If I were to ask you, "How do I become saved?" you would almost certainly quote Acts 16:31. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved". Right? If you were ever in AWANA, you may remember that as Acts 16:31a, meaning that this line isn't the whole verse. It goes on to say "you and your household".
Whenever I bring up this inconvenient phrase "you and your household", I'm inevitably told that this phrase only applies to the jailer in the specific bible story that this verse is pulled from, and I'm also often reminded that I "pulled it out of context". Yet it would seem that the same argument could be made about the first half of the verse, that it was pulled out of context and applied only specifically to the jailer and not to the population at large. The first half of the verse is in a different context and directed at a different audience? Both phrases are in the same sentence!
So I'm going to make the argument that salvation saves "one's household". I would obviously cite Acts 16:31 as my reference to prove this point. Could you cite a verse that says that one's household does not become saved when you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? I'm doubtful, but feel free to do so below.
Is my argument well-supported? You may very well say that it alludes to only a single verse, one that you feel has a context that I must be misunderstanding. So how could I possibly make such an argument based on one single phrase in one single verse? Here's the kicker: there are almost countless examples in the bible that suggest that such salvation would be consistent with God's nature. We'd have to look to the Old Testament, but I'm told repeatedly that the god of the Old Testament is the same as the god of the New, and that his nature doesn't change.
God's blessings are sometimes through generations. Abraham's faith caused God to bless all Jews, and God specifically and repeatedly stated that the Jews would be blessed because of the actions of their forefather Abraham. David's line would allegedly never end (and include the Messiah) because of David's personal actions.
Likewise, God's curses are sometimes carried through generations. The Moabites and Ammonites were cursed because of the birth conditions of Moab and Ben-Ammi. "The Mark of Cain" and similar curse on Ham were both said to be carried by all of their descendants. Even the ten commandments contain a short diatribe on how God punishes sins to the third and fourth generation.
So as we can see, God is the type of person who blesses and curses "one's household" for the actions taken by a single individual. So "saving one's household" is consistent with His nature. So I challenge you again -- can you show counter-evidence that shows that salvation is only personal?
Whenever I bring up this inconvenient phrase "you and your household", I'm inevitably told that this phrase only applies to the jailer in the specific bible story that this verse is pulled from, and I'm also often reminded that I "pulled it out of context". Yet it would seem that the same argument could be made about the first half of the verse, that it was pulled out of context and applied only specifically to the jailer and not to the population at large. The first half of the verse is in a different context and directed at a different audience? Both phrases are in the same sentence!
So I'm going to make the argument that salvation saves "one's household". I would obviously cite Acts 16:31 as my reference to prove this point. Could you cite a verse that says that one's household does not become saved when you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? I'm doubtful, but feel free to do so below.
Is my argument well-supported? You may very well say that it alludes to only a single verse, one that you feel has a context that I must be misunderstanding. So how could I possibly make such an argument based on one single phrase in one single verse? Here's the kicker: there are almost countless examples in the bible that suggest that such salvation would be consistent with God's nature. We'd have to look to the Old Testament, but I'm told repeatedly that the god of the Old Testament is the same as the god of the New, and that his nature doesn't change.
God's blessings are sometimes through generations. Abraham's faith caused God to bless all Jews, and God specifically and repeatedly stated that the Jews would be blessed because of the actions of their forefather Abraham. David's line would allegedly never end (and include the Messiah) because of David's personal actions.
Likewise, God's curses are sometimes carried through generations. The Moabites and Ammonites were cursed because of the birth conditions of Moab and Ben-Ammi. "The Mark of Cain" and similar curse on Ham were both said to be carried by all of their descendants. Even the ten commandments contain a short diatribe on how God punishes sins to the third and fourth generation.
So as we can see, God is the type of person who blesses and curses "one's household" for the actions taken by a single individual. So "saving one's household" is consistent with His nature. So I challenge you again -- can you show counter-evidence that shows that salvation is only personal?
