The Lord Opened Lydia's Heart

Regeneration implies salvation. Please show me a scripture that shows anyone who was saved without first believing.

The drawing of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as regeneration.

 

Thanks to all who have interacted here. And TCGreek, thanks for opening this thread in response to my question on another thread.

Some comments and questions:

First, Reformed believer said:

That is true today, but it has not always been true. For instance, Abraham did not believe on the name of Jesus Christ to be saved. He could not have. He never heard the name "Jesus Christ". The scriptures say that "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness". So, God-fearers in the book of Acts who have been mentioned on this thread were as justified as Abraham was. Their hearing the gospel of Christ was a necessary update in the process of the revelation of salvation that God in his sovereignty ensured they heard and then they naturally, as redeemed people responded in faith to God's revelation.

Secondly, TCGreek said

My friend, I don't see how you can brush aside the description of Lydia as a "worshipper of God" as though it is irrelevant to the question of whether she was a regenerated person. And again, one of the basic questions being asked IS "what does the phrase mean"? The second question is "does the phrase "The Lord opened her heart" indicate regeneration? We know you think it does. In the quote from you above you assert again "The opening of her heart is the act of regeneration". You can assert it again if you like, but will you answer the question "Why is this so?" Your belief that this is true is clear to me, but your reasoning for it is not.

Thirdly, Thank you manageriekeeper for your interaction. You said

 

TCGreek, that is irrelevant and you are avoiding the clear language of the text. Peter said the gift of the Holy Spirit was received WHEN THEY BELIEVED. That statement indicates either precedence of faith to regeneration or a simultaneous occurence. If you disagree with this simple conclusion, please explain why.

 

You know TC, I think you've went and gotten me confused. (admittedly not hard to do )

Nope, I take it back, I'm not confused just dylexic. When I pasted the quote into this response, the change in how the text was posted allowed me to see what the problem is. It is more than just a difference in the meaning of the word regeneration, it a huge difference in when we believe regeneration occurs. Have a feeling this goes to the whole Calvinist thing, but I'm too tired to argue that.

Suffice it to say that when you say:

You believe that man must be regenerated before it is possible to believe. Tell me if I'm twisting your words.

When I see the same verse I see belief coming before born of and born of as being the result of belief. The second half of the verse tells us that if someone loves the father he will also love Christ. This is why Lydia's heart was opened. She already loved God the Father, therefore she also loved God the Son once she understood who He is.

Regeneration is a completed act. God completes it upon our belief.

I'm off for the night. The dylexia is much worse when I'm tired.

 

Amen brother! Doesn't John 1:13 say that we are born not of blood or the will of the flesh or the will of man, but of God?

To believe is an exercise of the will. This verse of scripture clearly tells me that we are not born again by and exercise of the will, but of God.

 

TCGreek said:

So, let me get this straight. You are arguing that Cornelius was a "God-fearer" and so when the Holy Spirit came upon him the act of regeneration was not involved because he was already regenerated. And you introduced this argument to back up you assertion that Lydia, who was also a God-fearer, was not yet regenerated because she became regenerated when the "Lord opened her heart". In short, Cornelius was a God fearer who was already regenerated, but Lydia was a God-fearer who needed to be regenerated.

Tell you what, you explain that. Meanwhile I'm going to bed and I'll see if I can understand it better after a good night's sleep. :laugh:

 

Although I think the key to understanding this issue is the transitional period between the law and the Gospel preaching (as Reformedbeliever mentioned), nevertheless let's think about the fact that Paul "feared God" and was "a worhipper of God", AS FAR AS HE KNEW, when he was trying to destroy the Church. We might say today that he was VERY RELIGIOUS, but not saved (regenerate).

Also, it is well said that one's salvation does not depend on one's attitude toward "The One God", for says scripture, "You say there is one God, you do well; the devils believe this also, and tremble" (my paraphrase); but one's attitue toward Christ is definitive.

Whether Lydia was already regenerate or not, it does not change the fact that the opening of her heart was an act of God bestowed upon her which ENABLED her to attend to the things that Paul preached. God was active and Lydia was passive in the bestowal. There's no power indicated in Lydia's "free will" whatsoever.

 

I have read it several times and I find your use of it to defend your explanation of the Lydia story to be self-contadictory.

