A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

I believe we make many mistakes by reading the Bible as one book written to one particular group of people. It's not as if it was written with a Western mindset, and specifically for Western culture.

The truth is, the Bible we know took centuries to complete. It was written to various peoples who faced very specific theological and personal issues.

Even in the New Testament, the four synoptic gospels were written to different groups of people, with each writer emphasizing things specific to the intended audience.

In the same way, I am not so sure we can formulate a "plan" of salvation by piecing together different scriptures, written by different apostles, in different geographical locales, in different time periods.

Understand, for any salvation formula to be for all mankind it would need to be understood by all of those cultures, in all of those locales, over all of the New Testament generations. It would need to be presented with the same emphasis to all of these peoples.

It is assumed among Apostolics that this plan is found in Acts 2:38. I am no longer so sure. Where, in any other portion of the New Testament, is this formula found?

There are many times, even in the Book of Acts, where people received the gospel, but were never told to be baptized or receive the Holy Ghost. In fact, there is no mention of anyone ever being commanded receive the Holy Ghost. It is always referred to as a gift, promise or endowment.

Think about it.

In Acts 3:19, after the lame man is healed, Peter is preaching to an entirely different audience, and says, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

Someone's soul is on the line, and instead of Peter repeating the "formula" of Acts 2:38, he tells them to repent? Where's the rest of the formula? It's not as if they had ever heard the formula before. Why did Peter exclude the other two steps?

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Just the opposite, it was written with an Eastern mindset set about 0-100 AD, to an Eastern audience. That's a lot of "noise" in the middle for the interpreter to consider.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Ok, I not implying anything by this statement, I do believe the Book of Acts to expound Normal Christian Initiation.

But the Book of Acts was written to one man, no telling how long this book sat rolled up on his shelf before he or others got the bright idea to pass it on to the church at large.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

What's your point?

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

No surprise, but I agree with your thoughts here. that is one of the things that led to my current "crisis of faith"... take what you said above, and compound it by each of the various books being copied over and over again, each time creating more potential error (think of the telephone game), and then on top of that, interpreting it into other languages and trying to retain the exact same meaning. These letters were written by the authors, and were written to a specific audience, then 300 years later (or thereabouts) a group of men (Catholics) chose which copies of which texts should appear in the canon of the Bible based on what suited their purposes and views.... and these men didn't even have the Holy Ghost (at least as far as any of us know)...

and that's not even counting the millions of people doomed to spend eternity in hell just because the Bible wasn't translated to their language yet (especially before the 1600s or so).

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

We cannot assume they somehow knew the other two steps were necessary. There was no way they could have known. Yet Peter feels no need to mention them. Why?

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

For it being the text book on Christian Initiation for believers, it was sent to one guy, who telling knows what he did with it for awhile.

This doesn't discount the oral retelling of the Normal Christian Initiation, as one can tell from the accounts in Acts that the Apostles had a screening in mind every time that they encountered people to convert.

Other than that, I am not sure what I am saying...:)

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Well actually we don't know if he mentioned them or not. The question is for Luke, not Peter. What was his intent of writing the Book of Acts? Was it so people knew how to be saved? Was it so they understood how the Church began? Was it to reinforce the credibility of the Church?

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Of course their method of copying was a little more precise than "the telephone game." In fact, comparing some older manuscript to later ones shows not a significant amount of variance.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Please explain this exchange...

Why, oh why, oh why didn't Paul preach tell them the same thing that Peter had in Acts 2:38?

After all, they weren't in the upper room, they had never heard "the message," and didn't know anything about salvation.

Yet Paul, for some unknown reason, says "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved."

Two things.

1. Was the man asking what to do to be saved from the earthquake, and the loss of prisoners, or was he asking how to be saved from Hell?

2. If he was asking how to be saved from Hell, we have a real problem, because Paul did not preach baptism or Holy Ghost to him.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

But you have to admit, it would be helpful to have an original to compare to... ;)

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

It's not confusing, anyone can have faith in God and repent of their sins. Justification by faith is simple.

Its when Zen Apostolicism gets curning that things get confusing. One must make sure they are theologically correct in a specific (not general) sense, they must have the correct words pronounced over them at water baptism, and they must speak in tonuges. To say nothing of never cutting hair for women, and shaving for men. I could go on and on--yeah, I can see how that would be "confusing".

