Saturday, January 26, 2013

Temporary Blog Issues

My blog has been down, then up, then back down and up again due to some blog or "blogger" issues. I am trying to get these resolved. For the moment I am back up. Alex

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Downton Abbey: A Christian's Entertainment Consideration


 
If you have not heard of the British television drama Downton Abbey (*watch your autocorrect, it will want to spell it Downtown), at some point you will. And if you have heard of it but know little about it, well I hope I can help just a bit in your consideration of entertainment, as your life permits.

It is a difficult thing in matters of liberty such as this to write about something which might, even in the mildest manner, cause another believer to stumble which is precisely why God teaches us in his Word to use or express our liberty judiciously. On this occasion however, I do believe that qualifying my review with a strong warning and that I am categorizing this as something not necessarily for all, I am confident by my personal experience, that for many it will not be a problem but in fact will be quite a pleasant experience as goes entertainment. But for the weakest, if you find yourself easily led about into offense by entertainment and its subsequent mimicry which offends your conscience, to you who think such a thing possible of yourself, abstain at all costs. To all others, please hear me for a moment.

Entertainment by the world for Christians is dreadful in plenty but occasionally possesses sufficient art and standards that we may indulge in such recreation. And as goes television, certainly there is much to which we should object. However, now and again a series such as Band of Brothers and its follow-up, The Pacific, is produced which meets the threshold of acceptable story telling and drama for many. I believe Downton Abbey will meet this threshold for the majority.

Story Setting 

Downton Abbey begins in 1912. The abbey is an estate which belongs to an aristocratic family. Its patriarch is Robert Crawley, the Earl of Grantham and is played by Hugh Bonneville. His wife, Cora Crawley, the Countess of Grantham, has her role filled by American actress Elizabeth McGovern. Both are exceptional in their performances.

The first episode begins with Lord Grantham receiving news that the Titanic has sunk and his two heirs (the law at the time only permitted a male heir) presumed dead, seeing they were on the Titanic. Robert Crawley appears to be in his mid-fifties, thus he has great concern seeing that the remainder of his heirs are no heirs at all, namely his three daughters. Nevertheless, there is a third cousin, Matthew, by law, is the next in line to inherit the estate. But it is akin to having a stranger come in to possess Downton; its property and wealth, lock, stock and barrel.

What you keenly become aware of early on is the intention of the story with regard to Downton Abbey. It views the estate, as does Lord Grantham, as an institution and not merely a family possession. For example, the staff -- the butler, housekeeper, valets, footmen, kitchen and housemaids -- are not merely transient. They are career attendants, not just for aristocrats but institutionally for Downton Abbey and particularly for this family. That is not to say that some of the younger attendants do not seek to move up in this field either while at Downton or by applying to other households but some have invested their life in Downton which reflects the reality of career estate servants both past and present but particularly in the past when opportunities were much more limited and class structure more definitive. Thus, they are part of those experiencing the potential unknown change coming to the Downton Estate. They have no idea of the projection of Downton that will be set by its new heir, the third cousin Matthew. Thus the stage is set for the first season’s drama.

What you will find is a pleasingly purposeful function of social class in the series. Some have criticized it as anglophile indulgence (that is the deliberate elevation and celebration of English-Anglo culture at what some might consider near the end of its peak) where all things Anglo and their virtues are glorified in a kind of class/racial narcissism. I find this cynicism not only unwarranted but such complaints jutting from petty and envious hearts who refuse to recognize and appreciate the high order of Anglo development and its subsequent culture which is typified in Downton Abbey’s story. 

The Rest of the Family, Major 

Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery). As I alluded to earlier, the immediate family consists of Robert and Cora Crawley, Lord Grantham and Countess Grantham and their three daughters. The eldest is the irascible Lady Mary. She is self-aware enough to understand her egocentrism but not compelled sufficiently by this understanding to allow it to buffer her easily discontented state. The law does not permit her to be the heir thus she is conflicted. There is no legal remedy. She is intelligent and presented as classically attractive, though at times her constant state of stress show thorough on her face and it is not an endearing visage. One thing does stand out which is that she clearly accepts her role as the eldest daughter and enforces its properties without apology. 

Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael). The second daughter, Lady Edith, is more reticent than her older sister and given to sympathy more easily. She is deliberately less instantly beautiful than Mary with whom she competes, which is to say nothing of her having to deal with her subordinate sister, Sybil and her headline grabbing behavior. Ah, the middle daughter in her expected setting. Edith’s beauty, though not immediate, is not lacking and builds during the series. However, her amenable disposition does not mean that Edith does not have cards to play and does so demurely, both to viewer satisfaction and disappointment. 

Lady Sybil (Jessica Brown-Findlay). The last of the trio of the Crawley ladies is Sybil. Lady Sybil seeks emancipation from the constraints of aristocracy but does not do so necessarily in direct rebellion to her heritage. That is to say, Sybil does not display categorical contempt for her aristocratic status. Rather, Sybil seems to be driven instinctively to the view that aristocracy's social boundaries are too binding for her more free spirit. She is happy to dispense with its privileges. If she were American and it was the 1990’s you might find her living in Portland. 

Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham. The mother of Lord Grantham, Violet Crawley, is played by easily recognized British actress, Maggie Smith. She exemplifies an older woman of this kind of estate who, though not possessing any direct power, nevertheless wields her own influence, often selfishly but sometimes understandably so. And Violet is not fearful of conflicts though she does not always win them. She solicits the viewer’s disdain but not enough for the audience to lack sympathy at times. 

The Heir, Cousin Matthew. Matthew is the reluctant heir who lives in Manchester. He is Robert’s third cousin and by law the inheritor of Downton Abbey. He is a professional middle-class solicitor (lawyer) which of course is considered a “working man” to aristocrats and is received with a degree of social scorn by the eldest of Lord Crawley’s daughters, Mary, when he arrives to Downton with his mother. Matthew attends to the estate with a working class mentality and immediately fails to appreciate the purpose and function of the staff. He can hang up his own clothes, dress himself and get his own tea. Matthew adroitly matures in his perspective on the matter and later I will describe a scene to highlight this. Actor Dan Stevens succeeds in not only filling the shoes of this character but in helping us identify ourselves where presumptions about aristocracy and prejudices against it should be tempered with the understanding that society often misjudges its virtues and value. 

Isobel Crawley (Penelope Wilton), Matthew’s Mother. Isobel is the widow of a doctor and herself, a trained nurse. She and Matthew live together in Manchester before the change of Downton comes to their lives.  Isobel is a well-rounded woman whose upper-middle class life has not made her lust for greater social status, instead her experiences in the field of healing broken bodies has produced a humble yet ambitious woman whose idealism propels her to good works. Unfortunately, Violet Crawley, Downton’s "mother", sees this other new older woman as invading her matriarchal space. Thus an uneasy relationship between the two is born with Violet as the obvious antagonist. 

The Staff 

Downtown Abbey’s butler, Mr. Carson, is cast ideally with JimCarter. He is not Richie Rich’s butler in the least. The story present a realistic butler with an interesting past. As the butler he superintends the servants. And his style of oversight brings to Downton Abbey a Shepherd’s rod and staff while staying thoughtful to the foibles of both those under him and those over him. Most viewers will be attracted to him as a noble figure.

His female counterpart is Mrs. Hughes, the housekeeper (do not be misled here, housekeeper here means the administrator of the maids and housekeeping responsibilities). Phyllis Logan seems born for this role. She is the staff matron whose humanity is not kept secret while her dignity is never compromised. You would wish to know someone like her in your lifetime and benefit from her virtues.

