Calvinism / pre-destination

[Brother Mark]

Originally Posted by keyzer soze
Reading the O.T. and seeing the balance of God's sovereignty and man's free-will intertwined through the stories while participating in this thread has been amazing. Stop and think about how Rehoboam responded and whether or not he could have exercised free-will to listen to the elders... All because of Solomon angering God...

I believe this is a good example of how I view "free-will" vs. God's sovereignty. Did Rehoboam have free will to listen to the elders or his young friends? YES. However, it was God's will that he would choose his young friends which would divide Israel as God decreed when Solomon angered God with his actions... I see both as equally true, which obviously is hard to process, but to God I see this as simple.

9 The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD’s command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”

God decreed he would tear the kingdom away. He saw into the future and saw the heart and actions of Rehoboam and knew that was when he would do it. That doesn't mean he decreed Rehoboam's actions. God can decree based on what he sees is going to happen. IOW, the decree can be based upon a decision a man makes. That's what Jer. 18 suggests.

__________________________________________________ ______________
Here is another interesting passage where I would think that if a John146 or Gadgeteer was there to hear this, you would have had to stop Paul and correct him because Paul is not allowing for free-will.

The Jailer Converted

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

How can Paul know this? His household has not even heard the gospel and they not only need to hear it but then they need to process it and decide if they accept it with their free-will. Paul/God is skipping over this step and stating that their salvation will be a done deal if their father accepts Christ.... how do the "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty handle this passage?

Why does this have to be about free will instead of a prophetic word? Paul saw what would happen and prophesied works in this passage as well.

So, David screws up and now God decrees a sin that David's son Absalom will partake in... Does this take place according to Absalom's free-will? YES. Does this take place according to God's sovereign will? YES.

God prophesying is not the same as decreeing. And God will use the evil in man's heart to bring judgment on the righteous. It is in His character to do so. He uses Satan to chastise believers (1 Cor. 5). He used Chaldeans to chastise Israel (Habakkuk). He even used Samson's lust as an occasion against the Philistines.

God sees the hearts of men and will use what is in them to accomplish his will. That doesn't mean he wills for what is in the heart of man.

BTW, if you want an interesting study, go figure out why Ahithophel committed suicide! Very fascinating! Scripture says that when he spoke, it was if God himself was giving the advice. Yet, this man committed suicide. Why? It's interesting.

And finally the passage below tells me that it isn't as simple as a 1 man, 1 equal free-will choice to follow the Lord or not follow the Lord. There is a LOT at play in life. You have the sin in the society you grow up in, the faith or lack there of by your parents, personal sin and issues, and ultimately God's plan. In all the above scenarios I believe there is free-will to sin and will be punishment for it. But for anyone to think that Absalom had a choice OUTSIDE of God's sovereign plan and could have NOT slept with David's wives after David sinned is to call God a liar as far as I can see it. God's sovereign plan trumps everything for He is the Word.

I think Absolam had a choice. God foresaw and prophesied. He used Absolam's sin. Doesn't mean he decreed it.

“You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Exodus 20:4-6 )

Love this passage! Why were Daniel and Jeremiah in bondage to the Babylonians? Because of the sin of their parents.

Why didn't Jonathan become king of Israel? He was next in line to Saul? It was because of the sin of his dad, Saul. Check out this verse.

1 Sam 13:13-14
13 Samuel said to Saul, " You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you, for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 "But now your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you."
NASU

Grace and peace,

Mark

[keyzer soze]

God decreed he would tear the kingdom away. He saw into the future and saw the heart and actions of Rehoboam and knew that was when he would do it. That doesn't mean he decreed Rehoboam's actions. God can decree based on what he sees is going to happen. IOW, the decree can be based upon a decision a man makes. That's what Jer. 18 suggests.



Why does this have to be about free will instead of a prophetic word? Paul saw what would happen and prophesied works in this passage as well.



God prophesying is not the same as decreeing. And God will use the evil in man's heart to bring judgment on the righteous. It is in His character to do so. He uses Satan to chastise believers (1 Cor. 5). He used Chaldeans to chastise Israel (Habakkuk). He even used Samson's lust as an occasion against the Philistines.

God sees the hearts of men and will use what is in them to accomplish his will. That doesn't mean he wills for what is in the heart of man.

BTW, if you want an interesting study, go figure out why Ahithophel committed suicide! Very fascinating! Scripture says that when he spoke, it was if God himself was giving the advice. Yet, this man committed suicide. Why? It's interesting.



I think Absolam had a choice. God foresaw and prophesied. He used Absolam's sin. Doesn't mean he decreed it.



