# A question on "household."



## Andrew P.C.

When Presbyterians refer to "the household" being baptised, like Acts 16:15, you say that even the infants were baptised. Now, knowing how you interpret household, since the arguement is that the household included everyone in the house(including infants), how do you interpret Acts 11:14 and Acts 16:31 when it says that the household will be saved if they believe. (I'm honestly curious how you interpret them.)


----------



## Dieter Schneider

*Household baptisms*

More proof is needed; what about 1.Cor.16:15f.? Infants don't serve and neither do we submit to them. In Acts 16:34 all in the household believe - this cannot include infants, but they too, if elect, may be saved. Infant baptism cannot be proved from the usage of 'oikos' - more evidence is needed.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Anyone else besides my Reformed Baptist brother here?


----------



## Davidius

Andrew P.C. said:


> When Presbyterians refer to "the household" being baptised, like Acts 16:15, you say that even the infants were baptised. Now, knowing how you interpret household, since the arguement is that the household included everyone in the house(including infants), how do you interpret Acts 11:14 and Acts 16:31 when it says that the household will be saved if they believe. (I'm honestly curious how you interpret them.)



I don't see why those texts should only be problematic for paedobaptists. How does a credobaptist interpret a text that says "believe, and you and your household will be saved?" The verses certainly don't say "believe, and you and those of your household who also believe will be saved." You have the same problem on your hands that I do. From syntax, the command to "believe" seems singular here, addressed to the individual to whom the speaker was speaking. Someone with a Greek New Testament would be able to tell us more accurately.


----------



## MW

Jeremias provides an indepth look at the oikos formula. Consider the evidence and his conclusion.



> "This phrase corresponds to the Semitic manner of thinking and speaking, as regards its content (with its emphasis on the authority of the father of the family and the omission of the mother of the family).... Whoever takes the trouble to check the examples in their context will confirm the fact that repeatedly the presence of children and infants is specially mentioned (cf. Gen. 46:27 with vv. 5, 7; I Sam. 22:15f with v. 19; II Kings 9:8; Jer. 38:17 with v. 23), and at times their omission is particularly emphasized (Gen. 50:8; I Sam. 1:21f; cf. Ex. 12:37). ... not simply the children in addition to the adults, but the children quite especially, and not least any little children who might be present."





> "The phrase 'he and his (whole) house' denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children. In no single case is the term 'house' restricted to the adult members of the house, though on the other hand children alone may be mentioned when the whole house is meant. Whilst slaves are very often not reckoned as part of the 'house,' the inclusion of the children is taken for granted. Indeed, the Old Testament repeatedly lays special emphasis on the very smallest being reckoned in. Since the primitive Church takes the phrase over as a firmly established biblical expression, the statement 'it includes small children as well as others' applies to its employment in the New Testament as well."


----------



## Andrew P.C.

So, with this said, my question still stands, how do you interpret Acts 11:14 and Acts 16:31. To say that the the infants within those households believed is to say that they can understand the gospel. How can a 5 month old child understand the gospel?


----------



## Davidius

Andrew P.C. said:


> So, with this said, my question still stands, how do you interpret Acts 11:14 and Acts 16:31. To say that the the infants within those households believed is to say that they can understand the gospel. How can a 5 month old child understand the gospel?



Who said that the infants believed? Did you totally ignore my above comment? The texts say nothing about anyone but the head of the household believing. This is your problem as much as it is a Presbyterian's.


----------



## MW

It is the house as a collective unit. There is nothing in either of the verses about every individual in the house exercising understanding. In fact, the narratives clearly indicate how the household salvation came about -- by means of the head of the household. In the case of Zaccheus, Luke 19:9, there is no mention of any other person in relation to whom salvation came to the house.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Who said that the infants believed? Did you totally ignore my above comment? The texts say nothing about anyone but the head of the household believing. This is your problem as much as it is a Presbyterian's.



Brother, the result "and you will be saved" is effected to the household plus the "you". The word "and" would imply this. 

Look at acts 16:31:

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

"you and your household" ? What about "you and your household" ? They will be saved if they believe. It's clear in the text.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> It is the house as a collective unit. There is nothing in either of the verses about every individual in the house exercising understanding. In fact, the narratives clearly indicate how the household salvation came about -- by means of the head of the household. In the case of Zaccheus, Luke 19:9, there is no mention of any other person in relation to whom salvation came to the house.



