Question for Calvinists: Acts 16:30-31

[Luke2427]

I'm new here so please don't bite my head off. I'm trying to understand reformed theology.

We all know the story of the Phillipian jailer. Here is a man that actually asks the question:

"What must I DO to be saved?"
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."

This man, so far as we know, had no prior knowledge of the gospel. Yet in less than an hour after hearing the gospel he and his whole family became believers.

34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

How do you explain this nearly instantaneous conversion which required action on the part of the seeker? When was he regenerated so he could understand the gospel?

Yes he was.

No one can be saved apart from faith.

Scripture teaches that no one can have faith unless it is granted that he believe by God.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can he for they are spiritually discerned (I Corinthians 2:14).

Everyone must choose to place faith in Christ in order to be saved.

No one will choose to do that apart from receiving a new heart from God- having their stony hearts replaced by hearts of flesh. God must change the heart of the sinner SO THAT he WILL be willing to CHOOSE to believe in Christ.

 

[BobinKy]

In all intellectual honesty, I do not think that Cals and Non-Cals are as far apart as the "heat" of our "debates may sometimes suggest. One point here, often discussed, the concept of regeneration is this.

Tha Cal believes that it is a grace extended at a particular moment in which to make alive the person, and as a result, faith is then a secondary gift granted for the "believer" in order that they may believe.

I, not speaking for all non-cals, remain convinced that this (gift or grace) of being able to have faith and/or believe is granted to all men everywhere.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

...Bob

 

[quantumfaith]

I think God's work within a human being cannot be boxed in, yet it can be generalized. What I mean by that is that God works in various ways and by different means to bring about His purposes. With that said, everyone who is genuinely saved experience conversion by the grace of God through faith.

You said, "but the question of the jailer still, in my mind says, "man must have a part"....that part being belief exercised through faith."

I think I see where your coming from although I would like for you to explain this a little further. When God is working on a man's heart is God being light? How far does He go? what is God able to do? Does God bring about this deciding factor and step aside or does He begin a work within a sinner and finish it? Your statement above seems to assume God does a little work by the Holy Spirit, then leaves it all up to the man to choose. I see it as God beginning a work through the Gospel and bringing it to completion.

Its interesting because some make it seem like God starts speaking gifts to the sinners soul, but I have wondered if God's effectual calling is more to do with what He illuminates in a sinner and how He effects the heart by doing so. Although that is just one factor that alone can be powerful. The question is, how does someone who hears the Gospel see God in his heart? I have the pilgrims progress in mind. The character Christian by reading the word of God had a lightening bolt hit his heart. Although he was the one making choices, he could not rid of that burden of reality that was squeezing his heart until he found the way. The very same concept was in his life. He had many choices to turn away from God, but that grip on his heart always lead him back to the path of faith because He who began a powerful work brought it to completion.

I believe this is why we don't see a huge focus on the time of conversions in the Bible. There is much more about the continual life of trusting God. God begins to work on people before He saves them, and never stops until they die, that is, those who He chooses to save.

One more thing I would like to add is that without a clear view of sin, the doctrines of grace don't make any sense. Once one understands his condition on earth (A sinner) and what that really means it starts to change things quite a bit.

I have been reading Kenneth Keathley recently and really liked his description of the "ambulatory model" of salvation. In a nutshell, the "sinner" you and I are in critical condition and being rushed to the emergency room, but not so critical that we are unable to "reject" the life giving services of the medical personnell. I am convinced that God has designed into the fabric of creation and soteriology this ability to reject, by default, one can call this free will. I have never asserted man has complete libertarian free will, rather I fall into the "camp" of soft libertarian free will.

Furthermore, I am convinced from scripture, that God does indeed "raise up" and "utilize" certain people throughout redemptive history, He can and does because he is God, however I do not see this as the "norm" for all. Could these "key" individuals have "rejected" the role God had for them, I cannot answer except to say, if they could and did, then certainly God would have accomplished purposes with another.

I do not accept "open theism" for I freely acknowledge the omni...ness of God in all aspects. However, I do not think we always understand the "open" brothers, as we often label them with the philosophy that they feel that God cannot know all things, I think, although I may be wrong, that they feel that God chooses to limit himself.