The role of ex-comrade in arms and now valet to Lord Grantham is Bates, played by Brendan Coyle. Bates was Grantham’s batman in the Boer War and suffered a serious leg injury and now comes to Downton to serve his former military superior, Lord Grantham. Politely but dejectedly, Bates is dismissed from his position because his injury prevents him from fulfilling his duties as valet. However, as he is chauffeured away in a motor car Robert regrets his decision to dismiss him and allows the virtue of compassion to reign in the matter. Thus he chases down the motor car. He instructs Bates to get out, return to the house and resume his position and that nothing more will be said of this. Thus Lord Grantham redeems Bates who rejoins the staff. 

Rob James-Collier is cast as Thomas Barrow, the shrewd and manipulative first footman who is described by the cook, Mrs. Patmore (Lesly Nicol), as a tortured soul in reference to his homosexuality. Actor Thomas Howe is second footman. He is the very earnest William Mason who intends a life of displayed virtue and character. The animosity between first footman Thomas and second footman William is brought out early in the first season.

Enough cannot be said about the remainder of the characters on the staff and praise given to the quality of their development. The acting is superb and the players convincing. The staff is thoroughly enjoyable and the series treats them with significance and interest both regarding their interaction with their aristocratic employers and among themselves. It is no whitewashed or sanitized version of such goings on, as one might expect. On the contrary, we see true value in peer to peer, aristocrat to servant and servant to aristocrat interactions. Lord Grantham is a respectful man to all, family and staff and his household reflects it, if not demands it. 

A Couple Early Notable Scenes 

A Lesson in Respect. As I related earlier, estate heir cousin Matthew is inept regarding his appreciation for the roles of the estate staff.  At one point, Matthew insults his valet (Molesley-Actor Kevin Doyle) by telling him what a silly job he has for a grown man. However, he does so not necessarily in a manner which intends to injure, though it does, but out of ignorance and arrogance, not understanding the purpose and function of such attendants.

Later, after becoming more familiar with Downton and developing a relationship with Lord Grantham, the younger Matthew (somewhere in his early 30’s it appears) voices his objection to having a personal attendant. Lord Grantham crafts his answer by explaining that everyone has their part in the operation of Downton. He emphasizes the point by explaining that their servants are not aristocratic trinkets. Rather, he informs Matthew that they perform real functions and he is failing to appreciate their contributions. Lord Grantham follows this by asking Matthew that, after he releases his valet to a jobless condition does he also plan to relieve the housekeepers, the butler and the kitchen staff too as he dismantles Downton Abbey? It is a poignant moment for the future heir as he stares up with a look of understanding that he has dishonored the service of his valet and the frankly, all of the staff. 

My Take. I see things through spiritual and doctrinal eyes. This is not the intended lesson of the story, though there is a lesson of respect. However, I cannot help but relate this to our service to Christ as we serve others. Our Lord was quite serious when he taught that even giving a cup of water to those who thirst will be rewarded. Every single person in the body of Christ has a calling. They have a part of Heaven’s Estate whether it be giving a glass of water or overseeing other servants. And it is to the good pleasure of our Lord that this is so. There is no place for a Matthew in God’s Kingdom and fortunately Matthew matured in understanding the value of the least to the greatest. They are all necessary and all warrant appreciation and reward. 

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary.  In a scene where the eldest daughter is lamenting to her father that she should rightfully inherit Downton and that it is unfair that the law does not allow this and it is unconscionable that this third cousin will inherit the estate, Lord Grantham gives an explanation that represents concepts and thinking which is greatly absent in the world today. He tells his daughter that the estate is not the work of his hands. Rather, he inherited it himself. Lord Grantham understands it is bigger than him; it is an institution. Thus, he further relates that he is its abbot, its caretaker. If he were its owner, if it were the product of his own efforts, he could and would give it immediately to Mary, his oldest daughter. But it is not and as well, that to allow Downton to be split apart for the sake of each child or one child grabbing what they may from it and departing to a life of leisure is to not give but to destroy. Sadly, poor Mary refuses to have her mental tumor enucleated.