Love this passage! Why were Daniel and Jeremiah in bondage to the Babylonians? Because of the sin of their parents.

Why didn't Jonathan become king of Israel? He was next in line to Saul? It was because of the sin of his dad, Saul. Check out this verse.

1 Sam 13:13-14
13 Samuel said to Saul, " You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you, for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 "But now your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you."
NASU

Grace and peace,

Mark

First off, thanks for taking the time to read and reply. However, I don't understand how you can simplify it to that level. Let's pick one. Let's pick Paul with the jailer. So Paul foresees the future and sees that if the jailer accepts the gospel his entire family will be saved. Now what if the jailer does NOT accept the bible... what are we to say about his family then? How are they judged if God/Paul knows that if their father accepts they will accept but if their father does not accept they will not accept. Does the father receive all the judgement and the family gets a pass because this would seem to indicated that their hearts are in fact willing to receive Jesus Christ if the circumstances are correct. However, can another man's free-will basically blast your ability to receive the gospel out of the water?

[Brother Mark]

First off, thanks for taking the time to read and reply. However, I don't understand how you can simplify it to that level. Let's pick one. Let's pick Paul with the jailer. So Paul foresees the future and sees that if the jailer accepts the gospel his entire family will be saved.

I am saying Paul could have had a prophetic word from God. The Jailer didn't have to accept. But if God foresaw it and gave Paul the word, then it is possible. What I am showing is that the scriptures can be seen differently than what you were suggesting earlier.

Now what if the jailer does NOT accept the bible... what are we to say about his family then? How are they judged if God/Paul knows that if their father accepts they will accept but if their father does not accept they will not accept.

Again, how do you know Paul didn't have a prophetic word from God about what was going to happen? Why does it have to be God 'forced' the issue? If God foresaw the Jailer and his families actions, why does there now have to be a 'what if'? Paul prophesied it and it was a true prophesy. That doesn't mean a choice wasn't made or that one wasn't available.

Does the father receive all the judgement and the family gets a pass because this would seem to indicated that their hearts are in fact willing to receive Jesus Christ if the circumstances are correct. However, can another man's free-will basically blast your ability to receive the gospel out of the water?

Ever study authority? God says that if you bind a strong man, you can spoil his house. What happens if you loose a strong man? Can he then set his house free? There is much power in authority.

That said, Jonathan would have been king had Saul kept his part of God's promise to him. Samuel told us about that. As for the man of the house "blasting" my ability to believe, I would not say it that way. What I would say, is that my sins will impact my kids. No doubt about it. They will. However, that doesn't mean that they cannot any more make a choice on some level. However, some choices will be removed from them by my actions.

Jonathan had no choice any more about being king. But he still was able to honor God and he did so.

Can a man influence his children so that it makes it harder for them to trust God? Sure. The enemy plants lies all the time and tries to steal the word from hearts (see mark 4) why would he use lies from a father, or a man's sin to steal the word from his children's heart?

[John146]

Does this mean you are reformed regarding the doctrine of salvation?

Huh? How did you get that from what I said? I'm saying he had a choice of whether to come back or not but the Reformed view would say he had no choice but to come back.

I believce God put him [son] into such a dire position, that he reached a position of irresistable grace!

I disagree completely with the doctrine of irresistible grace. God's grace is resisted all the time!

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

[Gadgeteer]

Reading the O.T. and seeing the balance of God's sovereignty and man's free-will intertwined through the stories while participating in this thread has been amazing. Stop and think about how Rehoboam responded and whether or not he could have exercised free-will to listen to the elders... All because of Solomon angering God...

I believe this is a good example of how I view "free-will" vs. God's sovereignty. Did Rehoboam have free will to listen to the elders or his young friends? YES. However, it was God's will that he would choose his young friends which would divide Israel as God decreed when Solomon angered God with his actions... I see both as equally true, which obviously is hard to process, but to God I see this as simple.

9 The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD’s command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”

29 About that time Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh met him on the way, wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone out in the country, 30 and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. 31 Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes. 32 But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. 33 I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molek the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my decrees and laws as David, Solomon’s father, did.

34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name. 37 However, as for you, I will take you, and you will rule over all that your heart desires; you will be king over Israel. 38 If you do whatever I command you and walk in obedience to me and do what is right in my eyes by obeying my decrees and commands, as David my servant did, I will be with you. I will build you a dynasty as enduring as the one I built for David and will give Israel to you. 39 I will humble David’s descendants because of this, but not forever.’”

6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.

