The foundation of all salvation.

So we don't have the "free will" to choose to "have ears to hear"?
Not if one hardened themselves

Acts 28:27 —KJV
“For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”

or is hardened

John 12:40 —KJV
“He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”
 
Not if one hardened themselves

Acts 28:27 —KJV
“For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”

Where does this verse say they hardened "themselves"?

John 12:40 —KJV
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”

I see one group ("He") blinding and hardening another group ("they").

So where do you see any mention of "themselves"?
 
fltom said:
Not if one hardened themselves

Acts 28:27 —KJV
“For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”

Where does this verse say they hardened "themselves"?
(MLV2017) for* the heart of this people has become-callous and they have selectively heard with their ears and they have closed their eyes. Lest, they should see with their eyes and should hear with their ears and should understand with their heart and should return and I will be healing them. 6:9-10

(ALT) "For the heart of this people [has] become dull [or, insensitive], and they heard heavily with the ears [fig., they are hard of hearing], and they closed their eyes, lest they see with the eyes, and they hear with the ears, and they understand with the heart, and they turn back, and I would heal them."' [Isaiah 6:9,10]

their heart has become calloused(dull -insensitive))

Their eyes they have closed (self inflicted)

characteristics of one hardened








or is hardened

fltom said:
John 12:40 —KJV
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”

I see one group ("He") blinding and hardening another group ("they").

So where do you see any mention of "themselves"?
There is no group it is God having hardened Israel

as was stated

Their eyes they have closed (self inflicted)
 
(MLV2017)
(ALT)

Now who's "translation shopping"?
I've never heard of those translations.

Here are the standard (well-known) translations I use:


Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (ESV)

Isa 6:10 Make the hearts of these people calloused; make their ears deaf and their eyes blind. Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, their hearts might understand and they might repent and be healed.” (NET)

Isa 6:10 “Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.” (NASB)

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (KJV)

These are the translations I use every day. And NONE of them say it is "self-inflicted".

So at best, you're basing your argument on a QUESTIONABLE translation, so it's ridiculous to think you can be so dogmatic on the issue.
 
Now who's "translation shopping"?
I've never heard of those translations.

Here are the standard (well-known) translations I use:


Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (ESV)

Isa 6:10 Make the hearts of these people calloused; make their ears deaf and their eyes blind. Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, their hearts might understand and they might repent and be healed.” (NET)

Isa 6:10 “Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.” (NASB)

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (KJV)

These are the translations I use every day. And NONE of them say it is "self-inflicted".

So at best, you're basing your argument on a QUESTIONABLE translation, so it's ridiculous to think you can be so dogmatic on the issue.
Why are quoting from Isa 6:9 which is referenced by John 12:40

But who closed their eyes Acts 28:27

Their eyes they have closed (self inflicted)

Acts 28:27 (ESV) — 27 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’
Acts 28:27 (KJV 1900) — 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Acts 28:27 (NASB95) — 27 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.” ’

Acts 28:27 (NIV) — 27 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

Acts 28:27 (NRSV) — 27 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn— and I would heal them.’

Acts 28:27 (NKJV) — 27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.” ’

Acts 28:27 (HCSB) — 27 For the hearts of these people have grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted, and I would heal them.

Acts 28:27 (NET) — 27 For the heart of this people has become dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have closed their eyes, so that they would not see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.” ’

Acts 28:27 (RSV) — 27 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.’

They all say ther same thing Theo

they closed(shut) their eyes - self inflicted
 
THAT is the crux of the issue.

No one here in this discussion knows ALL that transpired. We have a few sentences that summarize the story. The statement his belief and profession are not said to precede his salvation, neither are they said to cause his salvation. Nor are they said to permit God to save him. none of that is in the account. Synergists read those things into the story. They do it inferentially. Both sentences would still be true if God regenerated the jailer first. Having been regenerated and confessing his belief with his mouth he would be saved. Having been brought from life to death, confessing his belief in Christ he would be saved. That in no way would be inconsistent with the Acts 16 report.
There was no regeneration documented. No new birth. No receiving of the Holy Spirit prior to asking how to be saved. Just circumstances leading the jailer to ask how he could be saved. Then Paul told him how to be saved. Paul spoke the same "word of the Lord" that all the disciples had been speaking since the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.
You are the one with inferences. You are the one who assumes the jailor was brought from life to death before believing in Christ and confessing his name as Lord. The jailor's confession and belief in Jesus did not happen until Paul told him the word of the Lord. There was no salvation until the jailor believed and no regeneration until after he believed
Rom 10:9 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
Read it again that way and see for yourself what I just wrote is true.

