A question on "household."

[Semper Fidelis]

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!

Excellent point. I was just commenting to my Pastor yesteday that the modern practice of taking snippets of Scripture really doesn't help people understand the texts very well.

When one reads Galatians from start to finish, for instance, it is really difficult to see how some come to some very strange conclusions about what Paul means when he says that "...neither circumcision availeth any thing..." I think: "Did they read the same Galatians I did?"

My task, this year, for the adult Sunday School class is to teach through the entire Bible in one year. I'm having to teach a book (or sometimes more) per week. It forces me to not only read through entire books of the Bible (which I've done several times) but it also forces me to consider them in their entirety and make sure I understand the major themes. This has been incredibly useful to my understanding of Scripture and I'm glad my Pastor chose to do this series this year because, at first, I wasn't too keen on the idea.

 

[MW]

My task, this year, for the adult Sunday School class is to teach through the entire Bible in one year. I'm having to teach a book (or sometimes more) per week. It forces me to not only read through entire books of the Bible (which I've done several times) but it also forces me to consider them in their entirety and make sure I understand the major themes. This has been incredibly useful to my understanding of Scripture and I'm glad my Pastor chose to do this series this year because, at first, I wasn't too keen on the idea.

I am sure this will prove a very fruitful exercise. Blessings!

 

[Davidius]

Rich,

You attend a Baptist church, right? What are you going to do when teaching sections that you view differently?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

You attend a Baptist church, right? What are you going to do when teaching sections that you view differently?

The Pastor knows I'm Presbyterian but I don't go out of my way to convert people to paedobaptism (I save that energy for here!).

When you're dealing with whole books, it's not too hard to cover broad Covenantal themes without getting into the specific aspects of the Sacraments. I taught on marriage and family and children in a previous series and taught exactly how I would have taught Presbyterians. As you can see from Trevor's responses in other forums, there are some Baptists that agree with nearly every Biblical theme except the Sacrament part.

In fact, when I was teaching on Judges, I was very emphatic about the cost of apostasy that is clearly linked to a failing on the part of parents with respect to their duties to remind and teach their kids the things that had happened.

Honestly, these themes are way easier for them to accept if you remove the emotional barrier of baptism. If you mention baptism up front it becomes like a huge block in front of the Word and then they can't see what the Word is saying on certain principles so I just don't go there except in private conversation.

Baptists are Christians who respond to the Word. I don't need to make it any harder for them to be taught by bringing that issue in when there are more basic soteriological and ecclesiastical issues that need to be reformed.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Rich,

That's awsome.

All you can do is teach what the text is saying brother. May God bless you in your class, leading you to rightly handle the word of truth.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Of course I forgive you. I'm sorry that my post would even give that impression. So, I'll try to make my points more carefully.

Also, you should note that "Baptist scheme" simply means, "Baptist paradigm," or, "Baptist way of looking at things;" here, scheme is not meant to imply an underhanded plot - but rather, like "plan," "program," "paradigm," etc.

Sorry Brother.

Anyways, I really would love for someone to give didactic examples since the Rev and Rich have explained that this is not clear enough. I have read 1 Cor 10 and Hebrews 6:1-8, but I still don't understand. I see that Hebrews is the operations of the Spirit and 1 Cor 10 being the corporate salvation through Moses, but what about specifically the household.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

OK, so infants can be affected by preaching?





But then why are the infants "destroyed" by the *teachings* of the Judaizers?




What about it? Everything there can be applied to the Titus 1:10-11 passage. but above you admitted infants could have been in those houses and, if so, they were affected by the teachings and the (apparant) salvation of "the entire hosuehold" was thrown into jeapordy.

Anything you reject applying to infants in Acts 16:31 can be applied to infants in Titus 1:10-11. But, you admitted that a baptist "does not have to say" that infants were not in the Titus households. Good. That's the admission I wanted. Now, the horns of the dilemma is this: either you have to drop your claim that infants could not have been involved in Acts 16:31 type cases, or you have to drop your claim that infants could have been included in the Titus 1:10-11 type cases. I argued that infants must have been included in at least some of the Titus 1:10-11 type cases, therefore, you have to drop your claim that infants could not have been involved in Acts 16:31 type cases.

In case you're wondering, the above argument takes this form:

Let A = infants could not be involved in Acts 16:31 type cases

Let T = infants were involved in some Titus 1:10-11 type cases

A v T

T

:. ~A

that is

~ (infants could not be involved in Acts 16:31 type cases)

That is, it is *possible* (note the modal opperators above, 'could') that infants could have been in Acts 16:31 type cases.

Therefore, it is impossible that baptism is for *believers* (i.e., non-infants) alone.

