A question on "household."

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
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.)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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."
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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? :wow: :confused:

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
What? :wow: :confused:

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)
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top