda. I think it is necessary to be careful about the "centre of authority" in the narrative, but certainly it contains authoritative teaching which is to be believed and practised.
In any narrative it is important to observe the distinction between principia and phenomena, and to ensure that the phenomena are interpreted according to the principia. In this particular narrative, a principle is clearly enunciated by the apostle in v. 31. All that follows must be understood in this light. In reality, the narrative may have taken a completely different shape, but it would not have affected the fundamental truth announced by the apostle in v. 31. As it stands, subsequent events serve to illustrate the apostolic imperative and promise.
In any narrative it is important to observe the distinction between principia and phenomena, and to ensure that the phenomena are interpreted according to the principia. In this particular narrative, a principle is clearly enunciated by the apostle in v. 31. All that follows must be understood in this light. In reality, the narrative may have taken a completely different shape, but it would not have affected the fundamental truth announced by the apostle in v. 31. As it stands, subsequent events serve to illustrate the apostolic imperative and promise.
Thank you for that clarification. I don't think what I said completely disagrees with what you wrote here. I don't disagree that the narrative provides a principle here: "You and your household will be saved...."
My only point was that the passage doesn't completely spell out that principle. The "why" they will be saved on the basis of his belief and "what does he mean by saved here" is not complete. In fact, some might use this passage improperly to state that if a parent believes that all his children are forensically justified and united to Christ. I could even see this passage as being a pet passage for the Federal Vision.
Mark, I am in agreement over the Word being spoken to all in the house and baptism following. But I observe here a principle which I stated in another thread about pre-requisites to baptism, that no other response was required in order for them to be baptised. Lydia merely attended upon the things spoken by Paul. The gaoler's household heard the Word. Baptism signifies initiation into discipleship, and does not require anything other than a readiness to learn. Hence there is no need to ask questions as to the constituency of the household and their ability to participate in the salvation offered to the keeper of the prison. Learning is an activity for all ages, and proper to all members of a household. Blessings!
I thought the first time I saw this that someone had accidentally hit the wrong keys on their keyboard. I didn't realize this was actually a proper form of this word.Rich, This is well noted. It is probably the case that the reader is dependent on all that has preceded in the Acts of the Apostles in order to make sense of the themes announced in this verse. As one reads through the Acts in larger portions, it becomes clear that the narrative underlines the importance of "translation" out of an unchurched state into the body of believers. The book does not find any difficulty in groups as such being converted because it is only concerned to show conversion in terms of its external manifestation rather than its inward nature. If this emphasis were fluently carried through into the reading of Acts 16, I do not think it would pose the problems which have been raised in this thread. Blessings!
Welcome to the British revolution!
- Status
Similar threads