Again, with my eyes I think of the Church of God. It is not ours, we are its caretakers. It is not something with which to enrich ourselves but to insure its continuation by way of sound and noble principles which, fortunately for us, are principles about which we are not left guessing. This is why personality driven instead of principle driven forms of the church along with their novel theologies are anti-institutional, they are anti-estate and anti-intentional with regard to what God wants for his church. 

The Staff and their Sub-Class. Interestingly you might think other than the butler and housekeeper the staff is all equal. Not so. There is a class structure even among the servants and they are not shy or ashamed of enjoying its privileges. The major staff are served their three meals a day by their own attendants who are on the lowest rung of the ladder. Only certain staff sits at a communal table to enjoy the service of this lowest class at their meals.Yet, they know better than to look down upon those who even serve the servants. What a lesson for us all. 

Final Words 

This is not an important issue, our entertainment. But it is a real part of our lives. And I have found Downton Abbey to be a worthwhile television production. It has its weaknesses when examined in detail but all stories do because fiction requires a suspension of reality to one degree or another. As well, there are a few scenes I believe unnecessary and gratuitous such as the homosexual kissing of a footman (Thomas) with a Duke early on in the series (this is not the only homosexual issue to rise in the program, there is a second). It certainly is not for children.

However, the script and content are far more satisfying than most productions. The English accents are probably not accurate with regard to the time period but they permit Americans a pleasant experience seeing that subtitles are not needed for strained cockney accents.

There is an admitted regular absence of the church in the series which would normally be part of aristocracy's life during this period. Though its presence is mild there is no habitual evocation of divine values in the dialog by the characters. It seems somewhat out of place but is not surprising coming from writers living in a very secular British society these days.

The series is in its third season which has just begun. From what I described, the early part of the first season, there is much change coming and challenges to everyone. WWI will insert itself along with financial difficulties. So it is not merely a story of continuity of all things but a story of change. As Mr. Carson hints in the first seasons, “Life alters you”. This will be thematic throughout the series.

It must be remembered that it is entertainment and that is all. People who have lives which are empty from divine values and particularly a relationship with the Lord, might find themselves too pleased with such a program as they would any form of escapism. Nothing should become a substitute for our time and walk with the Lord and certainly not entertainment. But, as time permits and if you believe you are able to enjoy this form of story telling, Downton Abbey, I believe, communicates a fictional narrative in a way that qualifies as appropriate and satisfying for many Christians.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Acts 8: 9-24: Was Simon the Sorcerer Really Saved?


*(Edited from the original.)
*(Second edit Sept/Oct 2015 - note to readers. I am in the slow process of editing all of the original articles with the most read to the least, in that order. Most of these will be grammatical and format issues. Thank you for your patience.)

If you have read the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible, commonly referred to “the book of Acts” or just “Acts” you will have encountered the recollection of an event involving a man named Simon (not the Apostle Peter) who is described as being a sorcerer; that is, he involved himself in divination or soliciting magical powers, presumably from demonic sources but which is ascribed by others in Samaria as powers from God.  The story informs us that this sorcerer, Simon,  came to believe on Christ, in other words he was saved. But not long after this Simon, in observing the phenomenon of Peter being able to lay hands on believers and give them the Holy Spirit, offered to pay Peter for this ability so that he, too, may give the Holy Spirit to others.

