Well, i myself do like the gospel of Mark, and i do try not to be verbose , but there were a few things to respond to, and rather than a lot of posts of bits and pieces, i tried to present a one time explanation, especially since such a view seemed to be seriously held.
The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved,
Sanctification follows justification (salvation). If the household is "sanctified' then it is "saved" and as such "set aside for God" 9sanctified).
Actually the two words used 1Cor. 7:14, hagiazō, most often translated as sanctified, denoting to render holy, or clean or to consecrate, and the word from which it comes, hagios, denoting a holy thing, set apart as holy, can refer to both a positional state and a practical state. Aa regards the former, Israel is collectively called “holy” by Paul in Rm. 11:16, and believers are to consecrate their bodies as holy unto God. (Rm. 12:1) Paul addresses the Corinthians, whom he will shortly reprove for their carnality, as ones “sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints,” (1Cor. 1:2) And as relates to children, the O.T. command (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:13) that the first born of every Jewish family was sanctioned in a dedicated sense unto God is reiterated in Lk. 2:23, yet it is abundantly clear that not all that was sanctified or called holy in that sense was necessarily redeemed. But what is also manifest is that God would bless and or protect a household from physical judgment due to the presence of one believer. (Gn. 19; Josh. 6:25)
In addition, while semantics by itself can allow your interpretation, salvation by proxy faith does not conflate with the express commands for salvation, which consistently require a volitional response. In the proxy faith proof case of the palsied man, (Mk. 2:3-11) his infirmity was physical, not cognitive.
It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith.
Paul didn't hold much to baptism, or perfor many. His main tenet was that you are saved by faith or by proxy (if you married a believer), not by baptism. The baptism that matter is of the Spirit, so there is no need for water baptism if you think about it in Pauline theology.
Jesus did not perform many either, if any, (Jn. 4:2) and likewise Paul's mission was to do the actual preaching, (1Cor. 1:17) but simply because that was the case does not mean either has a low view of it. Jesus commanded baptism, and Paul himself was baptized, (Acts 22:16) and baptism is shown to have accompanied Paul's preaching in personal conversions of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, disciples of John in Ephesus, and that of Gaius and of Stephanas. ( Acts 16:14,15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 1Cor. 1:14,15) So he did not think there was no need, and as said before, there is no real difference between moving your tongue or exercising your mind in confessing Jesus as your crucified and risen LORD, (Rm. 10:9,10) than there is in doing so by body language, in baptism. But it is Peter's preaching which helps to evidence that souls can be born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so
But is their making the response ever in question? Whether God forces their response or just foreknows how they will feel on that they is irrelevant. The dice have been cast; the actual event is only a matter of going through the hoops. The outcome is never in doubt. You are sitting on a train bound for a station; what you do on it is of no consequence.
If you are thinking fatalism, that is understandable, and i think what would be more fitting is that you will get on the train and stay on the train, and do not get thrown off because you are a passenger and thus you act like one, and will get off when it arrives at your detestation, versus the destination of those on the other train. What one believers orders one's life, and salvation “no matter how you live” is neither Biblical or Calvinism or classic Arminianism, though some sadly preach that now. The former type holds that the elect will finally persevere in faith, a faith that progresses in sanctification and will repent if astray, while the other also tends to requiring a practical holiness as an attribute of faith, not the case of salvation but that saving faith must have attesting fruit if one is to considered saved and secure, while many also hold that one can forfeit the salvation which was appropriated by faith. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:19-38)
As for the issue of free will, and how free mans will is as it relates to predestination, and on what basis one is elected, and reconciled that with God's declared justice, and what Rm. 9 fully means, that is the principal debate within Protestantism. As FR threads have shown!
Well, broken posts are easier to track. Given the size of your paragraphs, each would qualify as a a separate post simply because of how much relevant information you put in them. trying to answer each one of your sentences will take a week. If you were the only person debating that might even work, but I don't know if you noticed or not, I usually get half a dozen, if not more, pings a night.
So, to be fair, I have no choice but to truncate my replies in hopes that you will understand their brevity is forced.
That said, I am quote familiar with the Greek word hagiazo (to make holy) but I disagree that it can be "positional" and "practical." Holiness is a state. Something is either holy is or not.
by Paul in Rm. 11:16, and believers are to consecrate their bodies as holy unto God
That's Paul's babble as far as I am concerned. No man can make himself holy. Also Jewish "holiness" and Pauline idea of holiness, salvation, etc. are like night and day.
every Jewish family was sanctioned in a dedicated sense unto God
That's right. Jews are God's holy people. That's why a Jew could not own a Jewish slave. Each Jew belongs to God. They are the priestly nation. They are given 613 mitzvot to observe and the Gentiles are given seven. The OT make sit clear that the Gentiles have no role in God's plan. Only the Jews do.
In addition, while semantics by itself can allow your interpretation, salvation by proxy faith does not conflate with the express commands for salvation, which consistently require a volitional response
What "volitional response"? You don't get up one morning and decide to believe. It must be given, according to Christian apologists.
Jesus did not perform many [baptisms] either, if any
No, but that was before the Great Commission given to his disciples to baptize. I suppose Paul felt that this was not "his job." The Great Commission doesn't say "except Paul." Given Paul's own theology, water baptism was not that important, so he didn't do it. Apparently he was not aware of the Great Commission probably because it was made up a later date, just as Mark's was.
But it is Peter's preaching which helps to evidence that souls can be born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
That's part of the mumbo-jumbo of Christianity. Different Christian groups believe different things as regards baptism and faith. By the way, the "born again" is a mistranslation of Greek.
and i think what would be more fitting is that you will get on the train and stay on the train, and do not get thrown off because you are a passenger and thus you act like one, and will get off when it arrives at your detestation, versus the destination of those on the other train.
Nope. Once you believe (and that is not even your doing, but God;s) no matter what you do nothing will get you thrown off the train. Nothing you do will affect your salvation. Or so the Protestants teach.
The former type holds that the elect will finally persevere in faith, a faith that progresses in sanctification and will repent if astray
They will persevere because God wants them to. Remember the "Your will be done"? The world is as God wants it to be. Or else he is no God.
while many also hold that one can forfeit the salvation which was appropriated by faith. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:19-38)
Just another example of self-contradictions taught in the New Testament. Calvinists will find you verses in John to counter these without saying the Bible contradicts itself. Christianity is strained because it is an amalgam of different beliefs and traditions, a mixture of Judaism, Hellenism and Zoroastrianism, inherently incompatible traditions stitched together and then laboriously "harmonized" over centuries.
Sometimes I think the reason we don't have older version of the NT manuscripts is because they were destroyed by Christians, as new beliefs predominated.