A Confusing Message of Salvation?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

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.

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

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

...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.

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."

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

...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.
...

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.

[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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

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.

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

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

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.

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

[Chateau d'If]

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.