The Philippian Jailer versus Calvinism

[bcbsr]

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" This is what the Philippian jailer asked in Acts 16:30. "Saved" from what? (Obviously the guy wasn't a theologian, let alone a Calvinist. So the terms he's using may not be in line with Calvinism) I think the consensus would agree that he's asking about being saved from being hell-bound.

Now according the "Uncondition Election" doctrine of Calvinism, the elect are chosen prior to birth and that not based upon God's foreknowledge of anything they will chose to do in the future. Such people are born eternally secure in their heavenly fate. And no time in their life, from birth to death, are they in any danger of being hell-bound.

The jailer was asking as to how you get into that state in which you are free from a hell-bound fate, being free from the danger of being condemned in hell. How should a Calvinist had logically answered keeping to the tenets of Calvinism?

 

[Albion]

Obviously, I would say, the jailer should believe in the Lord as his savior and endeavor to adhere to the commandments and the moral code taught by Jesus. If so, he may be among the saved. And this is no different a situation from that faced by believers in free will, it should be understood.

 

[MDC]

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" This is what the Philippian jailer asked in Acts 16:30. "Saved" from what? (Obviously the guy wasn't a theologian, let alone a Calvinist. So the terms he's using may not be in line with Calvinism) I think the consensus would agree that he's asking about being saved from being hell-bound.

Now according the "Uncondition Election" doctrine of Calvinism, the elect are chosen prior to birth and that not based upon God's foreknowledge of anything they will chose to do in the future. Such people are born eternally secure in their heavenly fate. And no time in their life, from birth to death, are they in any danger of being hell-bound.

The jailer was asking as to how you get into that state in which you are free from a hell-bound fate, being free from the danger of being condemned in hell. How should a Calvinist had logically answered keeping to the tenets of Calvinism?

To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[redleghunter]

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" This is what the Philippian jailer asked in Acts 16:30. "Saved" from what? (Obviously the guy wasn't a theologian, let alone a Calvinist. So the terms he's using may not be in line with Calvinism) I think the consensus would agree that he's asking about being saved from being hell-bound.

Now according the "Uncondition Election" doctrine of Calvinism, the elect are chosen prior to birth and that not based upon God's foreknowledge of anything they will chose to do in the future. Such people are born eternally secure in their heavenly fate. And no time in their life, from birth to death, are they in any danger of being hell-bound.

The jailer was asking as to how you get into that state in which you are free from a hell-bound fate, being free from the danger of being condemned in hell. How should a Calvinist had logically answered keeping to the tenets of Calvinism?

How did God accomplish this?

 

[bcbsr]

To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!

So as a Calvinist you're saying that the condition one must meet in order to be saved from a hell-bound fate is to believe in the Lord Jesus. That as opposed to Calvinist tenet of Unconditional Election, in which if one is born elect they are from birth eternally secure in their heavenly fate and never in their life in danger of going to hell.

Lesson One: Calvinists don't necessarily (if ever) apply Calvinism.

 

[Albion]

Folks, the question asked by the jailer was not an intricate theological one. It was on the order of something any person who, not having any such background, might ask of a clergyman when his eyes were opened to the Gospel.

To reply to him with some theological hair-splitting would, hopefully, not be what any astute evangelist would do on the spot.

There is actually nothing wrong with any reply that has been given on this thread so far, and none of it contradicts Calvinism or Unconditional Election (or affirms them, for that matter either).

 

[redleghunter]

So as a Calvinist you're saying that the condition one must meet in order to be saved from a hell-bound fate is to believe in the Lord Jesus. That as opposed to Calvinist tenet of Unconditional Election, in which if one is born elect they are from birth eternally secure in their heavenly fate and never in their life in danger of going to hell.

Lesson One: Calvinists don't necessarily (if ever) apply Calvinism.

No I think you omit Ephesians 1.

After a most clear indication one is chosen from the foundations of the world in Christ and “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love”

In love is key. Then later in the chapter:

Ephesians 1:
11In Him we were also chosen as God’s own, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything by the counsel of His will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, would be for the praise of His glory.

13And in Him, having heard and believed the word of truth—the gospel of your salvation—you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the pledge of our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession, to the praise of His glory.

Notice after all the language of God choosing and predestined and according to His will and purpose, it says in verse 13 “having heard and believed the word of truth...”.

The elect are not some pedigree puppy born with papers attached for all to see.

What the Bible teaches is that the Father gives the Son the sheep He laid down His life for.

 

[trophy33]

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" This is what the Philippian jailer asked in Acts 16:30. "Saved" from what? (Obviously the guy wasn't a theologian, let alone a Calvinist. So the terms he's using may not be in line with Calvinism) I think the consensus would agree that he's asking about being saved from being hell-bound.

Now according the "Uncondition Election" doctrine of Calvinism, the elect are chosen prior to birth and that not based upon God's foreknowledge of anything they will chose to do in the future. Such people are born eternally secure in their heavenly fate. And no time in their life, from birth to death, are they in any danger of being hell-bound.