7 They replied, “If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants.”

12 Three days later Jeroboam and all the people returned to Rehoboam, as the king had said, “Come back to me in three days.” 13 The king answered the people harshly. Rejecting the advice given him by the elders, 14 he followed the advice of the young men and said, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” 15 So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfill the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.

Does no one have an opinion on this?

Question --- was it God's will (or rather, was it God's ordained sovereign inescapable plan) that Solomon be unfaithful? God uses people, but does not decide their hearts. One verse thought to support "predestination" is Jeremiah17:9; where the heart is supposedly too wicked for God to ever consider it and respond to it (therefore the heart must be changed first) --- but the very next verse has God responding to me, in spite of their wickedness. Implied in that, is "wickedness" being a generality, IE "men in general are desperately wicked, BUT God weighs their thoughts and gives to each man according to his ways". This makes no sense if every last person had wicked ways; but makes perfect sense in a "lamentation-view", that is "generally men are wicked, but God gives according to men's ways and anyone who pursues God will receive a blessing".

This fits Hebrews6:11-12, where one tilled field can produce EITHER thorns and be cursed and burned, or can produce good fruit and be blessed.

Isaiah 65:1 is also thought to assert "predestined-salvation"; but in context, God reached out to a nation who refused Him; He wanted them to do righteous things, but because they WOULD not He therefore destined them for the sword. Verses 2, and 11-12.

Here is another interesting passage where I would think that if a John146 or Gadgeteer was there to hear this, you would have had to stop Paul and correct him because Paul is not allowing for free-will.

The Jailer Converted

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

How can Paul know this? His household has not even heard the gospel and they not only need to hear it but then they need to process it and decide if they accept it with their free-will. Paul/God is skipping over this step and stating that their salvation will be a done deal if their father accepts Christ.... how do the "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty handle this passage?

The implication was that the household was listening; and/or the jailer would then preach and convert his house. Don't forget in the same chapter is Lydia --- who was a worshiper of God before her heart was opened to Jesus' gospel. Clearly, the "heart-opening" was through her belief in God. This embodies John17:6, where people belonged to God and THEN (therefore!) they were given to Jesus.

"Father, those You have given Me out of the world --- they were Yours, AND You gave them to Me."

R.C.Sproul does make the connection between John17:6 and John6:37 and 39 and 44 and 65, but for the wrong reason; he says "They-were-Yours" means by predestination --- there is no basis for this, but rather regarding Acts16:14-15 Lydia absolutely believed and loved and worshiped God. It's the same with Cornelius in Acts10.


I also like 1Samuel 23:12; God could see two futures, and gave David the choice. If David stayed he'd be captured; David decided not to be captured and left...

[John146]

Does no one have an opinion on this?

I didn't offer an opinion on it only because I couldn't tell exactly what you were trying to say there.

Here is another interesting passage where I would think that if a John146 or Gadgeteer was there to hear this, you would have had to stop Paul and correct him because Paul is not allowing for free-will.

The Jailer Converted

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

How can Paul know this? His household has not even heard the gospel and they not only need to hear it but then they need to process it and decide if they accept it with their free-will. Paul/God is skipping over this step and stating that their salvation will be a done deal if their father accepts Christ.... how do the "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty handle this passage?

I believe you are misinterpreting that verse. Do you really think that a person can believe in Christ on behalf of another person? Please tell me you don't really believe that. Clearly, there is no scripture that says a person can believe in Christ on behalf of another person so that person would be saved. So, you have to start with that knowledge before interpreting that passage. Here is my own paraphrase (not from any particular translation) of Acts 16:31:

They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved. This goes for you and everyone in your household as well.".

So, what they were saying is that the jailer had to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved and that the same was true for everyone in his household. If any of them believed in the Lord Jesus they too would be saved. So, each of them was responsible to choose whether or not to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation.

Also, notice verse 32. It says "and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.". Now, it's clear that this doesn't mean that when he was baptized that meant his household was also baptized because of his baptism, right? It clearly implies that he and everyone else in his household were each baptized, right? So, that's how verse 31 should be understood as well. It's saying he and each person in his household were required to "believe in the Lord Jesus" in order to be saved.

First off, thanks for taking the time to read and reply. However, I don't understand how you can simplify it to that level. Let's pick one. Let's pick Paul with the jailer. So Paul foresees the future and sees that if the jailer accepts the gospel his entire family will be saved.

How can you come to this conclusion when there is no other scripture that teaches such a concept? Why did you not take the rest of scripture into consideration when interpreting Acts 16:31? The rest of scripture makes it clear that each person is responsible for believing or not believing in Christ (John 3:16-18, for example) so why would Acts 16:31 be any different?