See? The words don't actually say what you say they say. You've been taught to read the text that way. I was, too. Most of us Cals here in CARM were previously Arms, btw.

It looks like Paul is make a sequence, possibly a causal relationship between "believe" and the "and of "and you will be saved, but he does not say if you believe you will be saved. He simply says, believe and be saved. Correlation, not sequence or causation.
The causation is belief. You are the one assuming a sequence came before. The only sequence I can see is what the goodness of God used to draw the jailor to himself by circumstances. Paul and Silas being thrown into jail for doing nothing wrong. They prayed and sang to their God at midnight. An earthquake unlocked every cell and loosed every chain but no one escaped. Paul saw the jailor about to kill himself in the darkness and called out to stop him from doing so. The jailor deduced that the God of Paul and Silas was somehow involved in all of this and asked Paul how he could be saved. Paul spoke the word of the Lord to the jailor and his household. Obviously they believed because they were baptized sometime after midnight without delay. There was absolutely nothing about regeneration prior to faith.
Besides, the salvation being reference in this case may not be the salvation from sin. The jailer was attempting suicide because when it was discovered the prisoners were escaping, he'd be killed. If he trusted himself to God then he would be spared being executed. That is just as likely or possible an interpretation as the synergist infers - and it is one much more consistent with what is actually stated in the text itself. Temporal salvation is not the same thing as soteriological salvation. Soteriological salvation is not identical to eschatological salvation. Many times the three overlap and temporal and eschatological salvations are invariably figurative or symbolic of soteriological salvation in some way but they are not identical.
That you would even say something like that is incredible!
The point is the text does not actually say what you just said it says but that is how the synergist or volitionalist reads the text. None of the monergists here will read any of that into the text but neither will be read God into this particular passage. It is simply not stated so we endeavor not to add to it.
Paul and Silas were praising and singing to God...read it again, verse 25. I'm losing respect for you with each and every sentence you write.
We can, however, point to other scriptures where God explicitly stated to be involved in a causal way before, during, and after the profession of faith and conversion. God is the preceding agent. God is the causal agent.
I can point to other scriptures as well and I have alluded to them. The grace of God is involved in every step of the way but believing, receiving, and confession proceed from the human with whom God is using his word, drawing with his spirit, allowing and even causing circumstances to happen in order to save unregenerate souls. If regeneration came before faith, God would regenerate everyone because he wants everyone in the world to repent and come to the knowledge of the truth. But it doesn't, it regeneration happens after faith with confession and repentance.
His unregenerate heart was open to hearing the gospel by these events and obeying it by faith.
His unregenerate heart was open after hearing the gospel and obeying it by faith.
Not a single word of that is actually found in the text of Act 16 but if it were....... you just said regeneration comes first: his heart was opened..... and then he obeyed!
A heart being opened is not the same as a heart being regenerated. An open heart to hearing the gospel is not a believing heart nor is it saved, nor has it turned from sin. It is simply open to hearing the word. The person hasn't even received the word into their heart. Show me scripture that says an opened heart is a regenerated heart. That is an assumption you are making that supports your doctrine.
You limited his heart-opening to hearing but scripture never places any such limits on heart opening. When Luke wrote about Lydia, he said Lydia's heart was opened but you should not assume the order or experience was the same with the jailer. That would be another assumption. In Songs the open heart is juxtaposed with longing to find (SS. 5:6), for example. Acts 16:14 explicitly states, "The Lord opened her heart to [heed/understand/respond]" what Paul was saying. God is the causal agent there. That is explicitly stated. No one has to infer God as the one doing the opening. The verses do not attribute the opening of the heart to her will or her faith. The opening is sequential and causal to the heeding or understanding. No one has to infer that because the text itself plainly states the heart was opened to understand.
And God did the same to the jailor as evidenced by the circumstances that led up to his desire to know how to be saved. But an open heart is not the same as a born again heart. And even if the heart is open to hearing the word it does not follow that they will receive and believe it.
Go back and re-read the Acts 16 accounts of Lydia's and the jailer's conversions, this time paying attention only and specifically to what is stated without reading additional content into the report of scripture.
I will and I hope you will also. You are doing just as much inferring and reading into scripture as you accuse others of, imo.
Learn to do this with every preacher and teacher you read/hear because Christians often make stuff up and add to scripture. Sometimes intentionally. Usually unwittingly and without ill intent. It's not particularly a sectarian thing. The discerning Christian must have a knowledge of the written word empowering the recognition of this problem so until then just open up the Bible and read exactly what is written and then compare what is stated to what is taught. After much practice the written word will be remembered and the ability to recall it (correctly) more natural. BE as critical of your sources as you are of my posts. Be an equal opportunity critic. I test Kim Riddlebarger and James White just as much as I do David Jeremiah and Roger Olson.

