Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Acts 16:31 is the proof-text assurance given to prospective 'converts' to lead them to suppose that they can become Christians without repentance. I want to look at the context of this verse and see seven things about this man which led Paul and Silas to refer him to Christ. These points are adapted from Studies in Saving Faith by A. W. Pink.
1. The jailor had just witnessed the miracle-working power of God (v.26).
2. In consequence of that, he was deeply moved to the point of self-despair. He was about to kill himself (V.27).
3. He felt the need for illumination 'Then he called for a light' (v.29).
4. His self-righteousness and self-complacency was utterly shattered. He came trembling' (v.29).
5. He took his proper place before God- in the dust. He 'fell down before Paul and Silas.' (v.29).
6. He showed proper respect and consideration for God's servants. He brought them out' (v.30).
7. Then, with a deep concern for his soul, he asked, "What must I do to be saved." (v.31).
In short, this man was an awakened, convicted soul and he was ready to be pointed to Christ.
I have pointed out elsewhere that when people came to the Lord Jesus asking similar questions (Luke 10:25ff; 18:18ff), He pointed them to the Moral Law. Why did He do that? Because they had no sense of sin. The Scribe was merely 'testing' Jesus (10:25); the Rich Young Ruler thought he was keeping the law (18:21). Both needed to be convicted of sin before they could be saved.
I do not know if there is one corner of hell is hotter and blacker than the rest, but if there is such a corner, it will be reserved for those who teach those seeking Christ that they can reach heaven without repenting of their sins. This is the true meaning of Matt. 18:6-7. 'My brothers, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgement' (James 3:1).
Acts 16:31 is the proof-text assurance given to prospective 'converts' to lead them to suppose that they can become Christians without repentance. I want to look at the context of this verse and see seven things about this man which led Paul and Silas to refer him to Christ. These points are adapted from Studies in Saving Faith by A. W. Pink.
1. The jailor had just witnessed the miracle-working power of God (v.26).
2. In consequence of that, he was deeply moved to the point of self-despair. He was about to kill himself (V.27).
3. He felt the need for illumination 'Then he called for a light' (v.29).
4. His self-righteousness and self-complacency was utterly shattered. He came trembling' (v.29).
5. He took his proper place before God- in the dust. He 'fell down before Paul and Silas.' (v.29).
6. He showed proper respect and consideration for God's servants. He brought them out' (v.30).
7. Then, with a deep concern for his soul, he asked, "What must I do to be saved." (v.31).
In short, this man was an awakened, convicted soul and he was ready to be pointed to Christ.
I have pointed out elsewhere that when people came to the Lord Jesus asking similar questions (Luke 10:25ff; 18:18ff), He pointed them to the Moral Law. Why did He do that? Because they had no sense of sin. The Scribe was merely 'testing' Jesus (10:25); the Rich Young Ruler thought he was keeping the law (18:21). Both needed to be convicted of sin before they could be saved.
I do not know if there is one corner of hell is hotter and blacker than the rest, but if there is such a corner, it will be reserved for those who teach those seeking Christ that they can reach heaven without repenting of their sins. This is the true meaning of Matt. 18:6-7. 'My brothers, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgement' (James 3:1).
"Believe and thou shalt be saved." Only the future would make sense here. Salvation is always subsequent to believing. I believe we can safely say that the jailer (as well as all others in the NT) were saved immediately after they believed. 3,000 at Pentecost were saved when or as soon as they believed. Immediately, when Paul addressed Christ as Lord, I believe that is when he was saved. Right after that he replied in complete submission "Lord what will you have me to do?" That is the only example of actual Lordship Salvation that I know of. Thus when one believes, salvation follows, immediately, or as soon as one believes.The jailor who sought to be saved we see there as well that Paul and Silas spoke in future terms: "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house (Acts 16.31)." Thou shalt be saved! No question but they referred to the future. How far into the future is not for us to say except that the clear intention was for something beyond the moment.
