Simon the sorcerer

Well after having said that there is no certainty, I'm going to firm up my opinion now that I've had a chance to think about it some more.

Why would God include this account (Simon) in the inspired record? If it were to illustrate the growth principle, wouldn't He have included a follow up similar to when Paul, speaking of John-Mark, said "bring him to me for he is profitable in the ministry"?

While the scripture does not specify a complete fall from faith, the fact that it does not specify a turning back to God speaks to me as evidence that the case was a falling away (as in came short of) from faith.

So I take this along with Annanias and Sapphira, and perhaps even Demas, and others, as examples of God's testing finally revealing the true nature of the pretender.

 

Good insights J.D. now you are confirming my take more and more on it

 

A lot of people think Ananais and Sapphira were believers but committed a sin "unto death." The Bible does speak of believers being able to commit a sin that will result in God taking them home.

Do a study of Acts and the word "believe" in context.

 

Good point Marcia still doesn't change my mind

 

Words either mean something or they mean nothing. If we cannot accept the testimony of the Holy Spirit when it says that Simon believed, what can we accept?

 

Probably because in the bible the word BELIEVE has many different meanings. as shown in the parable of the seeds

quote from me

 

Where does believe mean something different in your post there? You can believe different things, but believe means believe. You can believe for a while, but believe means believe. If we are saved by believing, then we are saved by believing. If not then we are saved by something else and we better figure out what it is.

 

I had a feeling this would come up rsr and decided to wait till it did.

4, Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5, On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6, When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7,There were about twelve men in all.

The proof to me that the disciples were indeed baptized whether John , Jesus or Paul did the baptizing is that ONLY the Apostles were able to receive the gift of tongues (known languages) at this point in order to PROCLAIM God's word.
It was the 11 disciples who became the Apostles and in Acts they had to find one more Matthias to take Judas's place making it twelve.

My point wasn't WHO baptized Jesus's disciples, the point was made by rjprince that NO where in scripture can you find that the disciples were baptized. I believe the above is proof that they were.

 

I assume that's a rhetorical question. </font>[/QUOTE] uh yeah

Interesting thread, good points y'all.

 

A person may indeed lose their "faith". All people do at one time or another. This doesn't equate to losing one's salvation. I Tim 2:13.

Demas, et al, may indeed have gone back or left the ministry, but that doesn't mean that they lost their salvation, nor does it make them pretenders. Their decisions could have been mediated by something similar to today's battle fatique, only in a spiritual context instead of physical.

 

AVL, please read my post more carefully. I did not say that anyone lost their salvation. I said they never had it. They were pretenders. And in my first post, I recognized the fact that it COULD be the case that Simon was saved but lacked growth.

 

Anytime we make draw a conclusion from a text that we make a "rule" or a "test", it must be COMPLETELY consistent with the rest of the Word of God (can I abbreviate WoG, or would that be sacrilege?). Your conclusion is that the men who received the Holy Spirit in Acts 19 were ONLY able to do so, because they had been baptized. Therefore since the Apostles (and the other 120, Acts 2:1 w/ 1:15) received the Baptism of the Spirit, they must also have been “water baptized”.

Your argument is non-sequitur (does not follow). The cause and effect is not between the water baptism and the Spirit baptism but between the laying on of Paul’s hands and Spirit baptism (Acts 19:6 w/ Acts 8:17). If you argument IS correct, explain this passage...

The ones who were saved at the household of Cornelius did not receive water baptism till AFTER they had already received Spirit baptism. Your argument regarding the water baptism of the 12 is non sequitur and refuted by the Acts 10 passage, therefore, it falls...

 

Excellent point. Nothing in the context of ANY of those passages equates to a statement that either Simon, or Ananias and Saphira, or Demas was therefore not saved... It is another non sequitur argument.

Peter denied the Lord Jesus, if we were told nothing else about him, could we then conclude that Peter was not saved? On the basis of the logic some have used on this thread, ABSOLUTELY! On the basis of further comments regarding Peter, absolutely NOT! The fact that Simon was not considered significant enough to Luke’s purpose does not PROVE, or even demonstrate that Simon therefore was not truly saved. Particularly in light of the manner in which the term “believe” in used in the context of Acts 8, and according to Marcia, throughout the entire book of Acts.

Simon believed in the same way that the rest of them believed. If his faith was therefore less than genuine on the basis of his failure in this regard we have sufficient grounds to claim that Abraham’s faith was insincere based on his lies to Pharaoh and King Abimilech; that David did not have sincere faith on the basis of the Bathsheba/Uriah incident; et al, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad naseum...

NO. The text plainly states, “Simon himself believed also and was baptized”. I will stick with that. There I stand, I can do no otherwise!

 

Oh, I forgot to add John the Baptist to the list of those who "lost their faith".

Could we then conclude that John's earlier profession concerning Jesus was therefore insincere on the basis of his apparent “loss of faith”? I think not. He was in prison and soon to lose his head, a little bit of uncerainty was in order. Isn't it interesting how the Bible shows us the weaknesses of its "heroes" as well the villians? For John, this whole idea of the "kingdom" was not working out quite like he had expected...

 

AVL, sorry, after reading some other posts I see I may have misunderstood what you were saying in your post. Now if I do understand what's going on here, some of you are saying that a person can lose their faith, but not in the sense that they can lose their salvation, their faith made "shipwreck". Is that what you're saying rjprince?

If so how do you weigh that against the doctrine of preserverence. Are you supporting a preservation-only doctrine? I know of some calvinists like that. Here's one: www.letgodbetrue.com. I held that sway myself for a while.

 

JD,

I do not hold to a doctrine of perseverance that denies that a believer can backslide from a consistent walk with the Lord. Nor do I agree that all true believers will return to a consistent walk prior to death.

The whole point of God’s chastening the believers in Corinth was a demonstration that they were HIS, even though He had taken some of them home early.

 

this i also agree.

 

I assume that's a rhetorical question. </font>[/QUOTE] Yes it was!