Wes, I'm glad for you, brother, and I'm sure you're on your knees regularly thanking God for his goodness and mercy to you and your family. As for me, my maternal grandfather belonged to a Unitarian church <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sigh.gif" alt="" /> and that's as good as it gets. I know no one at all in my family or my wife's who is/was what you or I would call a Christian.
So what do your story and my story prove? Just this: 'The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit' (John 3:8).
The biblical pattern is clearly laid out in Acts 16:25ff. The jailor is saved, he brings Paul and Silas back to his house where they preach the Gospel to his 'oikos' who also come to faith (v34).
No, I don't think the passage requires your interpretation. Please show how it does, and how this one passage is the norm for all OIKOS?
Quote
These things do happen in times of revival.
I asked for something evidential for that being the case for that passage? Or for that being the "norm" for the passages using OIKOS?
Quote
Now suppose that this man had had a 16 year-old son who was a devout follower of the god, Mithras and refused to become a Christian. Are you suggesting that he would have been held down, kicking and screaming, while Paul baptized him, and that the jailor would then have, 'rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household'? I don't think so.
Ant scripture? How about something from the customs of the time? I think you are seeing the passage through modern family practices, where kids have 'rights'. Could you offer something more than a possibility?
Now, I want to know how you defend your definition of OIKOS, meaning, "only believers in the household? Please do not give me only the NT referencse, Iam a whole Bible Christian.
After reading your comments and Steve's it apprears you believe children that come from a Christian household who trust the Lord for their salvation are the exception rather than the norm. Certainly many exceptions could be sighted but I wouldn't go to that extreme.
It wasn't my intention to imply that the Lord doesn't honor the efforts of godly parents in bringing their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We are repeatedly taught that the Lord honors those who honor Him and I believe that there is a reasonable expectation the the Lord will honor the efforts of parents to raise godly children.
However, as my and Steve's and the scripture I cited point out, ULTIMATELY, salvation is of the Lord.
My concern is that we move, without our even seeing ourselves doing it, from relying on the electing grace of a Sovereign God to our own efforts to bring about salvation in our family. I beleive we must love a God who is sovereign in election and that includes His right to choose which of our parents, children, brothers and sisters, etc. believe and to love Him and trust Him in the matter no matter how much it hurts.
The same Christ that taught us to love one another also taught us, in no uncertain terms:
Quote
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
I believe we have to honestly come before Him and while pleading that it not be so, in our family, as it is described in this verse, yet saying, "Thy will be done", and love and respect His decision in the matter regardless of what it is.
That was my only point, Wes, not to negate the validity of the Lord's working in godly families, for I believe He does, but like Steve, my heritage is one of many ungodly, many Roman Catholic at the Great Grand parent level, my paternal Grandfather being converted in mid life after a great economic affliction. My grand parents on the other side were both unbelievers as far as I can tell.
Salvation is of the Lord, and is based on the "eternal covenant, ordered in all things and sure, in this is all my salvation and desire". Earthly covenants, and credo baptisms, are of respect and obedience but they are a second cause and an outward sign, in my view, and this is to always be kept in view, that He gets the glory.
I can't tell you how pleased I am to hear that your family has been blessed to know "the light of His countenance" in succeeding generations. What a wonderful provision and blessing this must have been for you and your children and I praise Him that it is so.
Unfortunately you missed my point. What I wrote was, "Actually not all household baptisms recorded in the Bible tell us who were included nor whether faith was present in all the members of the household. If it were that cut and dried there would be no discussion.
Acts 16: 11:14,15 tells about a certain woman named Lydia who believed. We read that she and her household were baptised, but it doesn't tell us who her family members included nor if they had faith." My comments were in response to Prestor's suggestion that in each of these households all the members had faith. Unfortunately we can't substantiate that from the limited information we have. I tend to agree with Pilgrim's quote: "When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold)."