With that, I am going to cease conversing with you about this. I think I have made my point. Other readers will have to decide for themselves on this matter. I have argued with many calvinists and my success rate at converting them is 0%. Here's to perfection!!! :laugh:

 

JD, whether Lydia was regenerate or not is the issue in this thread. The issue is "does the phrase "The Lord opened her heart" indicate regeneration"?. TCGreek has dogmatically asserted that it does but he seems unable to prove it. Your statement above indicates that it does not matter. It does matter because the text in question is a key proof text for those who say that regeneration precedes faith. You can't use this text as a key proof text for your position and then say that it doesn't matter whether it supports your position or not. OF COURSE the verse indicates that God did a work in her heart. The question is, was it the work of regeneration? My point is that the complete context of the story argues that it is NOT regeneration because she was already worshipping God.

JD, you bring up Paul's testimony prior to salvation in which he was a worshipper of God and zealous for the law. You argue that this indicates that these conditions do not necessarily indicate regeneration. However, it is Luke who relates Paul's testimony of his conversion on the road to Damascus. Luke makes it clear that Paul WAS NOT regenerated until his encounter with Christ. Paul also makes it clear that he was not regenerated at this time in the book of Romans. At the same time, Luke gives numerous stories of people in the book of Acts who were god-fearing faithful Jews or Jewish proselytes. These people seem to be true people of faith, but they need to be updated on God's progressive revelation regarding salvation; specifically that since Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection salvation is exclusively through him. God sovereignly ensured that those true people of faith received the message, he illuminted their minds to understand it, he confirmed the validity of the message through miraculous signs in some cases, and they believed that message. Cornelius is an example of this. Another example is the disciples of John the Baptist. Of course, Lydia is an example. All of these people were enlightened to the truth of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ and they believed. However, as TDGreek argued in the case of Cornelius, these people may already have been regenerated. My trouble with TCGreek's argument is that he argues FOR regeneration in Cornelius's case and against it in Lydia's case.

Again, let me restate the issue here. TDGreek has asserted repeatedly that the phrase "the Lord opened her heart" is a reference to regeneration. For him and many calvinists, this is a key proof text that regeneration precedes faith. However, the fact that she was already worshipping God is a very strong indicator that she was already regenerated. If so, the phrase "the Lord opened her heart" IS NOT a proof for regeneration preceding faith and that theological position is on shaky ground.

 

Well said :thumbs:

 

Then I stand corrected. BTW I agree with webdog, your position was well stated.

I agree with TCGreek. While proving that Cornelius was regenerate may not be so obvious, it's clear that Lydia was not regenerate until her heart was "opened". I don't know if the language would allow that she "worshipped God" AFTER the opening. It says that the Lord opened her heart, but does it say WHEN he opened her heart? So the squence could be 1)opened heart; 2) worship God; 3) hear the Gospel and believe.

But if it is said that she or Paul as unregenerate people "fear God" or "worship God", it must mean that they fear God in a religious zeal, but not according to knowledge, for they, going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.

The acid test for regeneration is response to the Gospel. Regenerate people, when exposed to the Gospel, WILL believe because their new nature eagerly attaches to truth. Paul, though very zealous, actually hated the God he professed to believe in as evidenced by his hatred for the Gospel. Therefore, it was impossible that Paul could have been regenerated until the Demascus road incident. As for Cornelius, there is no record of any opposition to the Gospel in the record, and he received the word with gladness the minute he heard it, so it's very possible that he was regenerate for who knows how long before he heard the Gospel.

And let us understand that the coming of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and the disciples of John have nothing to do with whether they were already regenerate or not. The evidence of speaking in tongues was a special dispensation during the Church's founding years, given to those that come to faith under Gospel preaching, and in the case of John's disciples, not until they received water Baptism and Paul laid his hands on them.

 

JD, have you read this passage? Here is what it says; quoting from the ESV: And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul....

The order in the passage is this:
1. Lydia was a worshipper of God
2. Lydia heard the message of Paul
3. Lydia's heart was opened by the Lord

I believe in the inspiration of scripture. I believe every word that has been given and I believe it was given accurately by holy men who were under the sovereign guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is a sin to take the words of Holy Scripture and twist them around to suit your own notions. The order above is the order that God gave. Why do you find it necessary to twist it and change it?

[edited for spelling]

 

I said "I don't know if the language would allow", and if it doesn't, so be it.