My argument would be though that verse 34 in acts 16 tells us that the whole household believed. Therefore, I conclude that there are no infants in that household. Now, with the Titus 1 account, the infants would not be affected by the implications of the teaching because they couldn't understand, but they could be affected by the application, or circumcision.

Is this wrong?

 

[MW]

Acts 16:34, pepistekws is a singular participle, referring to the gaoler.

 

[bookslover]

I think this has been mentioned once or twice but, unless I missed it, I don't think it's been adequately answered.

Here's Acts 16:31 - And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. (ASV)

Now, how the jailer is saved is understood - he exercised faith in the Lord Jesus as an individual. I think the root question for this thread is, "in what sense, exactly, is the household saved, given the jailer's salvation as an individual?" What does "saved" mean in this context?

If we get a simply stated clear answer to this, I think lots of related questions can be cleared up.

 

[Davidius]

I think this has been mentioned once or twice but, unless I missed it, I don't think it's been adequately answered.

Here's Acts 16:31 - And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. (ASV)

Now, how the jailer is saved is understood - he exercised faith in the Lord Jesus as an individual. I think the root question for this thread is, "in what sense, exactly, is the household saved, given the jailer's salvation as an individual?" What does "saved" mean in this context?

If we get a simply stated clear answer to this, I think lots of related questions can be cleared up

This is the issue around which the whole discussion seems to be turning for Andrew. He is finding it impossible to believe that "your household will be saved" means anything other than "every single member of your household will have the benefits of Christ applied to them." Therefore, he has to assume that Phillip is commanding every member of the household to personally believe instead of just the jailer, in spite of contextual and grammatical evidence, and that no infants were there (else the entire household could not have been baptized, so it goes).

Paul seemed to address this for the most part above. The point is, a Covenantal Paedobaptist has a much easier time dealing with this kind of text than a Credobaptist, which is why a Credobaptist (like Andrew) begins to make the text say things it doesn't say, i.e, so he does not have to question his presuppositions about family inclusion in the visible Church.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Obviously he didn't know for a fact that his infants, or children, or wife for that matter, would persevere in the faith

This is it though, the interpretation that I'm getting from you suggests that they were never in the faith to begin with since the direct charge is to the jailer. How would you raise a family in the Lord when we know the non-regenerate "walk accoring to the course of this world" and they would obey their lust rather then God.(I know that goes the same for me and my "someday" childeren.)

 

[Andrew P.C.]

This is the issue around which the whole discussion seems to be turning for Andrew. He is finding it impossible to believe that "your household will be saved" means anything other than "every single member of your household will have the benefits of Christ applied to them." Therefore, he has to assume that Phillip is commanding every member of the household to personally believe instead of just the jailer, in spite of contextual and grammatical evidence, and that no infants were there (else the entire household could not have been baptized, so it goes).

Paul seemed to address this for the most part above. The point is, a Covenantal Paedobaptist has a much easier time dealing with this kind of text than a Credobaptist, which is why a Credobaptist (like Andrew) begins to make the text say things it doesn't say, i.e, so he does not have to question his presuppositions about family inclusion in the visible Church.

Brother,

I do thank you for your comment, but just to start, this issue isn't about Baptism but rather salvation. Most particularly, justification, since they all believed in the Lord(v.34). Secondly, it is not my intention to make the text say anything, but rather I am trying to understand the text.

An argument was made about a a man's 14mo son watching a movie with his whole family. He said that even though his son laughed, he most likely didn't understand the movie. Now, I believe with all my heart in monergism, but I also agree with Mr. Gene Cook when he stated(today infact) that there is an intellectual side to faith.(He used the term synergistic, since he likes to joke about those things, but he was serious.) We have to have some comprehension of the gospel. Now, people make the argument: "what about mental disabled people?" I tell them that if God has elected them, they will come to saving faith somehow. We have to understand that salvation is supernatural.

I am thankful that you guys do post these things.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[VaughanRSmith]

since they all believed in the Lord(v.34).

How do you get that from the text?

 

[Davidius]

Brother,

I do thank you for your comment, but just to start, this issue isn't about Baptism but rather salvation. Most particularly, justification, since they all believed in the Lord(v.34). Secondly, it is not my intention to make the text say anything, but rather I am trying to understand the text.

An argument was made about a a man's 14mo son watching a movie with his whole family. He said that even though his son laughed, he most likely didn't understand the movie. Now, I believe with all my heart in monergism, but I also agree with Mr. Gene Cook when he stated(today infact) that there is an intellectual side to faith.(He used the term synergistic, since he likes to joke about those things, but he was serious.) We have to have some comprehension of the gospel. Now, people make the argument: "what about mental disabled people?" I tell them that if God has elected them, they will come to saving faith somehow. We have to understand that salvation is supernatural.