I absolutely marvel at the sovereignty of God in that He is able to create a universe and creatures with some degree of freedom and still accomplish His purposes and desires.

I do not think it fair to imply (if that was indeed your intent) that any of us who do not hold to the DoG, have a diminished view of sin. Forgive me, if I misinterpreted your intent here.

I do think that the DoG's and non-cals do generally have slight differences in the concept of depravity, but it is more in degree than anything else.

Hope this helps to see inside my mind a bit.

Mercy, Peace and Love in abundance.

 

[InTheLight]

Paul and Silas were beaten and imprisoned by official function of the town. It is likely the Jailer was a part of their beating or at least witnessed the events surrounding Paul and Silas' time in Philippi.

But there really isn't any way to know this.

The question, then, is improper--the Jailer didn't come to Paul and Silas in a vacuum. It is almost certain that he some knowledge of them and their message.

We don't know that.

So, when Paul and Silas didn't run--as would be expected of persons who were common criminals--this piqued the Jailer's interest. So, their actions put testimony to their message. Since the demon was proclaiming Paul and Silas as worshipers of the Most High God, their actions made the Jailer want to know this God.

You are building your argument on an unproven assertion that the jailer had prior knowledge of the events leading up to Paul and Silas' imprisonment. The Bible only says the magistrate said, "they teach customs which are not lawful for us, being Romans, to receive or observe."

 

[Tom Butler]

Let's put to rest forever the idea that faith is a work.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved, through faith; not of works...."

 

[InTheLight]

Now even though we are doing something (repenting and believing) it is not as though God is standing in front of us waiting for it. What is happening is that God is working within us bringing about repentance and faith by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists would agree with me at this point. The issue is how far does God go and is the work He does within someone able to cause them to believe every time or is their a point where God leaves the decision to the sinner all by himself? In a sense the sinner does have a choice to make, but in the Calvinist view that choice is positively affected by God's internal work on the heart. A Calvinist would say that God works effectually. What that means is that God's work within a sinner is a work that will always result in belief if God has chosen a person to pour out His mercy on.

This is as good an explanation as I've ever heard. I do have some points to make but I don't want to get too far off topic so I'll keep quiet.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes he was.

No one can be saved apart from faith.

Scripture teaches that no one can have faith unless it is granted that he believe by God.
The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can he for they are spiritually discerned (I Corinthians 2:14).
Everyone must choose to place faith in Christ in order to be saved.

No one will choose to do that apart from receiving a new heart from God- having their stony hearts replaced by hearts of flesh. God must change the heart of the sinner SO THAT he WILL be willing to CHOOSE to believe in Christ.

1. Total agreement, however, where we often diverge is that in the DoG, God grants this faith in limited fashion. I, speaking only for myself, feel that all of mankind retain this ability to express faith, and yes some choose to express that faith, and believe, while others do not. Remember, this goes to the fact that we view depravity differently.

2. As for II Corinthians 2:14, I, speaking only for myself again, see Paul simply emphasizing the spirtual truth that those who are outside of the household of faith regard spiritual things as foolishness. If/when they experience salvation and the indwelling of the HS, then they are no longer foolishness.

 

[quantumfaith]

Let's put to rest forever the idea that faith is a work.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved, through faith; not of works...."

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[InTheLight]

One more thing I would like to add is that without a clear view of sin, the doctrines of grace don't make any sense. Once one understands his condition on earth (A sinner) and what that really means it starts to change things quite a bit.

That's our perspective, but the jailer certainly didn't have time to contemplate these things, did he?

 

[InTheLight]

So because he and his household were baptized that is PROOF that they were eternally saved at that moment ?

I'm going to trust in Paul and Silas' discernment that yes, these people were sincere converts.

How many of you have had congregants walk up to your altar during altar call sniffing and crying convulsively and wanted baptism right then and there, and yet when things went good and the crisis passed could not be found anymore in church ?

non sequitur.

Intriguing that Paul no longer mentions this jailor in his letter to the Philippians when this could have been a "meaningful" conversion by today's standards ?