Always work first from what is actually stated.
I will work on that. I hope you will as well.
 
There was no regeneration documented. No new birth. No receiving of the Holy Spirit prior to asking how to be saved. Just circumstances leading the jailer to ask how he could be saved.
Who said there was?

Look at what you've just done. Rather than address the point being discussed you've changed the subject and attempts a tu quoque argument (it doesn't say anything about your point of view, either). Monergists do not use those verses to make it say something it doesn't state. Monergists don't abuse those verses that way.

Synergists do!

When I mention regeneration I did so simply to point out that passage could be interpreted any number of ways, faith precedes, regeneration precedes, bozo precedes, etc. BUT IF WE STICK TO WHAT IS STATED and we DO NOT INFER things not stated, then the only cause reported in the passage is God, not the unregenerate's will.

Acts 16:14
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

The Lord opened her heart. The Lord did it. Her faith did not do it. Her will did not do it. The Lord did it. No other causal relationship is stated, or implied. I don't have to infer the Lord opened her heart; the verse explicitly states the Lord opened her heart.


God did it? One explicit mention.

Unregenerate sinner's faith or will did it? No mention whatsoever.
 
You are the one with inferences.
Tu quoque.
You are the one who assumes the jailor was brought from life to death before believing in Christ and confessing his name as Lord.
I never said any such thing.
The jailor's confession and belief in Jesus did not happen until Paul told him the word of the Lord.
Yes, that is true, but the scripture says absolutely nothing about his faith. Nor does it state his belief preceded his salvation.
There was no salvation until the jailor believed and no regeneration until after he believed
That is not what those verses state.



Don't waste my time if you're going to ignored what is written in the Bible, ignore what I actually wrote in my post, make up stuff I never posted, and repeat yourself.

When you post arguments like "You did it, too," that's called a tu quoque argument it is a fallacious argument. It does absolutely nothing to prove your position. We could be both be wrong. As I mentioned to the other poster: proving me wrong does not prove you correct. Stick to the point: there is nothing stating the jailer's faith preceded his regeneration. Nothing.

I never said the verses said the jailer was regenerated before he had faith. It never happened. Go back and re-read my post. When you say,
There was no regeneration documented.
My reply is "That's right!!!!" Not a single mention. No mention of the jailer's faith preceding that never-mentioned regeneration, either. Not a single mention.

And that, not regeneration is what we were discussing.
 
You are the one with inferences.
Prove it.
Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

The causation is belief.
You are changing the subject. The subject is the claim the Acts 16 proves faith precedes regeneration because of what Peter told the jailer in Acts 16: 31. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

You don't get to ignore what is stated in Acts 16, make up stuff and then add some more made-up stuff from other verses because you won't admit Acts 16:31 does not actually state faith precedes regeneration.

For the record: Titus 3:5 also assigns causality to God. It plainly states salvation happens according to God's mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Not a single mention of the unregenerate's faith. Must definitely no mention of "The causation is belief."