Came to the house, right, but salvation is of individuals.(There are some cases where an individual who shared the gospel was from outside the family.) You can't say that if your dad believes then you all believe. The faith of one does not result in the faith of the whole.(Now, there are some families who have come to faith through one individual, but there are many who haven't.)


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Came to the house, right, but salvation is of individuals.(There are some cases where an individual who shared the gospel was from outside the family.) You can't say that if your dad believes then you all believe. The faith of one does not result in the faith of the whole.(Now, there are some families who have come to faith through one individual, but there are many who haven't.)



The point is that faith was exercised by one, and as a result of that one man's faith the whole household was saved. You are superimposing your own "salvation by faith" model upon the text. Let the text speak, and it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Davidius

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, the result "and you will be saved" is effected to the household plus the "you". The word "and" would imply this.
> 
> Look at acts 16:31:
> 
> "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
> 
> "you and your household" ? What about "you and your household" ? They will be saved if they believe. It's clear in the text.



***edited***

You were correct with your first statement, namely that the text does say that "and you will be saved" is effected to "the whole household plus the 'you'." The question is: what does that mean in this context? As Rev. Winzer noted, you're eisegeting your own presuppositions into the text to get to your second conclusion. The "believe" looks to me like it's only being addressed to the head of the household. It says nothing about everyone believing. Therefore, a Presbyterian concludes that this text is not talking about the actual redemption of every member of the household, which is the conclusion you've reached by tossing non-covenantal assumptions around. It's an issue like that of Zacchaeus and his household.


----------



## MW

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The "believe" looks to me like it's only being addressed to the head of the household. It says nothing about everyone believing.



This is correct. "pisteuson" is imperative aorist, 2nd person singular, "thou believe."


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> The point is that faith was exercised by one, and as a result of that one man's faith the whole household was saved. You are superimposing your own "salvation by faith" model upon the text. Let the text speak, and it makes perfect sense.



Brother, I am letting the text speak. Look at verse 33.

33 states they were all baptised. Why? Because of the faith of the father? But they weren't born into a believing family.

Also, to imply that i'm "putting into" the text my thoughts is just avoiding my question. If you can show me an exegetical response, then I would be glad for you to do so, honestly.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, I am letting the text speak. Look at verse 33.
> 
> 33 states they were all baptised. Why? Because of the faith of the father? But they weren't born into a believing family.
> 
> Also, to imply that i'm "putting into" the text my thoughts is just avoiding my question. If you can show me an exegetical response, then I would be glad for you to do so, honestly.



Prior to v. 33, look at what the apostle promises in v. 31. THat is the key to understanding the subsequent events of the narrative. The father believes and is saved, and his household. The only problem with this is the one which emerges from your individualistic idea of salvation. You are imposing that problem on the text and refusing to let it say what it so clearly reveals. He that hath ears to hear, etc.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> Prior to v. 33, look at what the apostle promises in v. 31. THat is the key to understanding the subsequent events of the narrative. The father believes and is saved, and his household. The only problem with this is the one which emerges from your individualistic idea of salvation. You are imposing that problem on the text and refusing to let it say what it so clearly reveals. He that hath ears to hear, etc.



Brother,

If Paul was only addressing to the head of the household he would not have added "you and your household".

This passage is not referring to the head only since "you" is the head. The passage does not read:

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you." You are cutting off the "and your household".


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother,
> 
> If Paul was only addressing to the head of the household he would not have added "you and your household".
> 
> This passage is not referring to the head only since "you" is the head. The passage does not read:
> 
> "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you." You are cutting off the "and your household".



The only person addressed is the keeper of the prison, as the singular makes evident. The "and thy house" is not addressed to the household but to the keeper of the prison, as the possessive "thy" indicates. The text rules, OK!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> The only person addressed is the keeper of the prison, as the singular makes evident. The "and thy house" is not addressed to the household but to the keeper of the prison, as the possessive "thy" indicates. The text rules, OK!



Your argument does not make sense whatsoever. The "household" is also addressed indirectly.
The definition of household is as stated:

the people of a house collectively; a family including its servants. 