I am thankful that you guys do post these things.

In Christ,
Andrew

You can't contradict a point I was making about your interpretation of verse 31 by appealing to verse 34. Narratives are written in a certain order, so it won't work to go back and throw grammar out the window in verse 31 after reading on. The point in question is what was meant by "believe and you will be saved, you and your household." Whether or not the whole family actually believed (which is a debatable point in itself) the fact still stands that "believe" in verse 31 is singular and we need to decide what Paul meant when he said "if you (one person, the jailer) believe, then you and your household will be saved."

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Were not all the OT saints commanded to raise their children to follow the Lord? How would they have raised a family in the Lord if non-regenerate "walk according to the course of this world?" Indeed, you are told in the NT to raise your children in the fear and admonistion of the Lord. If this can only be done to your (assumed) regeenrate children, then how do you raise your (assumed) non-regenerate children? Do the regenerate kids get bionicles for christmas, and the unregenerate kids get coal?

So, as Calvin says,

"What can the anti-paedobaptist bring against us that could not have been brought against Moses and Abraham?"

Lol brother, I like the christmas gift.

The discussion that I want to get into should be on another thread. It has to deal with Christ's Baptism.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

You can't contradict a point I was making about your interpretation of verse 31 by appealing to verse 34. Narratives are written in a certain order, so it won't work to go back and throw grammar out the window in verse 31 after reading on. The point in question is what was meant by "believe and you will be saved, you and your household." Whether or not the whole family actually believed (which is a debatable point in itself) the fact still stands that "believe" in verse 31 is singular and we need to decide what Paul meant when he said "if you (one person, the jailer) believe, then you and your household will be saved."

Wait wait, I'm not contradicting my point at all. Are we not supposed to interpret scripture with scripture? Be consistent with what the paragraph reveals brother. The paragraph tells us that they all believed. Now, what the paragraph does not say, is that the head of the household shared the gospel with them, but rather it reveals to us that Paul and Silas did. No where in the context does it tell us that the father's salvation effected his household, because we know that Paul and Silas shared the Lord with his family.

Also, in verse 34, the word "believed" is used. Past tense. The context tells us that they got baptised and then came into the house to eat, to rejoice in there salvation, that very night. So my question is, do you believe that baptism opened up grace for them?

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Are you familiar with http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/01-05/05-2.htm ?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I like the ESV more literal interpretation of the narrative in Acts.

Acts 16:34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The old "wooden" (I rather like it actually...) ASV renders the whole perfectly clearly: (The ESV does it good too)

Acts 16:34 (ASV) And {he} [subject] brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, {having believed} [nominative masculine singular participle] in God."

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Acts 16:34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.


Brother, why would a bunch of unregenerate people rejoice that their father put faith in Christ?

 

[Davidius]

Acts 16:34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.


Brother, why would a bunch of unregenerate people rejoice that their father put faith in Christ?

It's a bad translation.

Look at what Bruce said, please. The participle "believed" is singular, not plural. We already went over this with the word "believe" in verse 31. I really hope this doesn't turn into more arguing against grammar. Any discussion about why the whole household would have rejoiced must be had after recognizing and acknowledging this point.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

It's a bad translation.

Look at what Bruce said, please. The participle "believed" is singular, not plural. We already went over this with the word "believe" in verse 31. I really hope this doesn't turn into more arguing against grammar.

A bad translation? The whole house rejoiced. Don't avoid the obvious brother.

 

[Davidius]

A bad translation? The whole house rejoiced. Don't avoid the obvious brother.

Did you really read my post? I never said that the whole house didn't rejoice. I said that only the father believed.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Did you really read my post? I never said that the whole house didn't rejoice. I said that only the father believed.

No, I understand. Why would a bunch of unregenerate people rejoice for ones salvation?

 

[VaughanRSmith]

No, I understand. Why would a bunch of unregenerate people rejoice for ones salvation?

Even if there were no answer to that, it is not in the text that they believed. If you are indeed as you say you are just interpreting the text with the text, then there is no reason to say that they believed.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Even if there were no answer to that, it is not in the text that they believed. If you are indeed as you say you are just interpreting the text with the text, then there is no reason to say that they believed.

But there is no reason to say they did not believe.

Brother, they did all rejoice. This is something that only the regenerate would do.

 

[Davidius]

But there is no reason to say they did not believe.

Andrew,

Did you read everything that was written about the grammar in the passage? There is every reason to say that they did not believe. The participle "believed" is singular. It is therefore referring back to a singular subject, in this case "he." If the whole household had believed, then the participle would be plural. I know this may be very difficult for you if you have never studied language/grammar but try to follow what we've been saying with this point. I know you know the difference between singular and plural. You can't just negate grammar by making an assumption/assertion that "this is obviously what they would do."