You are reading that into the text.

Try reading what is written exactly as written without adding additional interpretations to it.





You are the one assuming a sequence came before. The only sequence I can see is what the goodness of God used to draw the jailor to himself by circumstances. Paul and Silas being thrown into jail for doing nothing wrong. They prayed and sang to their God at midnight. An earthquake unlocked every cell and loosed every chain but no one escaped. Paul saw the jailor about to kill himself in the darkness and called out to stop him from doing so. The jailor deduced that the God of Paul and Silas was somehow involved in all of this and asked Paul how he could be saved. Paul spoke the word of the Lord to the jailor and his household. Obviously they believed because they were baptized sometime after midnight without delay. There was absolutely nothing about regeneration prior to faith.

That you would even say something like that is incredible!

Paul and Silas were praising and singing to God...read it again, verse 25. I'm losing respect for you with each and every sentence you write.

I can point to other scriptures as well and I have alluded to them. The grace of God is involved in every step of the way but believing, receiving, and confession proceed from the human with whom God is using his word, drawing with his spirit, allowing and even causing circumstances to happen in order to save unregenerate souls. If regeneration came before faith, God would regenerate everyone because he wants everyone in the world to repent and come to the knowledge of the truth. But it doesn't, it regeneration happens after faith with confession and repentance.

His unregenerate heart was open after hearing the gospel and obeying it by faith.

A heart being opened is not the same as a heart being regenerated. An open heart to hearing the gospel is not a believing heart nor is it saved, nor has it turned from sin. It is simply open to hearing the word. The person hasn't even received the word into their heart. Show me scripture that says an opened heart is a regenerated heart. That is an assumption you are making that supports your doctrine.

And God did the same to the jailor as evidenced by the circumstances that led up to his desire to know how to be saved. But an open heart is not the same as a born again heart. And even if the heart is open to hearing the word it does not follow that they will receive and believe it.

I will and I hope you will also. You are doing just as much inferring and reading into scripture as you accuse others of, imo.

I will work on that. I hope you will as well.
 
Paul and Silas were praising and singing to God...read it again, verse 25. I'm losing respect for you with each and every sentence you write.
I don't care. Your respect for me is not the topic of this discussion. You do not have to like me at all. I could be the most despicable person on the planet and there would still be nothing in Acts 16 stating the unregenerate's faith precedes regeneration. Trying to change the topic is what's disrespectful.

You're just like tom: when confronted with the facts of scripture he resorted to personal attacks. I don't care. You have not proven the verses in question state faith precedes regeneration. That is the topic being discussed. Focus
 
Sometimes accusing everything everyone says AS a personal attack is ITSELF a personal attack.

Like the old "straw man" accusation that is itself the straw man.
 
That you would even say something like that is incredible!
Appeal to incredulity.

You feeling incredulous is not an argument for or against anything. You are the one who brought up Lydia and the jailer. You are supposed to proving the verses actually state faith precedes regeneration but you're not doing so. You cannot do so. No one can. The verses do not state any such thing.

If you are shocked when I add interpretation then maybe hold the mirror up so you can get a glimpse of what you're doing when claiming Acts 16 31 says faith precedes regeneration. IT DOES NOT! Nothing in that entire chapter says any such thing/
His unregenerate heart was open after hearing the gospel and obeying it by faith.
The text actually states his heart was opened by God. It does NOT state his heart was opened by faith. It does not state his heart was opened by obeying the gospel by faith. It does not state his heart was opened. It states Lydia's heart was opened and it was opened by God, not faith. The word "obey" does not occur in that passage. You are making it up.

A heart being opened is not the same as a heart being regenerated.
No one said it was. You're off topic again. Do not be like tom and avoid answering the simplest and most direct foundational questions pertaining to the text of scripture.



Do the words, "Faith precedes regeneration" actually occur in the Acts 16 account of Lydia's or the jailer's conversion?
 
The text actually states his heart was opened by God. It does NOT state his heart was opened by faith. It does not state his heart was opened by obeying the gospel by faith. It does not state his heart was opened.
The text doesn't mention the jailer's heart being opened by God.