"your household" is referring to all that is within his house. You still are not giving an account for his family as stated in verse 31 and 33. You are avoiding the family.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

His argument makes perfect sense. If I were in the mafia, and said to someone:

"Give me money, or I will kill you, you and your household."

I am not addressing the household. I am addressing you.


----------



## Davidius

Andrew,

Rev. Winzer has already shown that the Greek verb is singular. What more do you want? You can't get any more of an exegetical response than that. Why are you arguing so vehemently against grammar? If Luke wanted us to think that all the people in the house had to believe, he could've easily used a plural form of the verb. This is why we keep saying that you are reading your own views into the text.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Your argument does not make sense whatsoever. The "household" is also addressed indirectly.
> The definition of household is as stated:
> 
> the people of a house collectively; a family including its servants.
> 
> "your household" is referring to all that is within his house. You still are not giving an account for his family as stated in verse 31 and 33. You are avoiding the family.



Let's look at what we know, not what we think we know. We know the keeper of the prison is the only one addressed. Whence does one derive the idea that the household is addressed indirectly? Not from the text. We know that only one person is directed to believe. The text nowhere indicates that any one else in the house was directed to believe. We know that the one person's belief will have good consequences for himself and for his house. Thus far the text.

The subsequent narrative only shows the blessed fulfilment of what the apostle had promised in v. 31. It is the promise in v. 31 that is fundamental. If the keeper of the prison had not believed, it would not have changed the nature of the conditional promise of v. 31.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

You are cutting off the household and saying "it's only addressing him." I would say, yes, directly. The arguement of the mafia killing you, you and your household actually refutes what you say. When they say and your household they are telling you the they will kill every single person in your house to you. They are directly saying I will kill every individual. 

What is the charge? Believe? who? him and his household. 

Let me ask you, when someone asks "how may I be fed?", and they, seing that his family is hungry, reply "buy some food for you, you and your household." They are directly talking to him, but saying that he must give food to his houehold as well. 

For the singular believe, the singular can be used like this as well: We Believe.
Is there more then one who believes? yes. But it's singular. I know.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Let me ask you, when someone asks "how may I be fed?", and they, seing that his family is hungry, reply "buy some food for you, you and your household." They are directly talking to him, but saying that he must give food to his houehold as well.



Why need I say anything more. You have provided the correct sense of the passage yourself. Head of home provides food, rest of household eat. Head of home believes, rest of household is saved. All's well that ends well, but I suspect the matter won't end here.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> Why need I say anything more. You have provided the correct sense of the passage yourself. Head of home provides food, rest of household eat. Head of home believes, rest of household is saved. All's well that ends well, but I suspect the matter won't end here.



No, brother, I understand what you are saying. I'm obviously not being clear.

Let me ask you, since the father is saved, are you saying that the father can save his household? Or does God individually save people?


----------



## Davidius

Andrew P.C. said:


> For the singular believe, the singular can be used like this as well: We Believe.
> Is there more then one who believes? yes. But it's singular. I know.



What?   

Have you ever studied language? The word "believe" in the phrase "we believe" is a 1st person, plural, active, indicative verb.

...with emphasis on *plural*, as in *not singular*. This is elementary grammar. In a sentence, the subject and the verb must agree in number.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Andrew P.C. said:


> You are cutting off the household and saying "it's only addressing him." I would say, yes, directly. The arguement of the mafia killing you, you and your household actually refutes what you say. When they say and your household they are telling you the they will kill every single person in your house to you. They are directly saying I will kill every individual.
> 
> What is the charge? Believe? who? him and his household.
> 
> Let me ask you, when someone asks "how may I be fed?", and they, seing that his family is hungry, reply "buy some food for you, you and your household." They are directly talking to him, but saying that he must give food to his houehold as well.
> 
> For the singular believe, the singular can be used like this as well: We Believe.
> Is there more then one who believes? yes. But it's singular. I know.



But you are making a circular argument here.

By acknowledging that "believe" is singular, you acknowledge also that "believe" can only be addressed to one person. If it is only addressed to one person, it _cannot be indirectly addressed to anybody else._


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Andrew P.C. said:


> No, brother, I understand what you are saying. I'm obviously not being clear.
> 
> Let me ask you, since the father is saved, are you saying that the father can save his household? Or does God individually save people?