Wes
I agree Wes that not all household baptisms give us details regarding who believed or who didn't believe. However, my point was and still is that baptism came to those who heard the Word of God and believed in that household (I am specifically speaking about the adults). Again I must emphasize my belief that those adults who were baptized in the household weren't baptized because of the husband's belief but rather their own. Which I think is the crux of the matter. I can not reconcile these few bits of scripture with the idea that the belief of the head of the household resulted in the baptism of adults who didn't believe. Instead I see the Word of God preached and those in the household who believe being baptized. BUT I must insist that when I say this I am not saying that the children may or may not have been baptized. I will concede that possibility but I can not see that possibility with adults.
So Joe just for my own wondering those that signed the 1689 London Baptist Confession what would you call their system of theology CT or DT? And if DT why. Since DT hold to a (woodenly) literalist interpretation of scripture, a pre-mill rapture, and the view that Israel is still the covenant people of God. (Of course this is the short version) or are you defining DT in a totally different manner.
It has been my experience that many Credobaptists have grave concerns over the language used by many Paedobaptists, in that on the surface, it DOES appear that baptism and salvation are synonymous. Thus, to baptize an infant or an adult, in the case of Richard's view, connotes that salvation is infallibly promised and/or some salvific blessings are conferred. This concern is not confined to Credobaptists, as I too have found much to object to when I read such statements that have come from Paedobaptists. The problem I see here is that when we read, for example, "salvation has come to this house", one could wrongly assume that it means that each and every member of that household was saved. Or, that salvation would eventually come to each member of that household. I think this idea that "God generally saves entire families" only serves to exacerbate the chasm which separates Paedos and Credos. I personally find no biblical evidence that God saves "households". But contrariwise, when I read the O.T. record, it would seem that paradigmatically, the exact opposite is true. We read of this with the promise to Abraham, there was a bifurcation of that family (Isaac and Ismael). And again with Jacob and Esau. Actually, we see this even from the first with the children of Adam and Eve; i.e., Abel and Cain and again in the household of Noah.
What I believe is true is exemplified in the words of Peter:
<blockquote>Acts 2:37-39 (ASV) Now when they heard [this,] they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.</blockquote>
Salvation is promised to 1) those who repent and believe upon Christ, and 2) as many as the Lord our God shall call. These two elements determine salvation; one being God's sovereign and infallible call and man's responsibility to respond to that call, which is the fruit of regeneration. There is no universal, infallible promise of salvation to households. The promise of God extends to those who belong to those who fall within the two qualifications of, 1) efficacious calling and 2) repentance and faith.
Now, this "individualism" is no less biblical than is the practice of baptizing "groups" (households). And in my view, this would include ONLY believing adults and their children. Although they do go hand in hand, despite the objections of Credobaptists, they are mutually exclusive when it comes to the promise of salvation.
Granted, if both sides would acknowledge the verity of what I hold to be true, this would not remove all the differences that exist between the two camps. But I do believe it would remove some of the differences and thus bring about a more irenic relationship between them. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
That's my
In His Grace,
And Pilgrim I wouldn't disagree with 99% of that at all. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Acts 2:39 says, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." Peter proclaims that salvation through God's Messiah is promised to the Jews, to their children, and to all those who are far off (i.e., the Gentiles, Eph. 2:11-13). Here again is the message of Acts - the gospel is for Jews and Gentiles. Even though only those present may have received baptism that day the promise extended to their children and beyond.
Wes
Yes Wes it was extended to the children but again I'm sure you would agree that only those children who believed (even if they were baptized) received the promise. So while it may have been extended to the family it was the individuals of the family that received the blessing.
averagefellar said: How would a first century A.D. Jew undersand the passage? I somehow don't see any clarification, anywhere, in scripture changing this understanding of how children are included. To a Jewish person, household meant something. Notice how Peter compares the old to the new, yet still doesn't mention this discontinuity? Interesting to me. I have read an argument from silence, but can't remember it exactly.