"Believe and thou shalt be saved." Only the future would make sense here. Salvation is always subsequent to believing. I believe we can safely say that the jailer (as well as all others in the NT) were saved immediately after they believed. 3,000 at Pentecost were saved when or as soon as they believed. Immediately, when Paul addressed Christ as Lord, I believe that is when he was saved. Right after that he replied in complete submission "Lord what will you have me to do?" That is the only example of actual Lordship Salvation that I know of. Thus when one believes, salvation follows, immediately, or as soon as one believes.
You are referring to the "ordo salutis." Yes, most theologians put regeneration before salvation. However most of them are honest enough to admit that the entire "process" if it can be called a "process," is simultaneous. It all happens at the same time. The ordo salutis is simply for our understanding, trying to figure out what God already knows. The reality is that they happen at the same time.Brother DHK,
Hello again and happy New Year! I think some of the confusion is you equate being saved and salvation as synonymous with the new birth, which they are not and your statement also seems to imply salvation and being saved are also one time not continuous experience (though most Christians probably refer to them in a similar manner as use have used them in your above post). No doubt the new birth is part of salvation and being saved, but not all of salvation, and salvation happens in an order in time with the new birth occurring earlier, rather than later in the order for a child of God. We will also probably disagree in that I contend the jailer experienced the new birth prior to asking "What must I do to be saved".
There is nothing there about salvation in time past, nor is that relevant to an unsaved person coming to Christ.There are many well-known texts in the Bible touching on the subject of salvation. Many of these texts make the conclusion to be unmistakable that salvation was accomplished in time past, and yet is to be accomplished. None make this clearer than the following: "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life (Romans 5.9,10)."
He is an eschatological reference. We shall be saved from the wrath of Hell. And we shall be saved from the wrath to come which shall take place in the coming Tribulation. The saved are not appointed unto wrath. In that verse the "we" is obviously pointing to the believers, not directing us to the unbelievers."Being now justified" is clear enough. "Now," does not mean off in the far distant future. Those "being now justified" are surely now delivered, or presently saved from their culpability. The next expression does place salvation in the future, however. "We shall be saved from wrath." "Shall be" was true when Paul penned it, and it is equally true today. As for the word, wrath, we understand its use in this verse to mean the final doom of the unsaved. We see, then, salvation in verse 9 to be both present and future, yet one whole salvation.
The subject "we" shows what happened in our past salvation. You seem to be very confused on this subject going back and forth. Some times you are looking to the future.Verse 10 of Romans 5 employs a division of present salvation from future salvation as well. "We were reconciled to God" cannot possibly be construed to mean a future salvation any more than "being reconciled" can. In this text reconciliation to God is essentially the same as being saved from enmity, or as it is stated in verse 8, "While we were yet sinners." Again, however, verse 10 shifts from present salvation to future salvation with the following language: "we shall be saved by his life." No one with a grain of honesty could make shall be anything but future.
Now you confuse the entire matter of salvation (that is the original subject of justification) with the general subject of the entirety of salvation which we were not talking about in the first place. You have changed the subject.Salvation, as used here is what we might call a multi-dimensional work. First, last, and always, "Salvation is of the Lord." Probably the most irrefutable text dealing with future salvation is "....for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed (Romans 13.11)." If Paul's, and the Roman's, salvation was nearer than at the time they believed then belief did not accomplish for them that future salvation. They yet awaited it.
You are referring to the "ordo salutis." Yes, most theologians put regeneration before salvation. However most of them are honest enough to admit that the entire "process" if it can be called a "process," is simultaneous. It all happens at the same time. The ordo salutis is simply for our understanding, trying to figure out what God already knows. The reality is that they happen at the same time. .
