A Confusing Message of Salvation?

[Chateau d'If]

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?

[Socialite]

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.

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

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.

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

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

That's not factually correct, Prax.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That's not factually correct, Prax.

Which part?

Jewish Apostles not from a Hebrew background or

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

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Which part?

Jewish Apostles not from a Hebrew background or

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

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.

[Pastor Keith]

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.

[Chateau d'If]

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

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.

What's your point?

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

What's your point?

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...

[Brad Murphy]

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).