He doesn't mention Lydia either. Is her conversion invalid?

 

[InTheLight]

No one will choose to do that apart from receiving a new heart from God- having their stony hearts replaced by hearts of flesh. God must change the heart of the sinner SO THAT he WILL be willing to CHOOSE to believe in Christ.

Your scenario describes no choice on the part of the sinner. God makes it happen for him.

 

[zrs6v4]

That's our perspective, but the jailer certainly didn't have time to contemplate these things, did he?

Its hard to know the details in the jailer's life. If someone turns to Christ and has no understanding of sin- is that possible?

I did not intend to imply non-Calvinists have a low view of sin by my comment. My point was that to understand Calvinism (even though I disagree on small areas) in general, one must first think deeply about sin and what it is.

Example: If you are a father and a 30 year old man looks at your 12 year old daughter with lustful intent and you knew about it, how would you feel towards that man? In reality most us would want to destroy him... Now... How does God feel that we have looked upon many woman that way? Thats just one area of sin alone. Sin against God is infinitely evil and God sends people to hell for it. Think deeply about that. Sorry if that is a bit off topic.

 

[InTheLight]

Its hard to know the details in the jailer's life.

We can make some generalized guesses.

1. The jailer likely was a pagan and believed in many gods.
2. The idea of sin needing to be atoned for was probably not in his theology.
3. The first Christians to visit Philipi, Paul and Silas, had just arrived there and had been there for only a few days.
4. Typically, upon arrival in a town or city Paul would meet with local Jews at synagogue, then preach on the Sabbath.

I think it's a fair assumption that the jailer wasn't guilted by his sin so much as worried about being put to death for allowing the prisoners to escape.

If someone turns to Christ and has no understanding of sin- is that possible?

Look at Paul's sermons in Acts. They're all about Jesus as Messiah and His resurrection. There's scant mention of sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

We can make some generalized guesses.

1. The jailer likely was a pagan and believed in many gods.
2. The idea of sin needing to be atoned for was probably not in his theology.
3. The first Christians to visit Philipi, Paul and Silas, had just arrived there and had been there for only a few days.
4. Typically, upon arrival in a town or city Paul would meet with local Jews at synagogue, then preach on the Sabbath.

I think it's a fair assumption that the jailer wasn't guilted by his sin so much as worried about being put to death for allowing the prisoners to escape.

Some very cogent and reasonable points, thanks for sharing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I enter the Calvinism/Ariminianism debate with a degree of trepidation. One doesn't have to read too far in these threads to see that high passions get involved. Please bekind and gentle with me, and if I should inadvertently offend anyone, I am really, really sorry in adavance.

First of all, we are most certainly called to repent and trust in Christ (eg. Mark 1:15), but the important point to observe is that both faith and repentance are gifts of God (Eph 2:8; Acts 11:18), and it is clear that these gifts are not given to everybody since not everybody repents and believes. So faith and repentance may be works in a sense, but they are works that we cannot carry out until God first works in us. When Lydia came to faith, it was not Paul's preaching that opened her heart, nor did she open her own heart. No; 'The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul' (Acts 16:14).

Secondly, someone once asked the Lord Jesus what he had to do to be saved, and got a very different answer.

'And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"' (Luke 10:25f).

Interesting question. Why does the Lord Jesus give the lawyer such a different answer to that which Paul gave the jailor? The reason is that the lawyer had no conviction of sin; he was merely testing Him. So our Lord referred him to the law (Gal 3:24). The whole purpose of the parable of the good Samaritan was to show this man that he could not keep the law.

Why does Paul not refer the jailor to the law? The reason must be that he was already convicted of his sin. He was no longer worried about the prisoners; Paul had already told him that no one had escaped (v28). No, the jailor, having heard Paul and Barnabus singing hymns, and then seeing their chains fly off suddenly realised that the Christian God was the true God, and God graciously opened his eyes to see that he was a sinner in need of salvation.

Steve

 

[The Archangel]

In all intellectual honesty, I do not think that Cals and Non-Cals are as far apart as the "heat" of our "debates may sometimes suggest. One point here, often discussed, the concept of regeneration is this.