How are we to interpret 1 Corinthians 7?


----------



## Davidius

Exagorazo said:


> How are we to interpret 1 Corinthians 7?



The same way a credobaptist interprets all the other covenantal language that has been carried over from the Old Testament to the New....eisegesis.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What?
> 
> Have you ever studied language? The word "believe" in the phrase "we believe" is a 1st person, plural, active, indicative verb.
> 
> ...with emphasis on *plural*, as in *not singular*. This is elementary grammar. In a sentence, the subject and the verb must agree in number.



Brother, I was trying to prove the point that you guys are cutting out household. No one still has given an account for the household. How does the household apply in this text.(In verse 31 alone.)

(By the way, verse 34 tells us that his household believed)


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Let me ask you, since the father is saved, are you saying that the father can save his household? Or does God individually save people?



I think you are having difficulty with a couple of concepts here: (1) corporate salvation; (2.) common operations of the Spirit. A study of passages like 1 Cor. 10:1-13, and Heb. 6:1-8 could really benefit you in this respect.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> I think you are having difficulty with a couple of concepts here: (1) corporate salvation; (2.) common operations of the Spirit. A study of passages like 1 Cor. 10:1-13, and Heb. 6:1-8 could really benefit you in this respect.



I will look into this.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Ok real quick, 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 is talking about immorality. But Acts 16:31 has no connection with this passage. Since, verse 31 says "Believe in the Lord Jesus." We know that verse 31 is directly talking about salvation. Now, if you argue that families are to turn from temptation, which 1 Cor 10 tells us, then how do you put into account those who are not regenerate? A non-regenerate person will still walk according to this world(this would include the non-regenerate child who is in the house that have believing parents.)We can all agree that, even though you are elect, that does not make your child elect, you can only pray that he/she is.



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

armourbearer said:


> 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.



  and


----------



## Archlute

armourbearer said:


> I think you are having difficulty with a couple of concepts here: (1) corporate salvation; (2.) common operations of the Spirit. A study of passages like 1 Cor. 10:1-13, and Heb. 6:1-8 could really benefit you in this respect.



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.

Paul manata said:


> How could these, say Andrew P.C.'s 5 above 5 month old, be affected by *teaching* (or, *preaching) of the Judaizers? A baptist scheme would have to say that all of these households did not include infants. It is clear that the *entire* household is affected by *teaching.* 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. As Andrew says, they can't undrestand the "preaching of the gospel," so how can they understand the "preaching of the Judaizers?"



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.

Archlute said:


> 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.




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"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, I see that you have an inner hate for baptists, but lets get something straight before you misrepresent the baptist side again.



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

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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.



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

joshua said:


> 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.

Paul manata said:


> \
> 
> Moreover, let's also note something interesting about Titus 1:10-11. Here Paul rebukes people for allowing infants (and others) to receive THAT sign, i.e., *circumcision.* What a WONDERFUL and PERFECT time for Paul to teach the baptist doctrines here. Paul could have said, "These Judaizers are wrong. Not only are they wrong for giving children the sign of circumcision, they are wrong for giving them any sign at all."



How does this prove your point?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Paul manata said:


> A baptist scheme...
> 
> Should we take baptistic thinking here seriously....




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.

Exagorazo said:


> 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.




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.

joshua said:


> But you didn't say _Baptist_, you said (my emphasis added) _baptist(*s*)_, which shows an _intent_ for it to be persons, not doctrine.
> 
> Nonetheless, if you're apology is sincere and well-meant, thanks for the clarification.



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

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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".


"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.

Exagorazo said:


> "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"?




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

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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 incliude infants?


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 _their_stripes. 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.

Exagorazo said:


> 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 _their_stripes. 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

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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.


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.

Really? Where would I find it?


----------



## satz

*hmm...*



> Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.



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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Exagorazo said:


> "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"?



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

SemperFideles said:


> 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.


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.

SemperFideles said:


> it creates great challenges for the credo-baptist.



This is for me. But I wish another Baptist would come in and talk about this some.


----------



## MW

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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## MW

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!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> The *gaoler's* household...



 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.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> The "why" they will be saved on the basis of his belief and "what does he mean by saved here" is not complete.



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!


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> 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.



Welcome to the British revolution!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> 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

SemperFideles said:


> 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

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> 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.