In the text below you will learn of Peter’s response which was one of indignation, to say the least. Mainly I want you to consider whether Simon the sorcerer had really been saved. Some, many maybe, have asserted that Simon the sorcerer not only was not saved but could not have been saved. This conclusion is greatly based on his behavior in this singular event, though, again, he is recorded as having believed and been baptized. Here is the story and afterward I will provide an examination of the matter. It comes from Acts 8:9-24 (ESV):
But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” 24 And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”
The Very First Thing You Must Accept from the Text

The text itself, under the inspiration of God, makes a claim that is not one which is qualified either directly or indirectly by contextual suggestion (by contextual suggestion I am referring to the fact that this the context does not suggest the declaration of Simon's faith is merely describing what other men believed to be true though it may not be.) Rather, it is revealing what God knew to be true, that Simon believed and not only believed but was baptized and then continued steadfastly with Phillip, which is to say he became a disciple. It is of grave importance that regardless of what you see transpire before you eyes you do not take your focus off of or attempt to disqualify the claim of the text, that Simon believed. You might be startled by what occurred but your being startled does not afford you the opportunity to contradict God’s revelation.

A second note from the text which is also important is how Simon is attached to others who believed. Look at verses 12 -13 again: 
12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed
Notice something? Right, Simon’s belief is held as being synonymous with the other Samarian men and women who “believed” and “were baptized”. He is included among this group. It is not merely the personal claim of Simon but the claim of God via the inspired gospel writer, Luke the physician. So this is not a record of Simon’s claim of himself but a Scriptural claim of Simon's faith and of course anyone else in the text who was part of the Samarian men and women who believed and were baptized.

When Theology Trumps Exegesis

There is an axiom, that our theology should substantially be a derivative of our exegesis and not our exegesis from our theology. Unfortunately for some, a school of theology will be preserved regardless of how clear a text may be which confronts weaknesses of their identified theology. And the Augustinian-Reformed-Calvinist (ARC) school(s) of theology will normally fall into this category on this occasion, most notably when the Scriptures conflict with their proprietary TULIP doctrines. 

Most of their Teachers will claim that Simon was not saved, that he could not have really believed or that he made false profession. However, that does damage to the nature of the text which is not describing Simon’s declaration of faith as viewed before men, that is,  how men would judge him. On the contrary, the context is that of the divine record of his salvation. In other words we are being told what God knew and knows and it is being recorded for us; that Simon not only believed but was baptized and proskarterōn (προσκαρτερῶν) continued steadfastly with Simon. So Simon not only believed and was baptized but became a disciple.

However, for many people, because they hold to certain expectation regarding how a Christian must act instead of how they should act as a believer, but at times may not either in one instance or for a prolonged period, they are confounded by what appears to be a Christian acting what some might even describe as at least outrageously sinful, if not possibly blasphemous. How can that be, some ask? 

I want to illustrate the typical (but not necessarily universal, I hold no such prejudice) mind-set of this sect of believers (The Augustinian-Reformed-Calvinist) with three illustrations. The first is a look at Neo-Calvinist John Piper’s view, and then a quote from an essay at a Reformed website Reformed Theology and the last is the musings of a group at what is a discussion forum named, The Puritan Board. You will be rather amazed at the double-speak and willingness to redefine words in the text or insert (eisegete-read into a text) concepts into the text which are not present in order to make the Bible say what is needed to be said in order to reflect theological conclusions (errant, in my view) which come from this system.

John Piper on Simon the Sorcerer. I will begin with a rather exegetically and theologically challenged, Neo-Calvinist Bible Teacher in the world of Calvinist, Neo-Calvinist, Evangelical and some allegedly Fundamentalist circles, namely JohnPiper. He states about Simon’s faith:
First, there is a "faith," there is a "believing," that does not save, even though it rises in the presence of true preaching and true miracles.
And ends this small section with this conclusion which is basically a repeat of what he said to begin with:
And yet Luke says in verse 13a, "Even Simon himself believed." The point I draw out of this is that there is a "faith" or a "believing" that does not save, even though it rises in the presence of true preaching and true miracles.
Response to Piper’s Assertion. John Piper, in his typically eisegetical fashion does two things here. 

