Household salvation?

[T. E. Smith]

Acts 16:25-34 says:

25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, 26 and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bonds were unfastened. 27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here." 29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 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.

The part I put in bold is the thing I am most interested in. Some Christians emphasize individual salvation, that only the individual who believes can be saved. But here it appears that if the one man, the jailer (head of the household) believes, then his household will be saved. It is never stated that his household believed, only that "he had believed in God", and his family did not rejoice in their own belief but rather in his.

Perhaps I am extrapolating too much here. What do you all think about this? Is "household salvation" a biblical concept? How should we understand this passage?

 

[T. E. Smith]

You are using Greek logic again. Yes, God has no body (a Spirit); and yet He DOES have a body. See Rev 1.13-15 to see what HIS body looks like. If your logic framework cannot handle both truths, get another one.

And He is everywhere; but some places His presence is made visible and tangible (like the Shekinah in the temple) and other times/places completely imperceptible.

Not Greek, rather medieval (ever read Thomas Aquinas?).
For God to have no body and to have a body sounds self-contradictory.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Maybe the jailers whole family was considered for salvation because typically the man of the house as head of household led the family.

When he believed, all would believe. And as such what naturally followed was family baptism.

God gave himself to save the world and take its sins upon himself on the cross.

Maybe saving a family is the microcosm of that promise and plan.

No, a family man in authority cannot therefore authorize his family’s entrance into Heaven.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You are using Greek logic again. Yes, God has no body (a Spirit); and yet He DOES have a body. See Rev 1.13-15 to see what HIS body looks like. If your logic framework cannot handle both truths, get another one.

And He is everywhere; but some places His presence is made visible and tangible (like the Shekinah in the temple) and other times/places completely imperceptible.

I think a better explanation is that He is not present in the sense described when, for example, the cloud descended. Jesus Himself describes God coming to a man which begs the question as to it is to have God come as opposed to omnipresence. The Bible describes God (the Holy Spirit) descending upon people. This is obviously different.

 

[T. E. Smith]

No, a family man in authority cannot therefore authorize his family’s entrance into Heaven.

Remember the verse that says a believer's spouse and children are holy?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Remember the verse that says a believer's spouse and children are holy?

Better quote it. Let’s take at look at it.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Better quote it. Let’s take at look at it.

1 Corinthians 7:14

 

[Dorothy Mae]

1 Corinthians 7:14

It says “sanctified” not holy. Sanctified is a process. Holy is the state at the end in adults. As we see, only the children are deemed “holy” but not the spouse.

Notice “saved” is not granted by parental authority.

 

[T. E. Smith]

It says “sanctified” not holy. Sanctified is a process. Holy is the state at the end in adults. As we see, only the children are deemed “holy” but not the spouse.

Notice “saved” is not granted by parental authority.

No, sanctified literally means to make holy. "Sanctuary"? Holy place. "Saint"? Holy one. Sant/Sanct means holy.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, sanctified literally means to make holy. "Sanctuary"? Holy place. "Saint"? Holy one. Sant/Sanct means holy.

To make holy is not the same as to be holy. In any case, it is certainly not to be saved.

 

[D-D-W]

Not Greek, rather medieval (ever read Thomas Aquinas?).
For God to have no body and to have a body sounds self-contradictory.

Medieval logic is based on Aristotle; pagan greek logic.

Hebrew logic (which the bible is based on) can handle "self-contradictory."

 

[Vinny37]

Re 1 Cor.7, the implication is that they are holy/sanctified—words have semantic range. In OT times, even prostitutes of Ba’al were holy unto Ba’al, even as the pegs of Yahweh’s temple were holy unto Yahweh. Nadab and Abihu were holy (in position) and unholy (in attitude): Lv.10.

The primary meaning within creation has always been [set aside unto]. Yes, the children and spouse of any Christian are automatically set aside unto the influence of messiah, thus they are in an envious environment, whether or not they take advantage of the fact—that’s their business. There is no guarantee that they will (v16), in the sense of becoming Christians (Level 3 salvation). It is their prerogative to accept/reject the gracious offer, which can offer both spiritual enhancement and social danger.

Some Christians (whether spouse or not) might evangelistically turn off more than turn on, by subpar life, effectively contaminating the holy environ. In a study of virtue/vice lists (key words from Gal/Eph.), I once listed the exact same amount of vice-words to virtue-words (coincidentally 40 aside, if memory serves): vices to deactivate; virtues to activate. It hit me forcibly that those letters were to Christians. Herein is another meaning of being holified/sanctified, not of entrance (voluntarily being made holy: conversion), but or reformation within Christian life by the spirit’s help.

 

[T. E. Smith]

To make holy is not the same as to be holy. In any case, it is certainly not to be saved.

What? If you make someone <insert adjective here>, then they are <insert adjective here>. Random adjective: If you make someone dirty, they are dirty. If making holy does not cause someone to be holy, what does it do?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What? If you make someone <insert adjective here>, then they are <insert adjective here>. Random adjective: If you make someone dirty, they are dirty. If making holy does not cause someone to be holy, what does it do?

No, making someone clean doesn’t mean “all clean.” Educating someone doesn’t mean thy know everything.

 

[T. E. Smith]

No, making someone clean doesn’t mean “all clean.” Educating someone doesn’t mean thy know everything.

No saved person on earth is completely holy.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No saved person on earth is completely holy.

The blessing that comes on family members of believers does not save them from hell. You can test this out in real life and you don’t find the children of believers are automatically saved. Blessed be you their parents’ choices? Yes. Saved? no

 

[D-D-W]

No saved person on earth is completely holy.

Depends on your definition of "holy."

 

[D-D-W]

The blessing that comes on family members of believers does not save them from hell. You can test this out in real life and you don’t find the children of believers are automatically saved. Blessed be you their parents’ choices? Yes. Saved? no

In this day and age - correct.

But in ancient cultures, the father could command everyone in his house to believe and behave according to his wishes.

 

[T. E. Smith]

But in ancient cultures, the father could command everyone in his house to believe and behave according to his wishes.

Definitely, so here is a relevant verse: "Appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers..." (Titus 1:5-6).

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In this day and age - correct.

But in ancient cultures, the father could command everyone in his house to believe and behave according to his wishes.

This is wishful thinking as no man can command another to think according to their wishes. Act? Under tyranny? yes. Think? no.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No saved person on earth is completely holy.

Never said they were.