[John146]

I am saying Paul could have had a prophetic word from God. The Jailer didn't have to accept. But if God foresaw it and gave Paul the word, then it is possible. What I am showing is that the scriptures can be seen differently than what you were suggesting earlier.

Again, how do you know Paul didn't have a prophetic word from God about what was going to happen? Why does it have to be God 'forced' the issue? If God foresaw the Jailer and his families actions, why does there now have to be a 'what if'? Paul prophesied it and it was a true prophesy. That doesn't mean a choice wasn't made or that one wasn't available.

Mark, it's not a prophecy. The jailer asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved (Acts 16:30). They then told him what he had to do to be saved. They weren't giving a prophecy about what he would do, they were telling him what he had to do and he then had the choice of whether to do that (believe in the Lord Jesus Christ) or not and everyone in his household would have to make the same choice. They were just informing the jailer of what he had to do in answer to his question and also making it clear that it was not only what he had to do to be saved but what everyone else in his household (and everyone else in the world, by implication) was required to do in order to be saved as well.

[keyzer soze]

John146, I listed several passages above that make my point. You quote my passages but then simply site others that make your point and ignore mine. Then you wrap it up by asking me why I don't simply focus on your points and ignore mine and come to your conclusion...

You asked above if I believe someone can believe on behalf of another person. My answer is NO and I fight with RCC on this very issue of baby baptism. You just assumed that this is the point though that I am making and write the majority of your response on this position that I never made.

So my question still stands. Perhaps if I add multiple choices to it for answers it will better convey the direction I am going in.

The Jailer Converted

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

What does the bold mean above?
a) If you believe in Jesus you will be saved and our sovereign Lord knows that your family will follow your lead into belief and be saved. Despite them having free-will and the full ability to reject Christ, God knows that your belief will effect their belief for certain.
b) Whether you believe or not your family will believe because your free-will can not determine your children's free-will decision. If your children are willing to believe (as stated by Paul) then that means their hearts will accept Christ with our without you. So Paul is simply stating this fact to push the jailer into believing.
c) Paul is merely guessing based on what he has witnessed thus far in witnessing to people. That is if the father chooses to believe, then the family is very likely to join in and be saved.

[keyzer soze]

Mark, it's not a prophecy. The jailer asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved (Acts 16:30). They then told him what he had to do to be saved. They weren't giving a prophecy about what he would do, they were telling him what he had to do and he then had the choice of whether to do that (believe in the Lord Jesus Christ) or not and everyone in his household would have to make the same choice. They were just informing the jailer of what he had to do in answer to his question and also making it clear that it was not only what he had to do to be saved but what everyone else in his household (and everyone else in the world, by implication) was required to do in order to be saved as well.

So are you claiming that the jailer could have believed and been saved but his family remained in unbelief and lost?

[Brother Mark]

Mark, it's not a prophecy. The jailer asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved (Acts 16:30). They then told him what he had to do to be saved. They weren't giving a prophecy about what he would do, they were telling him what he had to do and he then had the choice of whether to do that (believe in the Lord Jesus Christ) or not and everyone in his household would have to make the same choice. They were just informing the jailer of what he had to do in answer to his question and also making it clear that it was not only what he had to do to be saved but what everyone else in his household (and everyone else in the world, by implication) was required to do in order to be saved as well.

I didn't mean to say it was. I meant to say it could have been. (I thought that was what I was saying.)

I do think spiritual authority enters in as well. Get the head of household saved and it is "easier" to influence the rest of the household. For what it's worth, I don't have an issue with the way your read it. If I understand your point, you are saying "What can I do to go swimming? Well, you can go to the pool and go swimming. You and your whole household." Means that you can go to the pool and go swimming, and your household is welcome to go too.

[keyzer soze]

I didn't mean to say it was. I meant to say it could have been. (I thought that was what I was saying.)

I do think spiritual authority enters in as well. Get the head of household saved and it is "easier" to influence the rest of the household. For what it's worth, I don't have an issue with the way your read it. If I understand your point, you are saying "What can I do to go swimming? Well, you can go to the pool and go swimming. You and your whole household." Means that you can go to the pool and go swimming, and your household is welcome to go too.

I have never considered reading it like this. So you do in fact believe that the jailer could have been saved but his family remain in unbelief... I will have to consider this, I have never read it this way before. Seems like a horrible way to write a sentence for that meaning. I have been taught to read the bible normally and understand what it says. When I read this normally I interpret it to mean his entire family will be saved.

[John146]

John146, I listed several passages above that make my point. You quote my passages but then simply site others that make your point and ignore mine. Then you wrap it up by asking me why I don't simply focus on your points and ignore mine and come to your conclusion...