1. He invents an imaginary Biblical double-meaning or double-level to the words faith or believe as if there are two meanings to the words. In the first magic trick (pun intended) Piper asserts that we can simply accept that the Bible means for us to understand, when we encounter the claim that someone believed the gospel, that it is quite possible that he or she did not actually believe and was not really saved even though you will never, ever at any time or at any place ever find the Word of God referring to someone believing the gospel but not really believing or believing but not being saved. As Piper describes it, he wants you to accept idea that believing the gospel can refer to it as rising “in the presence of true preaching and true miracles” but not having a resulting salvation. 

However, this exists no where in the Bible as can be properly interpreted. Piper simply makes this up on the spot. Why? As stated earlier, for some, theology comes before exegesis and here the text defies John Piper’s Calvinism which cannot tolerate believers acting in such a manner and still being referred to as believers.

2. Piper ignores the context which treats Simon’s faith as identical to the faith of the Samarian men and women who believed and were baptized. It is rather prima facie here; Simon is grouped with and treated equally, not separately, to other believers whose faith is affirmed, not questioned. 

Reformation Theology’s Article on Simon the Sorcerer. Now onto a second ARC comment. This comes from Reformationtheology.com and the authors cited in this work are:

·  Rev. John Samson
·  Rev. David Thommen (URC)
·  John Hendryx
·  Nathan Pitchford
But consider how evilly we blaspheme Christ when we reject his works in our behalf and cling instead to our own. This wickedness comes from failing to see the purity of the love of Christ, and thinking that his work of redemption was done because he needed something from us, and that it was therefore not purest love alone that motivated him.
How then is it that some will try to satisfy God by their own works, and some (more unthinkable yet!) will think that they may buy his favor with money? This spirit of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:9-23) is still alive today. There are still many who pay their filthy money to the devil-hordes swarming in the monastic orders of Rome, and in exchange receive a certificate assuring them that they or their departed loved ones will receive a share in the merits of all the monks' supererogatory works, blasphemous masses, fruitless and babbling prayers, and so on.
Response to Reformation Theology’s Assertion. It is of amazement to me that the text is simply misconstrued on the whole as if all it exists for is as a springboard to produce a commentary which is not based on the genuine order of the elements of the text. The text appears to be a medium, not for interpreting Scripture and determining what God is revealing to us but a medium for the expressing of ARC theology which is going to be forced upon the text thus, its treatment and ultimate interpretations.

Look at their claim. They interpret the attempt of Simon to purchase the Holy Spirit as Simon trying to buy off God to be saved! An elementary school student can understand that though Simon erred it was not in the context of trying to purchase salvation, rather it was a post-salvational offense of arrogance in trying to pay the Apostle Peter for the ability to lay hands on others and give them the Holy Spirit.

Remember, when someone is devoted to their theology before they are to exegesis they will encounter the Bible with expectations which have to be met. And sometimes they will engage in rather obvious mistakes that, while they are waxing eloquently and piously to the approbation of their peer-approving mutual admiration society because it validates their theology, to others it comes across as a foolish and often sanctimonious mess and this is precisely what we have here with regard to the treatment of the text. Frankly, it is an embarrassing read and claim of the text by allegedly insightful Reformed Teachers.

The Puritan Board’s Thread on Simon the Sorcerer. Now to something more immediate, the refinement of the above error in a contemporary conversation found at The Puritan Board. Here is an excerpt from a few board participants at a thread created to discuss the matter of Simon and sorcerer and whether or not he was saved or really believed (there was one poster who affirmed Simon’s conversion, satisfyingly so,  but you will notice few ARC believers enjoy discussing this topic because they are unable to reconcile it with their flawed theology). A poster named Contra_Mundum, who says in his bio he is Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan, ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI, states:
He had "faith," just not "saving faith."
Peter's witness is an infallible interpreter of the earlier testimony, clarifying the sort of faith he had.
John 2:23-25
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man. 
Response to this Post and Similar Ones at the Puritan Board. There are two things this commentator does, one of which was done by John Piper earlier but then apples don’t fall far from their trees so this is not surprising (this is not to say he got it directly from Piper, but Piper, is a son of the ARC views as this student is).