The concepts may be, in the end, very similar. However, the major differences lie in the "how" and the "why" of regeneration. But, I've always said that the best of Arminians still argue for some type of work on God's part to make the sinner aware of their need of Him.

Tha Cal believes that it is a grace extended at a particular moment in which to make alive the person, and as a result, faith is then a secondary gift granted for the "believer" in order that they may believe.

Perhaps. I tend to be a bit more in line with the Puritans here. The Puritans thought that there could be a series of awakenings. Now, I do think the "lightning bolt" thing can and does happen. But, I also think that there are many cases where the regenerating work of the Spirit takes a period of time--sometimes very long.

I, not speaking for all non-cals, remain convinced that this (gift or grace) of being able to have faith and/or believe is granted to all men everywhere.

Of course, I don't agree. The challenge that I see in this idea is that the Bible says some very damning things about the heart of man. To my knowledge, never does it say that "out of the heart comes faith." The "virtues" of the heart of the natural man are always listed as murder, lust, etc.

My lack of faith in the human heart (which I derive from Scripture) does not give me any confidence in man's ability to be good, do good, or choose God.

In another post, you mentioned the book by Keathley talking about the sinner being in critical condition. As respected as Keathley is, I think his assertion (as you've reported it) completely misses the mark. Why? The Bible says in Genesis 6: the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every ​intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. This passage clearly places the cause of the wickedness of man in man's heart--a heart that intends and thinks only evil continually. Genesis 8 tells us the situation of man has not changed because of the flood: the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. So man has not changed. Instead, God has taken it upon Himself to demonstrate His grace (common grace) to all men in that He does not destroy them en masse.

Furthermore, Jeremiah 17 describes the heart by saying: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? The word translated by the ESV as "desperately sick" has been translated "desperately wicked" in other translations. The root idea of this word is sickness...but it is an incurable sickness. It is actually used of David's son that he had with Bathsheba. God afflicted the son so that he became "sick." The sickness, based on the use of the word, is incurable and, generally, suggest "as good as dead."

In Matthew 15, Jesus says: [18] But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. [19] For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

The desperately wicked, only evil continually heart is the problem. When one gets to Paul and sees his description of man as "dead" it is easy to understand, for it conforms to the rest of the Bible.

So, man is not in critical condition. He is already dead.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[InTheLight]

Why does Paul not refer the jailor to the law? The reason must be that he was already convicted of his sin.

I don't understand how the jailer could be convicted of sin. There was no dialogue with Paul and Silas regarding sin.

Furthermore, look at Paul's sermons in the book of Acts. No mention of sin whatsoever.

 

[quantumfaith]

The concepts may be, in the end, very similar. However, the major differences lie in the "how" and the "why" of regeneration. But, I've always said that the best of Arminians still argue for some type of work on God's part to make the sinner aware of their need of Him.



Perhaps. I tend to be a bit more in line with the Puritans here. The Puritans thought that there could be a series of awakenings. Now, I do think the "lightning bolt" thing can and does happen. But, I also think that there are many cases where the regenerating work of the Spirit takes a period of time--sometimes very long.



Of course, I don't agree. The challenge that I see in this idea is that the Bible says some very damning things about the heart of man. To my knowledge, never does it say that "out of the heart comes faith." The "virtues" of the heart of the natural man are always listed as murder, lust, etc.

My lack of faith in the human heart (which I derive from Scripture) does not give me any confidence in man's ability to be good, do good, or choose God.

In another post, you mentioned the book by Keathley talking about the sinner being in critical condition. As respected as Keathley is, I think his assertion (as you've reported it) completely misses the mark. Why? The Bible says in Genesis 6: the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every ​intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. This passage clearly places the cause of the wickedness of man in man's heart--a heart that intends and thinks only evil continually. Genesis 8 tells us the situation of man has not changed because of the flood: the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. So man has not changed. Instead, God has taken it upon Himself to demonstrate His grace (common grace) to all men in that He does not destroy them en masse.