BTW what I said in the prior post is incorrect "His unregenerate heart was open after hearing the gospel and obeying it by faith." Instead of after it should say before. Sorry about any confusion that may have caused.
It states Lydia's heart was opened and it was opened by God, not faith. The word "obey" does not occur in that passage. You are making it up.
Yes, Lydia's heart was opened by God. But once again, it doesn't follow that one having an open heart will go on to believe the gospel and obey it.
Do the words, "Faith precedes regeneration" actually occur in the Acts 16 account of Lydia's or the jailer's conversion?
No, but regeneration precedes faith doesn't either. We can follow the events and compare it with other conversions and draw conclusions from there as to the order of salvation.
 
The text doesn't mention the jailer's heart being opened by God.
That is correct. I should have written, "her," not "his". I did in fact say the same thing you just said. It's right above this post in Post #1209. Lydia's heart was opened by God. Nothing is said about the jailer's heart.

But you said otherwise.
BTW what I said in the prior post is incorrect "His unregenerate heart was open after hearing the gospel and obeying it by faith." Instead of after it should say before. Sorry about any confusion that may have caused.
Appreciate the self-correction.

However, the pint at hand is that the Acts 16 does not state faith precedes regeneration. You, like tom, read that into the text. The text itself does not state such a thing.
Yes, Lydia's heart was opened by God.
Yep. God is cited by the text itself as causal. Nothing else is reported to be causal.
But once again, it doesn't follow that one having an open heart will go on to believe the gospel and obey it.
Sure it does!!!!!

However...... no one made such a claim. At no point in 61 pages of posts have I said a person having a heart opened by God will believe the gospel and obey it. We're not discussing monergist soteriology. We're discussing synergistic soteriology. We're not discussing both at the same time, either. More specifically, we're discussing the specific claim faith precedes regeneration and more specifically still you and I are discussing Acts 16 as proof faith precedes regeneration. Nothing more is being discussed.

And the facts of the text is that chapter does not state faith precedes regeneration.

It could be read that way but that would be possible only if read inferentially. If what is stated is all that is read, there is no "faith precedes regeneration" in the text.
No, but regeneration precedes faith doesn't either.
Sure it does!

That's not the point being discussed, though. I'd be happy to discuss the monergist view(s) but I am always reluctant to do so with any poster who will not acknowledge the plain statements in the Bible. I don't do it with folks who demonstrate an inability to stay on topic, either. I don't do it with folks who jump around from verse to verse to verse to verse without finishing the first.

That's just me.

So..... if and when I can get an acknowledgment Acts 16:32 does not actually state "Faith precedes regeneration," I'll ask you a couple of questions about why you think folks make that mess, and then I'll explain how and why monergists are monergists. ;)
We can follow the events and compare it with other conversions and draw conclusions from there as to the order of salvation.
We could but that's not the point either.

The point is the text does not state what was claimed about it. That is important because we should accept scripture as written, not as we'd like it to read. There's another reason: If a person can't read what is stated in just one verse and acknowledge the words actually written then I have no faith that person will do so with any other verse of the Bible. The same holds true of yes-buts. There is no "but" to the question asked.


There is "No, but...." There is just "Yes," or "No."

Do the words, "Faith precedes regeneration" actually occur in the Acts 16 account of Lydia's or the jailer's conversion?

No, but regeneration precedes faith doesn't either. We can follow the events and compare it with other conversions and draw conclusions from there as to the order of salvation.
I did not ask about anything else.
 
Since you were kind enough to answer the question, I'll try to wrap this up and move on. Then you can ask me what you like.

We agree: No, the words, "Faith precedes regeneration, do not occur in the Acts 16 account of Lydia's or the jailer's conversion."

Is the word "faith" mentioned?

Is the word "before" mentioned?

Is there any explicitly stated sequence belief happened prior to y in the conversion accounts of Lydia or the jailer?
Is there any explicitly stated sequence faith happened prior to y in the conversion accounts of Lydia or the jailer?



