Was the Philippian Jailer Saved by “Faith Only”?

Please read Acts 16:25-40.

Following the baptism of Lydia and her household, Paul and Silas continued to visit the place frequented for prayer by the Jews of Philippi. Paul cast a “spirit of divination” out of a woman on one of those occasions, angering her owners who were distressed by this loss of income. It was their false accusations before the magistrates that produced the beating and imprisonment of Paul and Silas and set the stage for the jailer’s conversion.

The jailer appreciated the fact that an earthquake which opened prison doors and loosened individual bonds without permitting anyone to escape was indeed a strange phenomenon. Still, it is unlikely that these physical events alone would have prompted his question about salvation had Paul and Silas not been doing some teaching. The answer they gave has produced needless confusion and disagreement. Permit me to suggest some considerations that may aid our understanding.

The jailer did not respond at the end of verse 31. (The numerous quotations of this verse apart from its context leaves the impression that he did.) The miracle of the opening of the prison doors had predisposed him to believe, but he could not have faith in Jesus until he had received some teaching upon which to base his faith (Rom. 10:17). That teaching came in verse 32. Paul and Silas “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.”

Please observe also that his response in verse 33 was entirely different from the initial command to believe. “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes (i.e. an indication of repentance – WJ); and was baptized, he and all his straightway.” The jailer could have only known about the importance of these actions by their being part of the “word of the Lord.” Otherwise the response of verse 33 could only have read: “and the same hour of the night, he and all his believed.”

Compare Acts 8 for similar statements regarding the conversion of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch. The preaching of Jesus Christ in both instances (Acts 8:5 and 35) had to include the command of baptism because the desire for baptism was the spontaneous response that followed the teaching (Acts 8:12-13 and 36-39).

Notice next that the jailer’s actions were followed by a statement of compliance (Acts 16:34) which said that he not only “rejoiced, believing (ASV – having believed) in God with all his house.” In other words, his actions of repentance and baptism were anchored at the start by a command to believe and at the end by an acknowledgement that he had.

There really is no way to avoid a contradiction in the above context without concluding that the command to believe was a general command that included the specifics of repentance and baptism. If the command to believe in Acts 16:31 is not a general command that includes the requirement of repentance and baptism, the same contradiction exists also with Acts 2:38 where Peter said, “repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But no contradiction exists because saving faith has always included the necessity of repentance and baptism. Paul wrote, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27).

Recently, a man was trying to convince me that Acts 16:31 was a proof text for the “faith only” position and that he had waited two years after his salvation (faith only) before being baptized. The jailer, in contrast, was baptized the same hour of the night because he understood the urgency of obeying a necessary command. Were he alive today, he would never be identified with the modern doctrine of “salvation by faith only.”

[This article appeared on September 6, 1981.]