...and your house...

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by menageriekeeper, Apr 7, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Acts 16 Paul tells the deeper of the prison that he will be saved "and all thy house" (KJV) and later in the passage goes on to describe the keeper being baptised and "all his". (there are other similar passages)

    Did the early Church believe that when the head of the house choose Christ that he choose Christ for all of his household?

    Did these sorts of descriptions lead to the belief of some that "since mama was Christian I am too"?
     
  2. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,926
    Likes Received:
    95
    I do not understand your question....sorry
     
  3. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    Look at the surrounding text and I think you will find your answer.

    To me, this doesn't say that it was the jailer's belief that saved his family. Paul is telling the jailer what will save both him and his household - which is belief. An individual belief.

    And that's what verses 33-34 say. It says that Paul preached to the jailer and his whole household and each one of them came to believe in God. Each person in that house heard the same gospel.

    It was that gospel that saved the individual household members, not the jailer's belief.
     
    #3 Scarlett O., Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2011
  4. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I don't think so. While salvation is an individual choice in that time period the head of the house had a great deal of influence on everyone else. His decision would hold a great weight with everyone else so that they would naturally listen and make the same choice. Unlike today when the head (father) makes a choice each person is their own man so to speak and they do as they please which means they do not necessarily listen, mush less follow.
     
    #4 freeatlast, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2011
  5. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,926
    Likes Received:
    95
    Agreed:thumbs:
     
  6. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure I know how to reword it. Ummm....

    How about:

    a) Was the entire family saved by the action of the head of the household(in this case the keeper of the jail) as a precipatating event, or,

    b) Did each member of the household choose for themselves to accept Christ, perhaps in obedience to their husband/father/master or,

    c) Is this simply a descripition that since Dad got saved the entire household became known by the name "Christain" even though one or more members of the house didn't believe in Christ though they may have been baptised because they thought they had no other choice (because of the patriachal culture of the time)?

    And in the case of choice b, was following Christ because of the desire to follow Dad, actually sufficient unto the salvation of the individual?

    Does that help?
     
  7. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding the bold..
    Maybe I misunderstood you but is seems you are saying that since the father will chose, the rest of the family will follow his example. If so this is not true.
    Paul was not saying, if you believe then the rest of your house will follow your example. That is not faith nor, according to scripture, would they be saved by following their fathers choice. It was individual regarding acceptance of the truth, yet on the one point I DO agree with you. The head or Father's opinion DID hold great weight and gave those of his house pause to listen.

    Scarlett O - I believe your answer was contextually and scripturally accurate. Paul's point was that the gospel can save not only him but his whole household, and we see that was his point as scripture spells out what happened at the Jailers house.
     
  8. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,926
    Likes Received:
    95
    Yes & No

    I would seriously answer no to each point. Everyone is an individual & they all do their own thing. And thank god because I wasnt anyone they should have patterned themselves after.
     
  9. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    I will not back this up with scripture because it is simply how I see it and who said it.
    Since Paul said it I believe God revealed to him that all would receive Christ. Remember the ship wreck God the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul the danger and peril they would encounter if the ship left port. He told the captain and the captain spoke with the ship master. They both felt compelled to depart and we know the story the ship wreck occured as Paul had been shown. Since he was an apostle and God revealed things to him was just that Paul had been shown by God that these would all be saved?
    Just a question.
     
  10. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    A) no!

    B) No!

    C) No!

    They got saved because they believed, but their belief was due to the fact that the father was greatly respected and they listened. None the less each one of the family members had to come to their own dicission of the truth of the cross. The fathers infleunce of their mind ended at their heart and from there God had to work within their willingness to accept.
     
    #10 freeatlast, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2011
  11. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry if I was not clear. I mean that they will listen because of his position, but they still have to decide if they will follow. Not that they have to follow because of his position.
     
  12. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Allan has posted correctly ...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and your household...[if they also believe], is implied in the statement. In two of the other household accounts it says they all believed.

    In the OT only the males had the sign of the covenant.Presbyterians see in this a principle of household inclusion in what they refer to as the outward administration of the covenant of grace.
    In other words....all males were given the sign of the covenant.The sign did not save,but pointed to what it signified....Christ.
    That is why padeos baptize [or rather sprinkle] infants today.They believe NT baptism takes the place of the OT sign.
    God many times in scripture is pleased to work in households,1 cor7:14, the children being expopsed to the means of grace.That being said there is no guarantee that each child will "have root in himself".
     
  13. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes! This is what I was talking about and couldn't find the words to describe it.

    So, with my equally unclear self, can we talk about why the males only were given a physical sign, how that sign (circumcision) related to the acceptance of the Covenant (or as Iconoclast has said pointed to the Savior) and how that male only acceptance of the Covenant on behalf of their families (?) relates to the NT scriptures I quoted in the OP?

    And while we are at it, can we also discuss the implications of 1 Cor 7:14 since Iconoclast brought it up?
     
  14. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    mk,
    To be honest sometimes it seems as if solid presbyterians are ahead of baptists in this area of bible study.I have learned more from padeos on this topic than from baptists.
    I see a few reasons for this;
    1] padeos are given to covenant theology, they study the scriptures looking to glean everything about Gods covenant, how it effects us, and our families.
    Baptists by and large in our day, have little or no knowledge of the covenants, which are primary if we are going to come to truth on many areas of teaching .

    2] God has revealed a pattern in scripture where he deals with families,and there are promises that are given to those who are covenant keepers.There were also promises of judgement to covenant breakers!

    7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

    1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

    2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

    3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

    In the NT we are grafted into the covenant promises...we have to give an account for how we view our inclusion in the covenant.