God bless,
william
Well William if you'd let me get a word in edgewise perhaps I would seeing as how I just returned to this discussion only to find that it has grown considerably and mutated from its original form which btw was household baptisms. But you seem to want to talk about baptist hermenuetics which I recall was another discussion entirely. So keep your pants on I'll get around to it.
You know I could have been a baker but no I had to start getting interested in theology. I could still be a baker. Might be easier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />
When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold).
I agree.....and this is where I desired PJ to go with it. But, the NT is very strict here not JUST saying that salvation came to an individual, but that it came to his house. IMHO this is for a specific reason to reveal that the covenant came to the house, not just the individual. As you said, not that everyone in the house is saved--that would be utter nonsense, but that certain blessing do come upon the household. What blessings IMHO are clearly seen in the OT/NT.
Yeah, yeah, yeah my point way back when was towards Richards original statement (does anybody here remember that?) with regard to the head of the household baptism means that all the members of the household get baptized. Now I think we've all come to a point where we agree that individuals in the household were saved by God. And thus the statement of the household having come to salvation is true with respect to those individuals who came to salvation (and perhaps the children who were then baptized [maybe]but not necessarily saved or unsaved as they may or may not have been granted faith).
Baking bread is beginning to look awful appealing.
Well I was explaining DT in the short version as well. DT has so many versions that it is impossible to gather them and be explicit about each without a book....I actually had in mind Scofield...
Additionally, it is not the case of "either or", but "both and". IMHO the signers of the LBCF had both CT and DT in mind when they signed.........this is where the confusion comes in....
Joe, I agree that a proper hermeneutical principal is vital in discussing this matter. Where I think paedo-baptists err is in believing that the Covenants start with Abraham. They do not. They start with Christ. He is the 'Author and Finisher of our faith.'
WCF Larger Catechism, Q.31: 'With whom was the covenant of grace made?' Ans: 'The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the Second Adam, and in Him with all the elect [including Abraham- Steve] as His seed.'
So when we read Gen 17:7, 'And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants for ever....', we must look to the NT for the correct interpretation. The Pharisees certainly held to a physical interpretation of the covenant. 'They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father.".....Jesus said to them, "....You are of your father, the devil!"' (John 8:39,42,44).
If the Jews, then, are not the descendants of Abraham, then who are? Why, you and me and all who have ever trusted in Christ for salvation! 'Therefore know that [only] those who are of faith are sons of Abraham'( Gal 3:7). I had long debates with Matt McMahon on the Puritan Board on this subject. He boasts of having abandoned his 'Christ hemeneutic' for a 'Covenant' one. I say that if Christ is not the dead centre of all our theolgy, we are in error. We must look back from Him to see the working of the covenants in the OT, and forward from Him to see that working in the NT.
Luke 19:9. 'And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham"'. How was Zacchaeus a son of Abraham? Because he trusted in Christ. How would the rest of his house have become sons of Abraham? In exactly the same way.
yes, my substantiation is from Gen. 17:7, 10. Thank you for asking. And of course, the gospel is only in the last generation or two been in such places as Africa and central Asia. Whereas in Europe and the Americas there has been generation upon generation of Christian civilization. Are there exceptions? Yep. And that is why one must say "usually or normally" rather than "always."
Wes said: I would certainly agree with that change. Of course there are many exceptions which could be sighted but all we need to do is follow the genealogy listed in Matthew 1 to see that the Lord does keep his promises working through the offspring of Abraham.
I'm not sure if "amen" posts are discouraged here or not. But I think that one thing people misunderstand (or at least in the southern USA this seems to be a problem) is that the "skipped" generation are not normative. They are designed to demonstrate God's continued sovereignty even in the midst of multi-generational covenants. Does God always save in the line of generations? Nope, then you know what we would do -- we would ignore the free grace or sovereignty of Grace that God bestows upon his people. This is what we see in great measure in the NT amongst the Pharisees and Scribes of that day. They would rather claim Abraham as their father than testify to their own faith.
It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which even with the unfaithfulness of men, God's promise to be our God and the God of our seed continue true because of his faithfulness.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/2cents.gif)