Question for Calvinists: Acts 16:30-31

Granted. This is likely.

There are two possibilities: 1. He had never herd of Paul and Silas and had never heard anything about them. This is highly unlikely. If it is the case, however, you would be correct. 2. He had heard of Paul and Silas and had possibly heard their message. This is more likely. But, as likely as it may be, the Jailer likely didn't understand the message as it would have been completely foreign to a Pagan.

This is not the case. If you look at the passage, Luke relates they stayed in Philippi for "some days." So, it is a significant period of time. Also, Lydia was converted and prevailed on Paul and Silas to stay with her.

It is not good exegesis to consider that this took place in a matter of days. Luke is reporting the events in a truncated form (as he sometimes does). See below for a further explanation.

This is true. But, Paul rarely stayed in the synagogue. Typically, he also preached to the gentiles in the open air. That he did this in Philippi would be absolutely demonstrated by the slave girl who was saying: These men are servants​ of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.

The Jews would not have had such a person in their synagogue, so the slave girl's masters and the girl herself must have heard the message of the "way of salvation" in the open air. We are also told that she did this for many days. So, the picture is that Paul and Silas were engaging in evangelism in the open air market place--and they did this for many days. In all their evangelistic meetings, they had a heckler--this slave girl.

Furthermore, in the charges brought by the slave girl's masters, they say, "They ​advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice." This demonstrates clearly that the message had been in the open air and in the open market for some time.

This is not likely. Why would a Philippian Jailer (who is obviously "on the hook" for the prisoners) ask two Jews about how to avoid being put to death for dereliction of duty? This absolutely does not follow.

In fact, we see, from the context, that he was asking about salvation in terms of the spiritual. This is demonstrated in the passage. In v. 27, we see the Jailer contemplating suicide because he "supposed the prisoners had escaped." Being a Jailer in a Roman city, he was likely a Roman soldier of some type. Knowing that the Roman military punished the escapement of prisoners by death, he sought to do it himself--because he supposed the prisoners escaped.

But, Paul calls out and stops him, stating that the prisoners are "all here." The prisoners being all accounted for, there is no need for a Roman death penalty. If the prisoners are all present and accounted for, the Roman magistrates would not have put the Jailer to death. Therefore, when the Jailer asks about "what must I do to be saved" it is absolutely clear that he is asking about the spiritual, not the physical. This is born out in Paul's answer. Paul does not say "Close the prison doors to make sure some of the more wicked types stay in." No, he immediately answers the spiritual question with a spiritual answer: "Believe in the Lord Jesus..."

So, the text is clear and it suggests your ideas are, in fact, unfounded.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

A wise man once told me "grace is not oppsed to effort, grace is opposed to earning".

Nothing is more true than when you look at the Chilean miners recent situation. The similarities to our salvation can almost be looked at in this light. They were hopeless (mankind). The only one who could save them outlined how it would be done (God). There was a narrow hole drilled (the narrow way). They could not save themselves no matter how hard they worked to (mankind). The Chile goverment (God) told them the hole was narrow, and in order to fit they could NOT have a waist bigger than 36 inches (requirements for salvation). They had to watch what they ate, exercised and were given a tape measure to measure their waists. This required effort, but simply by them maintaining or losing weight to meet the requirements of fitting through the drilled hole did not merit, or earn their way to rescue (those who are saved by grace through faith)

 

Actually it is God who saves we cannot save our selves. It's not what we do but, rather what we do no longer. If we submit to the righteousness of God, (which in effect is giving up to Him), we are saved. Believing in Jesus Christ is giving up the rebellion. It's surrender of our selves to Him.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

We are saved by grace through faith and it isn't from us. It's a gift of God. The gift is that faith which, saves us. We recevive faith from the hearing of the Word of God. Rom 10:17.

Calvinist say we are dead and can't hear or understand it although scripture never says we can't hear or understand it. Only the ear of the Jew was dull in hearing. The Gentiles however can hear and scripture says so.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

MB

 

Join the club. I wrestle with these things virtually every minute of every day. I am a Calvinist, but I am a reluctant Calvinist. I don't like the theological positions I hold, but I am absolutely convinced they are biblical.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

That was my point. Paul and Silas did not need to convict him of sin because it seems he was already convicted, hence his question.

