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.

[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?

[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).

[Chateau d'If]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

[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...

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

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?

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?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by 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).

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.

[Chateau d'If]

Please explain this exchange...

Acts 16

26And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed.

27And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

28But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.

29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

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.