    In other words....is it the same as it was in the OT?
    what has changed?
    is anything different?
    can we break the covenant?
    Is the new covenant the same as the old?
    if it is different,in what way is it different?
    How do we enter the covenant now?
    the same as OT saints or different?
    Are our children included in the covenant as the OT children were?
    Are our children excluded from the covenant?
    Is there an external and ,internal administration of the covenant now?
    what does it mean that the children of a believing parent are holy, or the unsaved spouse are in 1 cor 7:14

    These are questions we could be studying instead of some of the questions that are being posted,,,,many of the other threads would be solved by studying the covenants of God.
     
  15. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pick your fav and give your opinion. We can start a new thread if you like or simply hijack this one. I know very little really about OT covenant theology and much less on how it applies to the NT and its always good to learn something new.
     
  16. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    MK,
    Studying the covenants is a life long study in my opinion. I would first recommend that one gets an overview of Biblical covenants.

    It takes alot of reading. Some of the teaching on this topic is nuanced,so it requires patience . Sometimes you read through alot of teaching and have to sift out the truth from the extra teaching, or some of the different ideas that are offered.

    I am constantly studying this topic nowadays. On this trip out I am reading sermons on Jn 17....and Romans 6 to see what they have to say about this.

    When you study this ,keep in mind that the word covenant is not always used when the covenant is being discussed.

    There are certain words and terms associated with this topic that you become familiar with.

    One definition I came across of a biblical Covenant is;
    God's self imposed promise for the reconciliation of sinners to Himself.

    Here are a few terms to get to know;

    Covenant of Redemption
    Covenant of Grace
    Old Covenant
    New Covenant
    Noahic Covenant
    Abrahamic Covenant
    Mosaic Covenant
    Davidic Covenant
    Everlasting Covenant

    Have you heard the terms before? From the pulpit or in bible study?
    Here are some verses that I find interesting on this topic;
    http://www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_in_the_bible.htm

    here is a sample from that site;
     
    #16 Iconoclast, Apr 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2011
  17. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    MK,

    Scroll all the way down on this site and you will see how much information,verses and teaching are involved.....here is another small sample
     
  18. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets see if I have the basics. This is just off the top of my head, mind you as it is way past my curfew. ;)

    Covenant of Redemption God's plan to redeem mankind though Christ's sacrifice
    Covenant of Grace Results of the above
    Old Covenant Promises made to Isreal on the condition of their obedience to the Law
    New Covenant Promises made to mankind as a whole on the condition of their obedience to belief in Christ
    Noahic Covenant "I will set my bow in the sky" Promises made to Noah upon the completion of the flood
    Abrahamic Covenant "Get thee up out of thy country into a land which I shall show thee", "stars in the sky", Promises made to Abraham (and his decendents)for his obedience to God
    Mosaic Covenant This encompasses the escape from Egypt and the Law given to nation Israel
    Davidic Covenant Change in government styles. Not to exclude Saul, but he was merely an object lesson and David was made the example for how kings should rule in Israel and what would happen if they failed to rule as God told them.
    Everlasting Covenant God's promises to the Bride of Christ

    A lot of this sounds similar to dispensationalism(as I've always understood it). Can you explain the differences?
     
  19. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Good job MK....I thought I posted a reply yesterday, but it did not post...so I will try again....lets see if we can begin to explore some of the differences:


    God covenants among the three Divine persons to redeem a multitude out from among fallen mankind. This covenant is made by God himself before the world was. Mankind...considered as fallen and dead in Adam....
    the Father gives a multitude to the Son,and sends the Son to redeem them.
    The Son comes to live a perfect and sinless life,accomplishing redemption for these children given to Him....[The elect, the sheep,the church]
    The Spirit is sent by the Father and Son to apply this redemption effectually to the elect,convicting,drawing,and regenerating them...making them willing to come .
    This salvation is offered to mankind after the fall of Adam ,in what is referred to as the covenant of works,in Gen 3;15..
    When offered it is referred to as the covenant of grace

    Noahic-
    The covenant is progressively revealed by God
    9And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
    The covenant is God's , he makes it available to man here.

    Abrahamic- The root promise....Israel first, then the nations later.

    mosaic- For the theocracy.....in this portion of redemptive history the agreeement is offered externally, and the mosaic law given as a standard,the land promises were conditioned upon obedience to the covenant.
    The davidic covenant- an expansion of the original promises , with some beneficial modifications;
    The new covenant- fulfilled in Christ..a better covenant ,better promises.This new covenant is preached worldwide, as the children of God are to be found worldwide.

    MK.....The revelation of the covenant is central in scripture..the doctrines of grace. are part and parcel of the fabric of this covenant dealing of God with the seed of Abraham.
    When people attack the doctrines of grace, they are attacking the very heart of the covenant salvation available in our redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Saul attacks the church...Jesus says Saul...why do you persecute me...this is covenant language, you cannot seperate Jesus from the elect sheep given to Him. This is why you see calvinists resist careless efforts of some to undermine the heart of the salvation made known to the Church.
     
    #19 Iconoclast, Apr 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 10, 2011
  20. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think if we keep our wits and manners about us, we can have a good discussion despite our differences on DoG. Feel free to explain why/how you believe DoG relates to Covenant Theology. (honestly DoG doesn't bother me nearly as much as you might think it does)

    Its good to know that we understand each other on the various covenants described in scripture.

    I haven't had time to examine closely the bulk of your posts #16 and 17 or the links you gave. So I'll be back later with more comments on those.

    I wonder, did you see my question on what makes Covenant Theology different from Dispensationalim?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...