Acts 13:38-9. 'Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.'

Acts 17:30f. 'Truly, these tmes of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness.....'

Acts 24:25. 'Now as [Paul] reasoned about righteousness, self-control and judgement to come, Felix was afraid.'

Acts 26:17ff. '"I now send you to open their eyes in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins......" "Therefore.....I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision but declared......that they should repent, turn to God and do works befitting repentance."'

Steve

 

This is a far stretch. He is simply asking what he must do to be saved. It is significant that he is asking Paul and Silas--meaning that he probably had some idea about what they preached (and, yes, forgiveness of sins was part of their message). I'll probably write more about this later. Suffice it to say this: You (and all of us) must remember that Acts is the second volume of a two-volume work. Luke was written for Gentiles and it definitely covers the idea of sin and Christ's payment thereof. So, when Luke, in writing Acts, truncates some things--including leaving out a detailed accounting of Paul's messages--it is already assumed that his reader (Theophilus, as well as all the other readers) already knew about sin and Christ's sacrifice.

It is not helpful to try and determine all the details of what Paul preached from a narrative which is not intended to contain all the details. If you want to know what Paul preached, read his epistles--they are intended to carry the full details.

The Archangel

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

I mean you no disrespect, but I come to differing theological conclusions. We will continue to bounce off of and "sharpen" one another.

Mercy, peace and love.

 

They were pricked in their hearts because they were convicted of the sin of condemning the Just One to die. Look what Peter said:

Verse 23 - "Him, being delivered by the determinate council and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain"

Verse 36 - "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Peter is charging the Jewish people with condemning the Lord Jesus Christ to die. He is proving that the man they condemned to be killed by crucifixion was and is really the Messiah and that He is Lord. Thus they are pricked in their hearts, they are convicted of their sin. Peter tells them to save themselves from this wicked and untoward generation. The bible declares over and over again that for the rejection of Jesus Christ - encompassing the rejection of Him before His crucifixion, condemning Him to that death, and their continued rejection of Him through the apostles' preaching - the judgement of God came upon them. Peter is telling them to save themselves from that. The message the apostles continually gave the Jews in the NT was of their need to repent of their approval of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Some Jews listened to Stephen preach and were cut to the heart. They weren't convicted of sin, but rather were offended at what he preached, so they killed him, a man whose face shone as an angel. The difference between the audience in Acts 2 and Acts 7 couldn't be more striking.

 

Outstanding post Brother Pinoy!

Dr Bob (and I) sees it along these lines also:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1603974#post1603974

 

The jailor no longer had to worry about the wrath of his superiors. Paul had just told him that they were all still in the jail.

Why would you say that? Believing in Jesus Christ was definitely not a way to get out of trouble. The only two Christians he knew were in prison that very moment. Nor is it a good way to avoid trouble and persecution today, as any Iraqi Christian will tell you. Moreover, why would the jailor court even more trouble by letting them out of jail and into his home (v35) unless he was hoping for more than a temporal salvation?

I'm astonished! 'If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we ae of all men the most miserable' (1Cor 15:19).

'For since in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe' (1Cor 1:21). No one else, just those who believe.

Not because he/they was/were baptized, but because he 'believed in God with all his household.' Whether his heart was truly changed, I suppose we shan't know until we get to heaven, but surely the fact that he risked his life in taking Paul and Silas into his house constitutes 'Works befitting repentance' (Acts 26:20)?

Steve

 

The problem is for God to decree anything He must have determined everything. Let me explain carefully so as not to mislead.

God determines that He will raise up a Redeemer to deal with the sin of man. This, of course, was done before the world began so it presupposes the fact that God knew man would sin and need a Redeemer. God determines to raise this Redeemer from a particular line of men (He later declares this fact to a few of the men in this line). In order for God to bring this purpose about, God must bring a lot of other events about. In fact, God must determine everything else that will occur in the entire universe in order for this event to take place. For instance, for a period in the OT you have numerous kingdoms and kings fighting amongst themselves with Judah caught right in the middle. Living in Judah is this line of men. If they are destroyed, all is lost. Thus, God must have determined what He would allow, prevent, and bring about concerning these surrounding kingdoms.