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew,

Did you read everything that was written about the grammar in the passage? There is every reason to say that they did not believe. The participle "believed" is singular. It is therefore referring back to a singular subject, in this case "he." If the whole household had believed, then the participle would be plural. I know this may be very difficult for you if you have never studied language/grammar but try to follow what we've been saying with this point. I know you know the difference between singular and plural. You can't just negate grammar by making an assumption/assertion that "this is obviously what they would do."

Brother, you are avoiding my response to how they ALL rejoiced in his salvation.

Again, why would non-regenerate people rejoice in his salvation?

The point I'm making is that the jailer was the one who asked Paul and Silas how he must be saved. Since he asked these two men, and had no idea about how to be saved, we can say that his family didn't know how to be saved. Since, Paul and Silas both charged him to be believe in the Lord Jesus, and verse 34 tells us that they rejoiced with the jailer, my question is valid. You are obviously trying to avoid the point i'm making because you keep going back to the "singularity" when I have already given you the benifit of the doubt about the charge. Therefore, my question is, since you say Paul did not charge the "family", how do non-regenerate people rejoice in someones salvation when only the regenerate can do so?

 

[Davidius]

Brother, you are avoiding my response to how they ALL rejoiced in his salvation.

Again, why would non-regenerate people rejoice in his salvation?

The point I'm making is that the jailer was the one who asked Paul and Silas how he must be saved. Since he asked these two men, and had no idea about how to be saved, we can say that his family didn't know how to be saved. Since, Paul and Silas both charged him to be believe in the Lord Jesus, and verse 34 tells us that they rejoiced with the jailer, my question is valid. You are obviously trying to avoid the point i'm making because you keep going back to the "singularity" when I have already given you the benifit of the doubt about the charge. Therefore, my question is, since you say Paul did not charge the "family", how do non-regenerate people rejoice in someones salvation when only the regenerate can do so?

And all I'm saying is that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

P1 Only the jailer was told to believe in verse 31.
P2 Only the jailer is said to have believed in verse 34.
P3 The entire family rejoiced.

C The entire family must have believed.

The only way one can arrive at your conclusion is by making assumptions that aren't in the text. Because you can't understand at this moment why the whole family rejoiced, you make an assumption, and I reject that as an honest and acceptable way of interpreting. It is obvious in the text that only the jailer believed for two reasons:

1) The grammar is singular.
2) When the group of men arrived home it says that food was immediately brought out. There was no sermon given before the meal. The family had not heard the Gospel yet.

I would assume that by "rejoicing" it just means that the meal was a celebratory one, partially due to the jailer's salvation and partially because of the fact that such honored guests were present. The family took part in the meal and therefore is said to be rejoicing as well. I don't know if this is really the case because the text doesn't say so. What I do know is that text is grammatically and sequentially (concerning the flow of time and events that took place when the men arrived at the jailer's home) clear about who believed, and it wasn't the family. We can speculate all day as to why they believed I refuse to eisegete the text, which is what you're doing.

[bible]Acts 16:34[/bible]

The whole family rejoiced THAT HE had believed in God.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

And all I'm saying is that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

P1 Only the jailer was told to believe in verse 31.
P2 Only the jailer is said to have believed in verse 34.
P3 The entire family rejoiced.

C The entire family must have believed.

The only way one can arrive at your conclusion is by making assumptions that aren't in the text. Because you can't understand at this moment why the whole family rejoiced, you make an assumption, and I reject that as an honest and acceptable way of interpreting. It is obvious in the text that only the jailer believed for two reasons:

1) The grammar is singular.
2) When the group of men arrived home it says that food was immediately brought out. There was no sermon given before the meal. The family had not heard the Gospel yet.

I would assume that by "rejoicing" it just means that the meal was a celebratory one, partially due to the jailer's salvation and partially because of the fact that such honored guests were present. The family took part in the meal and therefore is said to be rejoicing as well. I don't know if this is really the case because the text doesn't say so. What I do know is that text is grammatically and sequentially (concerning the flow of time and events that took place when the men arrived at the jailer's home) clear about who believed, and it wasn't the family. We can speculate all day as to why they believed I refuse to eisegete the text, which is what you're doing.

[bible]Acts 16:34[/bible]

The whole family rejoiced THAT HE had believed in God.

34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (ESV)



"The whole family rejoiced that he had believed in God."(You said it)

Need I say more? This sentence is very clear the reason for their rejoicing is his salvation. So, my question still stands. Why would non-regenerate people rejoice in someones salvation?

Again, my argument isnt about the text saying that the jailer is saved. So you could drop that portion of your argument brother.