Brother DHK,
Hello again and happy New Year! I think some of the confusion is you equate being saved and salvation as synonymous with the new birth, which they are not and your statement also seems to imply salvation and being saved are also one time not continuous experience (though most Christians probably refer to them in a similar manner as use have used them in your above post). No doubt the new birth is part of salvation and being saved, but not all of salvation, and salvation happens in an order in time with the new birth occurring earlier, rather than later in the order for a child of God. We will also probably disagree in that I contend the jailer experienced the new birth prior to asking "What must I do to be saved".
There are many well-known texts in the Bible touching on the subject of salvation. Many of these texts make the conclusion to be unmistakable that salvation was accomplished in time past, and yet is to be accomplished.
The wrath Paul is speaking about does not come when sinners die. The wrath he is speaking of is the tribulation period. What comes after the death of those not saved is judgement. At least its the next thing they become aware of. What happens after judgement is punishment.Brother DHK,
None make this clearer than the following: "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life (Romans 5.9,10)."
"Being now justified" is clear enough. "Now," does not mean off in the far distant future. Those "being now justified" are surely now delivered, or presently saved from their culpability. The next expression does place salvation in the future, however. "We shall be saved from wrath." "Shall be" was true when Paul penned it, and it is equally true today. As for the word, wrath, we understand its use in this verse to mean the final doom of the unsaved. We see, then, salvation in verse 9 to be both present and future, yet one whole salvation.
I'm sorry but the Bible when read with an open mind says just the opposite of what you claim these verses say. This one for exampleVerse 10 of Romans 5 employs a division of present salvation from future salvation as well. "We were reconciled to God" cannot possibly be construed to mean a future salvation any more than "being reconciled" can. In this text reconciliation to God is essentially the same as being saved from enmity, or as it is stated in verse 8, "While we were yet sinners." Again, however, verse 10 shifts from present salvation to future salvation with the following language: "we shall be saved by his life." No one with a grain of honesty could make shall be anything but future.
Salvation, as used here is what we might call a multi-dimensional work. First, last, and always, "Salvation is of the Lord." Probably the most irrefutable text dealing with future salvation is "....for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed (Romans 13.11)." If Paul's, and the Roman's, salvation was nearer than at the time they believed then belief did not accomplish for them that future salvation. They yet awaited it.
Brother Joe
We probably never will agree.Brother DHK,
Hello. I disagree that all of salvation occurs at once simultaneously. Paul said he was saved before the world began (2 Timothy 1:9), when Jesus came into the world (1 Timothy 1:15), when the Spirit regenerated him (Titus 3:5), when he took heed to himself and the doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16), and would be saved sometime in the future (Romans 13:11).
We probably never will agree.
.
I agree, with a couple minor modifications.We probably never will agree.
Let me sum it up this way.
The Philippian jailer did not look back to eternity past for his salvation. He did not look past any further than the cross. The command was: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Hindsight is better than foresight.
Now, having the entire canon, all 66 books of the Bible, and thousands of theology books besides that, you look back over the last 2,000 years and draw conclusions that those who have already gone before you have already believed.
That is not the way the Philippian jailer looked at. He simply believed in Christ and was saved. He didn't have to become the theologian you are setting forth. Salvation to the jailor was a one time act, a one time event that happened at that time, not in eternity past, but then, when he called upon the name of the Lord, not well into the future at the time of glorification, but then, at that time when he called on the name of the Lord. That is what Paul taught him, and that is what we all ought to believe.
I agree with you absolutely that no one has to become a theologian in order to be saved. But what does believing in Christ entail? I think these verses may help us.That is not the way the Philippian jailer looked at. He simply believed in Christ and was saved. He didn't have to become the theologian you are setting forth.
Yes, I agree with that. He very well could have heard many things about Christ through their singing and praying and just in public because of the reason they were thrown in prison. It wasn't a secret.I agree with you absolutely that no one has to become a theologian in order to be saved. But what does believing in Christ entail? I think these verses may help us.
Luke 24:46-48. 'Then He said to them, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things."'