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Brad, I think this is a poor argument that has been unproven over and over again. First off we have over 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts which agree in every significant point, there is amazing consistency, and the Old Testament is even more accurate. Secondly, even though the Bible has been translated into so many languages, we still have the ability to read and speak the original languages, so its not exactly like the telephone game, since we are easily able to go back to the source, and it is fairly common knowledge. Not everyone speaks Greek or Hebrew, but its not as if no one does.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

It's not quite that simple... Old English is nothing like modern English. I imagine ancient greek and hebrew would have similar problems.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Please clarify.

I don't think Jason is saying interpretation is simple, but the idea of scriptures keeping their integrity throughout the centuries is more easily to prove from a literary standpoint.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

My comment was only meant to apply to him saying we still read and speak the original languages. It's not really that simple and all you have to do is look at Old English to realize this.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Correct.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Can I place a thought here on faith? If God is sovereign, and He has unlimited power and authority, would it not best be believed that He is able to preserve His truths?

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Id say it was written by those from a Hebrew background to those who are from both an Eastern and Western background

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Not sure what you mean by other 2 steps but don't forget that churches were started by Apostles.

The Apostles did not need the book of Acts to know what to preach to them

The Apostles remained in contact with these churches either direction or by sending letters or ambassadors

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

We don't know what Paul taught them other than the need to believe On Jesus, since Luke adds that they spoke on to them the word of the Lord but did not give detials

How is that an unknown reason? Aren't you being a bit melodramatic here?

BTW it's always good to get the context.

Act 16:24 Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.
Act 16:25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them,
Act 16:26 and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bonds were unfastened.
Act 16:27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
Act 16:28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here."
Act 16:29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas.
Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

The earth quake was probably already over. The jailer already knew who these men where and their faith in the savior. He was freaking out because of the earth quake and the fact that the jails were open. Why would he be asking them to save him from the earthquake? That makes no sense

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

We don't know for sure just what all Paul said to him.
Acts 16:32 says, "they (Paul and Silas) spake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house."

As a result of what Paul and Silas said, he and his family were all baptized in water. There is no mention of the Holy Ghost Baptism.

There are about 20 incidents of people getting saved, or accepting the Gospel, or of coming into the Church in the Book of Acts.

A few times it is mentioned that they got baptized in water after their salvation experience and a few times it it recorded that some of them received the Holy Ghost Baptism.

Based on the words of Jesus in the Gospels, the words of the New Testament writers in the epistles, and the words of Luke to the individual named Theophilus, it seems to me that salvation was always by believing in Jesus and was some times followed by water baptism and some times followed by Spirit baptism... But water baptism and Spirit baptism were not part of a "salvation formula."

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

A while back, Dan Alicea put together a list of the occasions in the Book of Acts where people came into the Church. Water Baptism and/or Spirit Baptism were not mentioned very often.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

That's not factually correct, Prax.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Which part?

Jewish Apostles not from a Hebrew background or

the audience they wrote to did not include both eastern and western backgrounds?

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

That one.

When we say "Western," this goes beyond geography and is more cultural. It is clear, and factual, that the biblical audience, those who the writers could've had in mind, were Westerners -- especially since Western culture did not exist.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

When I said "western" I didn't mean the modern term "western culture", rather I meant the difference between Roman/Greek and Semitic cultures

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

At the time of Jesus, Hellenism was the predominant culture. Cultures were pretty well syncretized at that time. But in the flow of human history, and conceiving the "thought life" it was pretty well Eastern. This describes the writers and their audience.

The distance between us and them is vast! I think one of the biggest struggles in interpretation is that many readers don't really realize just how vast it is.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

You said "us and them"..and I said I was not using the word "Western" in the modern use of the term.

As I said before I was using it as the difference between Roman/Greek backgrounds and Semitic backgrounds. Western and Eastern.

Not all Jews were Hellenized. Arabia and other Semitic cultures were not Hellenized.

In any case I think your idea that "western culture" can only refer to modern cultures does not make sense. European states have always been considered "Western culture" regardless of the date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

Hellenism is the spread of Greek culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_civilization

And being specific here, what we are really referring to is Middle eastern culture not merely eastern culture

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Why do we give more weight to Peter's words in Acts 2:38 than his other declarations in the same book?