I'm not ignoring anything. I may have missed your point, but that doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. Just clarify your point for me rather than falsely accusing me of ignoring your point.

You asked above if I believe someone can believe on behalf of another person. My answer is NO and I fight with RCC on this very issue of baby baptism. You just assumed that this is the point though that I am making and write the majority of your response on this position that I never made.

You seemed to be making that point. You don't have to take it so personal just because I missed your point. I didn't miss it on purpose. All you need to do is say you think I missed your point and then clarify your point. I don't appreciate someone telling me I'm ignoring something when I know I don't ignore anything on here. If that's all you think of me then I can't help but wonder if maybe I'm wasting my time with you.

So my question still stands. Perhaps if I add multiple choices to it for answers it will better convey the direction I am going in.

The Jailer Converted

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

What does the bold mean above?
a) If you believe in Jesus you will be saved and our sovereign Lord knows that your family will follow your lead into belief and be saved. Despite them having free-will and the full ability to reject Christ, God knows that your belief will effect their belief for certain.
b) Whether you believe or not your family will believe because your free-will can not determine your children's free-will decision. If your children are willing to believe (as stated by Paul) then that means their hearts will accept Christ with our without you. So Paul is simply stating this fact to push the jailer into believing.
c) Paul is merely guessing based on what he has witnessed thus far in witnessing to people. That is if the father chooses to believe, then the family is very likely to join in and be saved.

None of the above. Why are those the only choices? I gave you my interpretation already, so why does your list not include my understanding of the verse?

Why can't the verse be understood to be saying in effect "If you believe in the Lord Jesus you will be saved and this goes for each member of your household as well. Each of you must decide whether or not to put your faith in the Lord Jesus in order to be saved.".

[John146]

So are you claiming that the jailer could have believed and been saved but his family remained in unbelief and lost?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Nowhere does scripture teach that a person can believe on behalf of another person. Every individual is responsible for his or her own faith or lack thereof, as shown in passages like John 3:16-18.

[John146]

I didn't mean to say it was. I meant to say it could have been. (I thought that was what I was saying.)

Sorry, I didn't mean to act as if you were making a firm statement rather than just saying what it could mean.

I do think spiritual authority enters in as well. Get the head of household saved and it is "easier" to influence the rest of the household.

Right, but since it's not automatic that they would all believe then I can't see how that could be what they were saying in that verse.

If I understand your point, you are saying "What can I do to go swimming? Well, you can go to the pool and go swimming. You and your whole household." Means that you can go to the pool and go swimming, and your household is welcome to go too.

Yes, that is what I meant. In your analogy, everyone is welcome and invited to go swimming but it's up to each individual to decide whether to go or not. So, I believe the jailer was told what he had to do to be saved, which was to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and he had to decide whether or not to do so. And each person in his household would also have to decide whether to believe in Christ or not. This lines up with what the rest of scripture teaches as well, IMO.

[Brother Mark]

I have never considered reading it like this. So you do in fact believe that the jailer could have been saved but his family remain in unbelief... I will have to consider this, I have never read it this way before. Seems like a horrible way to write a sentence for that meaning. I have been taught to read the bible normally and understand what it says. When I read this normally I interpret it to mean his entire family will be saved.

I am not saying it means that. Like I said earlier. I think spiritual authority comes into play here. For instance, Jesus taught us that if you bind the strong man, you can spoil the house. If you loose the strong man, then the house can be freed. Remember David and Goliath? Goliath understood the principle because he talked about "if I win, then all of your army will serve us".

1 Sam 17:9
9 " If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will become your servants; but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall become our servants and serve us."
NASU

Satan thought he had taken out our Strong Man when he killed Jesus but he was sadly mistaken! In the same way that the gallows meant for Mordecai were Haman's undoing, so too the cross Satan meant for Jesus was his undoing!

Anyway, my official position on this verse is that just as Jesus said that binding the strongman of the house allows the house to be spoiled, so loosing the strong man allows the house to be rescued. Some examples...

The centurion believed and his servant was healed. The gentile woman whose daughter was demonized believed, even though Jesus called her a dog, and her daughter was healed. Now, I am not saying that verse teaches a man can believe for his family but in the case of the jailer, when he believed, his family would follow suit. When he was loosed, his whole family would follow him as they normally would, and believe and be saved.

Something to think about... how many people do you know where the man of the house is a Godly man, and his children and wife reject Jesus? Now, how many people do you know where the woman of the house is Godly but the man and children reject Jesus? Not making an absolute doctrinal statement from experience. But it is interesting to think about and notice. I am sure we can all find exceptions.