Furthermore, Jeremiah 17 describes the heart by saying: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? The word translated by the ESV as "desperately sick" has been translated "desperately wicked" in other translations. The root idea of this word is sickness...but it is an incurable sickness. It is actually used of David's son that he had with Bathsheba. God afflicted the son so that he became "sick." The sickness, based on the use of the word, is incurable and, generally, suggest "as good as dead."

In Matthew 15, Jesus says: [18] But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. [19] For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

The desperately wicked, only evil continually heart is the problem. When one gets to Paul and sees his description of man as "dead" it is easy to understand, for it conforms to the rest of the Bible.

So, man is not in critical condition. He is already dead.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Thanks for sharing. So we (I) will have to continue to wrestle with such things.

 

[RAdam]

There are two kinds of people in this world - regenerate and unregenerate people. That's it. We can put people in this box or that box, but really this is what there is. Unregenerate man has no fear of God, hates God's law, cannot please God, will not be subject to God's law, and isn't convicted for sinful living. Regenerate man is different.

There are some people in this world who are content living in sin. There are some who aren't. Lot fit into the second group. He was vexed by the wickedness of Sodom all around him, yet he stayed there until the angels literally took him outside the city. Then, rather than fleeing to the mountain, he takes refuge in another city, but isn't happy there either. Children of God can be disobedient, but they'll be miserably disobedient. Why? Because they have God's law written on their hearts and God chastens them.

Being born again isn't something that makes you feel good. Instead, it makes you feel bad. When one is born again he/she realizes the sinful state he/she is in and realizes something must be done. When one is convicted of sin, that person needs a remedy. The remedy is Christ. The men on the day of Pentecost asked Peter, "men and brethren, what shall we do?" They had been pricked in their hearts and needed a remedy. Peter says believe and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, everyone of you. This jailor needs a remedy. He needs a healing balm. Paul gives him the only thing that can make a sinsick sinner feel relief and comfort, the only hiding place for sinners, the Lord Jesus Christ. Believe, says Paul. Jesus is the only name in which is salvation. The problem that exists today amongst Christians is that many only consider the power of Christ to save from hell. Christ isn't confined to only that. He isn't only the God of eternity, but the God of time as well. I'm glad Christ has saved me from eternal hell, and I'll be praising Him forever for that salvation, but that wouldn't mean much to me now if it didn't save me in this current world in which I live. The gospel is about bringing God's people to a knowledge of salvation, to a knowledge of the finished work of Christ, which is able to save them. Jesus Christ saves, not only from hell, but also from present troubles. He saves from despair, giving us that great hope which we earnestly expect. The truth of the gospel saves us from ignorance. The peace and rest we have in believing that those in Christ cannot fall saves us from despair.

 

[RAdam]

I enter the Calvinism/Ariminianism debate with a degree of trepidation. One doesn't have to read too far in these threads to see that high passions get involved. Please bekind and gentle with me, and if I should inadvertently offend anyone, I am really, really sorry in adavance.

First of all, we are most certainly called to repent and trust in Christ (eg. Mark 1:15), but the important point to observe is that both faith and repentance are gifts of God (Eph 2:8; Acts 11:18), and it is clear that these gifts are not given to everybody since not everybody repents and believes. So faith and repentance may be works in a sense, but they are works that we cannot carry out until God first works in us. When Lydia came to faith, it was not Paul's preaching that opened her heart, nor did she open her own heart. No; 'The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul' (Acts 16:14).

Secondly, someone once asked the Lord Jesus what he had to do to be saved, and got a very different answer.

'And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"' (Luke 10:25f).

Interesting question. Why does the Lord Jesus give the lawyer such a different answer to that which Paul gave the jailor? The reason is that the lawyer had no conviction of sin; he was merely testing Him. So our Lord referred him to the law (Gal 3:24). The whole purpose of the parable of the good Samaritan was to show this man that he could not keep the law.

Why does Paul not refer the jailor to the law? The reason must be that he was already convicted of his sin. He was no longer worried about the prisoners; Paul had already told him that no one had escaped (v28). No, the jailor, having heard Paul and Barnabus singing hymns, and then seeing their chains fly off suddenly realised that the Christian God was the true God, and God graciously opened his eyes to see that he was a sinner in need of salvation.

Steve

A very good response.