I'm not trying to tear down Apostolic doctrine, as I believe baptism in water and Spirit were normative Christian experiences in the early church. I'm just trying to connect some dots.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Prax, before I get into one of those "I didn't really say that" cat and mouse games, I'll just interact more with what I intend.

Western culture is used broadly and specifically. Scholars who discuss biblical audience would never suggest a Western influence in the biblical times (even NT Wright). As we call it today, The West really identified itself during the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and both pre and post-colonialism.

Some of these differences are highlighted in Ravi Zacharias' Jesus Among Other Gods. Western Christendom was shaped in the 3rd and 4th Century, really taking a cultural shape post-Constantine.

It is generally understood what one means when they refer to "East" and "West" differences. In actuality, "Eastern" would include, in a broad way, including:
Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions.

When you say certain groups were not "hellenized" you miss the point that the majority of the Jesus Movement was shaped and influences by Hellenism. I'd again defer to NT Wright as more an expert, or someone who has examined this in much more detail than I. In particular, I'd recommend the book "Paul" by NT Wright.

Bottom line: the Western culture and world we know today is a polar opposite in many ways from the Eastern culture and world that was the setting for our 1st Century fathers.

This is emphasized repeatedly by students who are studying or taking classes on interpretation. It's the most obvious interpretive wall to get over.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Well get to connecting, if that's what you want to do :)

I prefer to read the story as it is, and not feel obligated to "connect dots."

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

According to the links I've already provided to substantiate my point, "Western" is not exclusive to modern times. The "West" was very much an influence. Hellenism was is the influence of Greek culture. You keep trying to peg this into a "Western culture today" and I keep pointing out by Western Im referring to influences from Greek and Roman culture.

And by Eastern I specified specifically Judean and Semitic society.

It seems like we are talking past each other. We are discussing the bible, when it was written, by who and to whom.

I pointed out it was written to those of both an eastern and western background. Not to a modern Western Civilization or culture

I said the bible was written to those of Eastern and Western backgrounds. I later clarified Easter to refer to Judean and Semitic culture

So by "eastern" you mean the NT was only written to people of a greek culture?

You said :"Just the opposite, it was written with an Eastern mindset set about 0-100 AD, to an Eastern audience"

When I said I thought it was written by Hebrews to both Western and Eastern backgrounds you disagreed with me and brought up Hellenization. And here by "eastern" you seem to have in mind "Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions."...So Im finding your line of reasoning a little confusing at this point
I don't even know why "the Western culture and world we know today" is something you keep bringing up since Im not talking about it and the issue is who wrote the bible and to whom

That the bible was written by Hellenists to Hellenists?

This is all just a little confusing and contradictory. Hellenism comes from the Greek culture. Greece is "Western"...Eastern according to you is :Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions" but by Eastern I clarified what I was speaking of.

Western culture and civilization have been around for centuries. Hellenism is the influence of Greek culture and ideas. Greece is not "Eastern", again which according to you is "Far Eastern, Indian, Middle East and Judiac religions."

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

No one said Hellenism was an exclusive influence. NT Wright does not assert that either. But Jesus, his Disciples and the early Church come from an Eastern paradigm and culture. This was later influenced by Hellenization -- which is still hardly distinguishable from how historians classify "The Western World," at least how it's used today.

I keep bringing up "modern times," because the shape and influence of the West is still relatively new. You are correct to identify Westernization it's most earliest times, and this is why the term is so broad. But the usual "East vs. West" differences don't require as much hashing out.

The bible was written by people with an "eastern mindset" (as opposed the the western mindset of America, Europe, parts of Asia, and much of the world today). We see this difference in thinking in their writing. For example, they say phrases like 'God is my shepherd' and we say things like 'God is omnipotent'. Or, in eastern thought (and the bible) they say 'the 4 corners of the earth' and we say 'north, south, east, and west'. Eastern thought thinks visually and western thought thinks conceptually.

This is just one of the many differences -- but an example so we don't keep "talking past each other."

NT talks about the unique Pauline influences, which he describes as a triad. Paul as the exception, but still primarily shaped by Eastern thought (with his Judaic beginnings and learning).