The jailer was asking as to how you get into that state in which you are free from a hell-bound fate, being free from the danger of being condemned in hell. How should a Calvinist had logically answered keeping to the tenets of Calvinism?

Calvinism's answer to how to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ. Not sure why you complicate things so much.

 

[bcbsr]

No I think you omit Ephesians 1.

After a most clear indication one is chosen from the foundations of the world in Christ and “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love”

In love is key. Then later in the chapter:

Ephesians 1:
11In Him we were also chosen as God’s own, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything by the counsel of His will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, would be for the praise of His glory.

13And in Him, having heard and believed the word of truth—the gospel of your salvation—you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the pledge of our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession, to the praise of His glory.

Notice after all the language of God choosing and predestined and according to His will and purpose, it says in verse 13 “having heard and believed the word of truth...”.

The elect are not some pedigree puppy born with papers attached for all to see.

What the Bible teaches is that the Father gives the Son the sheep He laid down His life for.

The question was as to how one should answer the jailer keeping to the tenets of Calvinism. I proved that MDC gave an answer which was logically inconsistent with the tenets of Calvinism.

 

[bcbsr]

Calvinism's answer to how to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ. Not sure why you complicate things so much.

To repeat my rebuttal I gave to another Calvinist above:

So as a Calvinist you're saying that the condition one must meet in order to be saved from a hell-bound fate is to believe in the Lord Jesus. That as opposed to Calvinist tenet of Unconditional Election, in which if one is born elect they are from birth eternally secure in their heavenly fate and never in their life in danger of going to hell.

 

[trophy33]

To repeat my rebuttal I gave to another Calvinist above:

So as a Calvinist you're saying that the condition one must meet in order to be saved from a hell-bound fate is to believe in the Lord Jesus. That as opposed to Calvinist tenet of Unconditional Election, in which if one is born elect they are from birth eternally secure in their heavenly fate and never in their life in danger of going to hell.

Your ideas are wrong.

To believe in Jesus Christ is not in any opposition to being elect.

 

[bcbsr]

Your ideas are wrong.

To believe in Jesus Christ is not in any opposition to being elect.

Lesson 2: Calvinists don't tend to exercise basic reading comprehension skills when dealing with challenges to their presumptions.

Where did I say to believe in Jesus Christ is in opposition to being elect?

 

[trophy33]

Lesson 2: Calvinists don't tend to exercise basic reading comprehension skills when dealing with challenges to their presumptions.

I am not a calvinist, dear.

Where did I say to believe in Jesus Christ is in opposition to being elect?

You put the message about faith in Jesus as something calvinism cannot say, because calvinism believes in election. This is a wrong comprehension of both calvinism and logic.

 

[bcbsr]

You put the message about faith in Jesus as something calvinism cannot say, because calvinism believes in election. This is a wrong comprehension of both calvinism and logic.

I went though the logic and nothing in your response proves otherwise. You make statements like

Your ideas are wrong.

without any evidence, without any indication that you even comprehended what I wrote.

Read and Comprehend what I wrote, and then respond to that.

 

[trophy33]

I went though the logic and nothing in your response proves otherwise. You make statements like without any evidence, without any indication that you even comprehended what I wrote.

Read and Comprehend what I wrote, and then respond to that.

Again, there is no opposition between faith and election. Actually, faith is the way for elected people to be saved and born again.

So your "problem" in your OP does not exist. There is nothing to solve.

 

[redleghunter]

The question was as to how one should answer the jailer keeping to the tenets of Calvinism. I proved that MDC gave an answer which was logically inconsistent with the tenets of Calvinism.

I just answered you with Scriptures.

Ephesians chapter 1 answers your inquiry. This also:

Acts 18:

9One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking; do not be silent. 10For I am with you and no one will lay a hand on you, because I have many people in this city.” 11So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching the word of God among the Corinthians.

 

[redleghunter]

Again, there is no opposition between faith and election. Actually, faith is the way for elected people to be saved and born again.

So your "problem" in your OP does not exist. There is nothing to solve.

Yes the OP sets up a dichotomy which does not exist.

 

[bcbsr]

Yes the OP sets up a dichotomy which does not exist.

I showed by implication that it exists. So can you elaborate on your proposition that the dichotomy does not exist?

 

[bcbsr]

I just answered you with Scriptures.

Ephesians chapter 1 answers your inquiry. This also:

Acts 18:

9One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking; do not be silent. 10For I am with you and no one will lay a hand on you, because I have many people in this city.” 11So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching the word of God among the Corinthians.

What does that have to do with the tenets of Calvinism? How does it relate back to the OP? Have you read the OP? Did you comprehend what it says?

 

[TheSeabass]

If Calvinistic election were true, then;

--how would the jailer (or Paul) know with any certainty if the he was of the elect or not?
--did they both assume the jailer was of the elect therefore needed to believe?
--if the jailer was of the elect, then it took the work of Paul in preaching to the jailer so he could believe and be saved? For what happens if the jailer never hears the gospel preached to him, would he have been saved anyway?
--if the jailer was not of the elect and could not be saved under any circumstance, then what does this narrative in the Bible suppose to teach or prove or gives us an example that we can learn from it?