I'd like you to pay attention to a specific detail in the story about the jailer. We have Paul saying, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," but there is no actual statement the jailer did in fact
believe! There's no report he ever said, "I believe"! We infer he said something because he got baptized later, but there's no actual statement stating he believed. :unsure:.

Do you see it now?
 
I'd like you to pay attention to a specific detail in the story about the jailer. We have Paul saying, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," but there is no actual statement the jailer did in fact believe! There's no report he ever said, "I believe"! We infer he said something because he got baptized later, but there's no actual statement stating he believed. :unsure:.

Do you see it now?
Acts 16:31 They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. 34 He brought them up into the house and set food before them, and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God. NRSVUE :eek:

Yes, I see it. The actual statement is in verse 34. :p
 
Last edited:
Acts 16:31 They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. 34 He brought them up into the house and set food before them, and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God. NRSVUE :eek:

Yes, I see it. The actual statement is in verse 34. :p
Let me recommend you use a translation other than the NRSVue. The Greek says, "and rejoiced with all his household having believed in God."

At any rate, there's no profession of belief when he hears Paul's exhortation.

Paul spoke the word of the lord.
Paul spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer's entire household. This indicates they weren't in the jail. They had left the jail and gone to the jailer's home. No mention of belief being confessed or professed.
The jailer washes Paul and Silas and then is himself baptized. Again, no statement of belief confessed or professed.
Again, there is another mention of bringing them into the house (did they go outside after arriving the first time to bathe the wounds and be baptized?) where they eat and celebrate..... having believed in God.



Here's what I think will be my two questions:

Since the passage does not actually state ANYHWERE faith precedes regeneration and there's no explicit mention of regeneration and no explicit mention of sequence.......


Why do people read things into the one verse Acts 16:31 it nowhere states?

Can you see the problem that results if they do this every proof-texted verse they read?
 
Let me recommend you use a translation other than the NRSVue. The Greek says, "and rejoiced with all his household having believed in God."

At any rate, there's no profession of belief when he hears Paul's exhortation.

Paul spoke the word of the lord.
Paul spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer's entire household. This indicates they weren't in the jail. They had left the jail and gone to the jailer's home. No mention of belief being confessed or professed.
The jailer washes Paul and Silas and then is himself baptized. Again, no statement of belief confessed or professed.
Again, there is another mention of bringing them into the house (did they go outside after arriving the first time to bathe the wounds and be baptized?) where they eat and celebrate..... having believed in God.



Here's what I think will be my two questions:

Since the passage does not actually state ANYHWERE faith precedes regeneration and there's no explicit mention of regeneration and no explicit mention of sequence.......


Why do people read things into the one verse Acts 16:31 it nowhere states?

Can you see the problem that results if they do this every proof-texted verse they read?
As Carolgeen stated

Acts 16:34 (KJV 1900) — 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

and you still ignore

Regeneration by definition is the impartation of life



The following verses show faith precedes life

John 5:24 (KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

John 20:31 (KJV)
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 5:40 (KJV)
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. (one comes to Jesus by faith)

Acts 11:18 (KJV)
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Regeneration makes one a child of God. Born of God -

One is made a child of God through faith

John 1:12 (KJV)
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Galatians 3:26 (KJV)
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

John 12:36 (KJV)
36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

Regeneration is a spiritual resurrection. (all agree quickening - being made alive speaks of regeneration when spoken of the physically living)


We are raised spiritually through faith

Colossians 2:12 (KJV)
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

One is born again(regenerated) through faith in gospel

James 1:18 (KJV)
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV)
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 Corinthians 4:15 (KJV)
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Of course unbelief does not profit so it must be through faith

Hebrews 4:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Regeneration is the mechanism of salvation

Titus 3:5 (KJV)
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Ephesians 2:5 (KJV)
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

it is through faith we are saved

EPH 2:8 (KJV)
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

.through - dia instrument or means in the genitive case - Vines

Regeneration is preceded by remission of sin

Colossians 2:13 (KJV)
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

God regenerates those he has forgiven


foregiveness requires both faith and repentance

Acts 10:43 (KJV)
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Luke 24:47 (KJV)
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 5:31 (KJV)
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

bald denial of scripture is not persuasive
 
Back
Top