We can chat more about it later. But this is an easy one to confuse each other's points because of the way "West" and "East" are and have been used.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

I don't really care about what Wright says or did not say. This all started when you disagreed with me saying the bible was written by Hebrews to those with a Western and Eastern background. You disagreed with me saying "Western background" and brought up Hellenists. So it sounds like you are saying those of an Eastern Background were Hellenistic

Yeah? What does that have to do with what I said though? I said the bible was written by Hebrews to those from both Western and Eastern backgrounds. Western referring to Greek/Roman background and Eastern referring to Judaistic/Semitic

I still don't see how this relates to my post
OK, but again what does this have to do with what I said? This is getting confusing

Yes? Again I said it was written by Hebrews which Im sure would qualify as "Eastern Mindset" but that was not what you disagreed with. You disagreed with me that it was written to those of both Western and Eastern backgrounds and by "Western" You have to know by now that I was not saying it was written 2000 years ago to "western mindset of America, Europe, parts of Asia, and much of the world today"..right?

Again Im confused...I never said Eastern and Western thought were the same. I said the bible was written to people from both Eastern (Judaistic/Semitic) and Western (Greek/Roman) back grounds, clearly NOT the same and you disagreed with me including those of a Western background.

But I never even said there were no differences. lol

Again I said it was written BY Hebrews..But your disagreement was not with me saying that but with me speaking of to whom it was written to.

Ok do you understand how I used the words "western background" and "eastern background"?

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

In my opinion they are normative Christian experiences but not part of a "plan" of salvation.

In the 20 some references to salvation or conversion or coming into the Church in the Book of Acts, water and/or Spirit baptism are only referenced a few times.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

If....and I say "If" because I'm willing to be wrong about anything....the Christian concept of heaven and hell is correct, I'm convinced that both places will contain people who shock us all. Regardless of all the "Ifs", I think Christians are in for quite a shock on "That day."

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him
Acts 10:34-35


13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel.
Romans 2:13-16

The Second Resurrection.
According to the inspired word of God the resurrection of the
"blessed and Holy" is completed a thousand years before the second resurrection. It is from this point that we are obliged to note the difference between partakers of the two resurrections.

After the thousand years expire "the rest of the dead" (those who
did not come forth in the first resurrection) both righteous and
wicked, live again and are made to stand before God. It is then that Jesus separates them as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goat according to Matt. 25:31-46.

In this resurrection is included all the righteous men of all
ages who walked in all the light that they were given. It is my candid opinion that all heathen, Israelites, Christian professors who have never heard the true gospel of Christ and those who die during the millennium, walking in the light of their times will be given eternal life at the last resurrection.

Many righteous people have died without the Holy Ghost and
the question has been asked: "Where will they come in?" They shall be given eternal life in the last day. They shall inherit the New
Earth where life eternal reigns because "there shall be no more death.
from Bishop G.T. Haywood's book on The Resurrection

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Sigh... another he said she said Prax bout. I really get sick of these...

The Bible, and the Early Church, both have a ethos primarily of Easternism. This goes back to the Hebrews, and on through the Jews after the Diaspora. Jesus himself was a Jew.

We got into this more and I brought up Hellenization, which surely was sprinkled into the story --- even a little influential. However, the ethos of the Church is based in the East, not the West.

You attempted to use the terms "East" and "West" more inclusively and broad. That's fine. My use of Westernism is much more modern, including probably just before the Enlightenment. Surely, the beginnings of this cultural revolution were during the Greco-Roman times. However, the Palestinian Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and His stories are soaked in Eastern thought.

This gulf is a translators biggest challenge. Why is who your father is more important than what you do? What customs about households inform us when we hear this story or that story? I've sat in 5-hour classes where they did nothing but articulate these differences --- not to say a Western audience could never "get it," but so that we'd respect the bridge in-between us and them.

The Biblical audience was mostly Jews. The Pauline epistles started including places like Corinth, Ephesus, even Rome into the mix. Still, the cultural framework, even during this time, is far from what we know of "the West" today. To the extent of trying to make that point, is perhaps why this back-and-forth has gone on as long as it has.

As it relates to this thread, consideration of who wrote it and who it was written to is one of our most difficult challenges. We always underestimate that.

Re: A Confusing Message of Salvation?
 

Fellas, this thread was not intended to be a debate about the definition of "western."