Of course, this is what the bible says. "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." If God knew what He would do, He must have known what I would do, and He must have determined, out of the seemingly endless possibilities of what could have been, what would actually come to pass. That is not saying God has predestinated events. Rather, what I am saying is that it is God who is the final authority, the one who is sovereign over all, and thus it is He who has determined what will be. If one event in history is "open" then God is not sovereign and the whole thing could come crashing down.

 

Thank you RAdam, very insightful.

I think there is one other aspect to consider: God's immutability.

What ever God decrees, he has always decreed. What he knows, he has always known. What he does today, he has always, from eternity, planned to do it.

For God to decree something from eternity means that he knew at what point in the future he would make and carry out this decree. That means he knows the future acts of men and future events. Nothing catches him off guard.

The reason God knows the future is directly related to his omnipotence. What he decrees will come to pass in time. Thus he knows what will come to pass because he decided that it would.

A wise theologian told me one time, "Did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?"

Think about it. If something occurs to God, that's a change in him.

This is the fatal flaw in open theism.

 

Tom
There are too many scriptures that conflict with this conclusion for that alone to be the fatal flaw. Exodus 32:14,Jer 18:9,10; jer 7:30,31 for starters. I am not here to argue that position, but I do understand it........another thread perhaps. You did mention time, and I think our ( at least my) understanding of time or lack there of is a large part of what hinders an easy or clear understanding of God's ways.
Sorry if that gets us off track :love2:

 

Maybe I over-reached in describing open theism's fatal flaw. But it certainly is one nail to drive into the coffin.

I don't pretend to have everything all figured out. But I think I have a little bit figured out. I'm like you, the concept of time is difficult to understand, particularly as it relates to God.

I do think that God sees all things future as if they are accomplished fact. That's because if an event occurs which God doesn't see, or occurs differently from what God sees, then all his attributes go down the tube. He is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, nor is he immutable.

 

I knew someone was bound to point that out. How about being somebody who deals with the scum of society, even today, of whom these two were counted with (though we know they were not), and had to survive by your wit, would you trust the scum you were guarding ?

not to this pagan, and certainly not for us today, but it was for PAUL and SILAS. There's a difference. PAUL was an apostle, Silas was handpicked by the Spirit, and together they did miracles in Christ's Name, were authorized to do so, were PROPHESIED of by Christ Himself, and so to them, the answer to man's troubles was Christ, and that was their mission: to turn God's elect among Jewry and the pagan part of the world to the living God. And again: we are talking about an event that happened years after the last recorded sighting of the Lord, before He went back to His heaven, not of Iraqi Christian persecution today.

I fail to grasp your point here against what I said.

So now, the efficacy of Christ's blood, and the integrity of His whole life which He lived for us and of His obedience even unto death, and the power of His resurrrection, depends on the sinner's ability to believe?

It might do well for you to consider the context of these biblical times, and ask yourself, does preaching result in the listener's soul's eternal salvation, or does it result in his being converted from erroneous teaching and therefore saved from the futility and emptiness of his idolatrous religion.

The elect's soul's redemption rests only on the finished work of Christ on his behalf. His belief is proof of his regenerate soul. Like I said earlier on in this post, I herein make no assertions that this jailor is NOT a child of God, nor any of his family members. He may well be, and they all well may be.

But at that point when he asked, what must I do to be saved, I doubt it was a concern for his soul. He was a pagan with no belief in the soul, if any, at that point. It may well be that when he took Paul and Silas in to his house and sat down with them, that the Holy Spirit had already worked in him, and some or all of his family, that they truly turned in conversion to Christ and on to baptism.

At least we are in the same mind on this one, on whether or not he is a regenerate son of God who will be there in heaven when we get there. Again, my argument was centered on : what must I DO to be saved ? Saved meaning redeemed, spared from God's wrath, saved from the fires of hell, become a child of God (one does not become a child of God, either he is a child of God, or a child of the devil).

Since Paul answered what he must do, then I am sure Paul meant saved from timely repercussions, not eternal ones, because these two will ALWAYS be the ones to tell anyone ALL WAS DONE BY CHRIST ON BEHALF OF HIS PEOPLE.