So when Paul and Silas 'Spoke the word of the Lord to [the jailor] and all who were in his house' (Acts 16:32), there was a minimum of information that they must have imparted if they were to obey the Lord's command. They must have taught the jailor about the suffering, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, explained to him that he was by nature a sinner and under the wrath of God, called on him to repent of his sins, and assured him that if he trusted in Jesus Christ, his sins would be forgiven. That seems to me to be entailed in the words of our Lord given above, and an absolute minimum to be believed for salvation.
It seems to me that you are supposing that the jailor believed in Christ immediately Paul and Silas spoke to him in verse 31. There is no reason to think that. I think it is more than likely that he replied along the lines of, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" (John 9:36), and it wasn't until after Paul and Silas had spoken the word to him in v.32, that he believed.Yes, I agree with that. He very well could have heard many things about Christ through their singing and praying and just in public because of the reason they were thrown in prison. It wasn't a secret.
There would be no reason for the jailer to remove Paul and Silas from the jail, had he not believed. To delay the belief is to suppose he would need further information, rather than being set upon the road of disciple by the Word.It seems to me that you are supposing that the jailor believed in Christ immediately Paul and Silas spoke to him in verse 31. There is no reason to think that. I think it is more than likely that he replied along the lines of, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" (John 9:36), and it wasn't until after Paul and Silas had spoken the word to him in v.32, that he believed.
roman road
To DHK's antagonists:
It is not mature or Christ-like for you to call him a liar, calling his beliefs a false theology, calling it Finneyism, saying he deletes posts, defining his beliefs contrary to what he states he believes, and all the other underhanded tricks and nasty things you have done in this thread. Then you sit and post gloating threads about how you've destroyed him. It is shameful the way you people are behaving! Grow up!
To DHK:
Your patience is amazing. If I were a moderator I would have closed this thread days ago. It's turned into an insult festival. Please put it out of its misery and lock it.
You seem to believe that one goes from total unbelief to total belief instantly. That was not my experience of my salvation; was it yours?There would be no reason for the jailer to remove Paul and Silas from the jail, had he not believed
You seem to believe that one goes from total unbelief to total belief instantly. That was not my experience of my salvation; was it yours?
As I suggested in my earlier posts, it seems that this jailor was under conviction before he ever spoke to Paul and Silas. Then, when they bade him believe on Christ for salvation, he thought, "Wow! I need to hear more about this!" So he frees P and S and takes them to his house and cleans them up. Whether he cleans them up before or after he takes them home is not really relevant- the text suggests after- and they preach the word to him and his family, and they believe.
But to suggest that the jailor believed without repenting means that Paul must have disregarded both the instructions of the Lord Jesus (Luke 24:46-48) and his own usual practice (Acts 26:20).
I don't think my experience was much different and that is without any supernatural phenomena. Certainly an earthquake, the chains falling off the prisoners (and still they did not escape), the prison door miraculously opening, would convince anyone that Paul and Silas's God is the true God. Compare the situation here to Elijah on Mount Carmel. What was the people's reaction: "The Lord he is God; The Lord He is God!" There was a fear that came into the heart of the jailer which we may call conviction as well. He trembled as he brought out Paul and Silas, obviously from great conviction. He was no doubt sorry that he was the one ever involved in this mess of jailing two Roman citizens in the first place. They weren't guilty of any crime and he probably knew that.You seem to believe that one goes from total unbelief to total belief instantly. That was not my experience of my salvation; was it yours?
As I suggested in my earlier posts, it seems that this jailor was under conviction before he ever spoke to Paul and Silas. Then, when they bade him believe on Christ for salvation, he thought, "Wow! I need to hear more about this!" So he frees P and S and takes them to his house and cleans them up. Whether he cleans them up before or after he takes them home is not really relevant- the text suggests after- and they preach the word to him and his family, and they believe.
But to suggest that the jailor believed without repenting means that Paul must have disregarded both the instructions of the Lord Jesus (Luke 24:46-48) and his own usual practice (Acts 26:20).