Salvation is... personal?

[directline2iam]

You're equivocating "salvation" there... I was referring to it in the eternal sense... but you're still wrong. Lot's wife and family were saved from Sodom and Gomorrah because of Lot, which you'd notice from verses 12 and 13. The angels said "Do you have [family] here?" These others obviously weren't saved because they were individually righteous, but on Lot's behalf.

It's true that Lot's wife was killed and that nobody else in her family suffered for her actions alone, so even if the blessings were poured on a household for one, the punishment wasn't -- but that would make her the exception, not the rule. Did I not cite the ten commandments as containing an explicit statement from God that he punishes children for the sins of their parents? Are you not familiar with the story of Jonah, how several men almost died in a storm just because Jonah was on their ship? How about the story where the Israelites couldn't conquer Ai because of the theft by Achan alone? There are many stories in the Old Testament where a group is punished because of the deeds of one person.

So the story of Lot's wife would only serve to show you that God is inconsistent if anything. But while it attacks the arguments about "God's nature", it still has nothing to do with whether salvation extends to one's family.

Well, I guess you told me...................................NOTHING!
You want to get technical fine: Adam and Eve my Greatest Parents whom are the greatest parents to the whole world making you and the world my blood brothers ARE NOT ALL SAVED ETERNALLY even though we are all family. And you can't disagree with any of this if you have a half a brain. And by the way, Adam and Eve being saved by the promise of the Saviour.

 

[wattie]

There is also the fact that when a father of a family is converted.. there is a high chance of the family then following him in being saved by their personal free will to choose. Since he would be the leader of the household, and then the family would see the difference in this man. Maybe this is what is happening with 'you and your household saved'

 

[Angela53510]

FIRST -it is bad hermeneutics to make a doctrine out of ONE scripture. Good hermeneutics, or Biblical interpretation looks at ALL the verses of a particular issue, and tries to interpret by what ALL of God's word says!

I guess you forgot that, before you baited everyone with Acts 16. I preached a sermon on this text for Seminary, which meant doing a lot of research concerning the context, the language, the history of this time in this passage. I can assure you that it does not say the household is saved on the basis of the jailer believing.

If you want verses that contradict your hypothesis, try the following.

"Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” [SUP]38 [/SUP]And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. " Acts 2: 37-38

Since Acts 16 is written by Luke in context of what he had already recorded on the day of Pentecost, it is not likely he is re-writing the doctrine of salvation, but likely reporting the amazing transformation which occurred in the jailer, which indeed inspired the rest of the family to believe, repent and be baptized. Try and keep in mind that Acts is the record of the birth of the church, and Luke did not make mistakes. He reported what he saw and heard. He did not make doctrine, either!

"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, [SUP]2 [/SUP]until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. [SUP]3 [/SUP]He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.[SUP]4 [/SUP]And while staying[SUP][ [/SUP]with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; [SUP]5 [/SUP]for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Acts 1:1-5

Some other verses that disprove your unbiblical hypothesis might include:

"If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him." 1 Cor. 7:13

Please note that the "household" of the woman is not saved, the husband is clearly UNSAVED, even though they still live together in the same "household".

The passage continues that living with an unbeliever makes the spouse "holy" or set apart. But that is not necessarily saved.

"For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" 1 Cor. 7:16

So this passage is very clear that just because a spouse is saved, doesn't mean that the unbelieving spouse is.

Any more questions you need clarified??

 

[Butch5]

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?

Crossnote has answer. The verse is a statement to the jailer and his household. Paul isn't telling the jailer that if he believes his household will be saved, he's telling the jailer that if he and his household believe they will be saved.