Paul manata said:


> 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.

Paul manata said:


> 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

bookslover said:


> 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.

Paul manata said:


> 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.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> 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

Andrew P.C. said:


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


How do you get that from the text?


----------



## Davidius

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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.

Paul manata said:


> 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.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> 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

Andrew P.C. said:


> *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.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> 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

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> 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

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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.

Exagorazo said:


> 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

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> 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

Andrew P.C. said:


> 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.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> 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.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Paul manata said:


> Andrew,
> 
> If you followed my arguments on previous pages you'd note that your points aren't sufficient to say that there were no infants/children there. I showed that many times (a) things are predicated of an "entire household" but could not be "technically" true of the infants there. One more example: The "entire congregation" is told to "slaughter the paschal lamb," yet I don't think you'd say there were no infants in all of Israel sincenew borns can't slaghter animals! (b) I also showed, via Titus 1:10-11, that virtually the same thing is going on, but in an opposite direction, in houses where you allowed infants to be. I argued that this allowing of infants to be there on your part consisuted an internal inconsistency between that passage and how you view Acts 16. (c)I furthermore argued that, given your rigidity here, then a baptist could never say, "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." You cannot predicate "serving the Lord" of an "entire household" if there are infants or otherwise young children there. But, we know that the Bible does use this kind of language. It predicates things of infants/children that could not "technically" be predicated of them.
> 
> Hence, your argument (a) is insufficient to prove that there weren't children there, even if it were true that "the entire family rejoiced and only regenerate people can rejoice," (b) would, if aplied consistently, contradict what you allow for in Titus 1, and (c) would, if applied consistently, not allow men like Joshua to say what they did say about their family.
> 
> For these reasons your argument fails to undercut the paedobaptist position.




Brother Paul,

I don't think you understood how I let childeren be in that passage. 

I explained that in the passage of acts 16, it was dealing ONLY with salvation. In Titus though, these men were "of the circumcision" dealing with the teachings of circumcision. If the adult is taught this, the apllication of this teaching is applied to the adult as well as the child. Does the child understand what circumcision is?(Remember, we are dealing with infants.) The teaching in Titus is not just thought, but application. For example, the Pharisees taught ceremonies. Were the ceremonies pure knowledge and not actually done? They taught the ceremonies, and then did them(Matt. 15:9). This goes back to the issue in Galatians where the men "of circumcision" taught justification not only by faith but also by circumcision.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Paul manata said:


> the teaching of the Judaizers was that one needed to be circumcised to be *saved,* now how could this affect an infants salvation?
> 
> It's the converse of your acts passage. You have to reason the same way with both.




That's like asking the question, how could baptism open up grace for the infant? Yet, catholics do it anyways. Grace is before baptism not vice versa.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

This may be of help - many of the quesitons posed here in this thread were also posed by Malone. I just updated this today:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/MaloneFredBaptismDisciplesAlone.htm

*The Rejection of the Baptism of Disciples Alone*
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

His book is:
_*The Baptism of Disciples alone*
_by Fred Malone
Founders Press, Cape Coral, FL , 2003.
284 Pages, Hardback


----------



## Andrew P.C.

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> This may be of help - many of the quesitons posed here in this thread were also posed by Malone. I just updated this today:
> 
> http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/MaloneFredBaptismDisciplesAlone.htm
> 
> *The Rejection of the Baptism of Disciples Alone*
> By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
> 
> His book is:
> _*The Baptism of Disciples alone*
> _by Fred Malone
> Founders Press, Cape Coral, FL , 2003.
> 284 Pages, Hardback



Thank you brother.

I started to read it and this caught my eye:

"This paper is not an exegetical attempt at Paedo-Baptism. This paper simply serves as a huge question mark on the new book put out by Fred Malone on believer’s baptism."

Also, I glanced over it to see if he wrote about these two texts Paul and i are discussing; he infact did not.

I will read it when I have more time though. Thank you.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Paul manata said:


> Well, I've made numerous points here. if you're not going to interact with them, then I'm not going to keep shooting one liners back and forth.




So have I brother. 

Well, this is where I will have to disagree with you on your view and interpretation about the family. It was a good discussion though. This has pretty much been exhausted. 

In Christ with love,
Andrew


----------