1. He claims that there is such thing as faith that does not save. Notice what he asserts, that Simon has faith, just not saving faith. Have you read the Bible much, particularly the New Testament? Do you see what is missing? What is absent is the qualifier that this Pastor now wishes to insert into God’s Word which is not only to refer to faith in Christ as just that, faith, but it has to be “saving faith”.

Why, pray tell, do the author’s of the New Testament fail miserably at communicating to us that there are two kinds of faith; a faith that does not save and one which does? Why? Because there is no such dichotomy, that is why.

Faith in the promise of the gospel - that is, to believe or trust the gospel to be true - is faith. To not do this is not called faith; it is called no faith or not having faith. Faith in the gospel always assumes its salvific property. The Bible always presents faith as one thing, that which saves. Again, there is no place at any time in the Bible when someone is stated to have placed faith in the Word of God or said to have believed in which it was anything less than saving faith because that is precisely what faith does, it saves, otherwise whatever you are doing in your mind is not faith if it does not result in your salvation with respect to the gospel.

And that is the nature of faith; it either is or is not. Faith that does not save is called unbelief or no faith. There are not three levels such as:
  •        no faith 
  •        faith that does not save 
  •        faith that saves
This is no where in the Bible. This has been invented to accommodate Augustine’s and even more so Calvin’s errant doctrine of perseverance.

2. He attempts to use another, unrelated and misinterpreted, passage to explain the Acts passage. It is true there can be a theological use of other passages in our hermeneutic but our interpretation of the passage in question must be accurately exegeted before we even consider other passages and the commenter has failed this threshold. And so, as to the use of other passages, they too must be accurately exegeted and be applicable if used and here he fails as well since he misinterprets the passage and it has no bearing in the first place.

In the portion of Scripture from John which the poster cites, we easily find that it speaks about new converts that Christ did not trust. It says nothing about them not being saved or where it says they “believed” they were not really saved or born again and that this is why Christ did not trust himself to them. On the contrary, it claims that they believed and we are not given license to reject this testimony of Scripture. What it does say further, however, is that Christ also knew what was in man and that he took the time to apply some wisdom and not trust himself to this group.

The passage does not explain the reasoning of Christ as to why he did not trust the collective but to assert it is because the text deceives us and that the no one in the group described as having believed really did not believe, thus were not really converts, is simply to ignore its claims. Rather, it is more likely that Christ, knowing new converts are normally unstable and these ones would probably face the onslaught of their Jewish friends and religious leaders and be subject to the high pressured context of Christ’s ministry at that time and its heavy-handed opposition, may have resulted in these spiritual infants capitulating to the intimidation of the unbelieving Jews to either be afraid to properly attend to the protection of Christ or even worse, give in to some kind of participation in his assault.

Look at the Apostle Peter, an Apostle and believer who had some growth. He, himself, denied Christ under pressure and so it stands to reason these new converts probably could not be trusted with Christ’s immediate well being seeing the Pharisees hated him so and would probably seek to socially or financially injure these new Jewish converts to Christ.

*(As a side note, brothers in the Lord or not, sanctimony can be nauseating and should be identified as it not only infects but creates strains of diseases in the body of Christ which injure entire lives of believers. And at The Puritan Board, if you have never read it you ought to. While no doubt it is a bed of sanctimony and self-righteousness, I will concede among the mess one will find right thoughts on some matters but it never justifies or somehow balances the sickness of self-righteousness as an element of grace and if you need to understand what it is, go here and read a while and you will see a group of people very willing, consistently, to judge the salvation of others as if God has permitted us to do this and it will be based, quite systematically, on a comparison to themselves and their faithfulness with a sprinkle of out of context Bible passages. Once you build up an immunity to the sanctimony, at times it can be a bit entertaining, i.e. amusing, but I wouldn’t park there too long lest you forget its true offense to the truth and practical damage to Christians as they are modeled and taught this errant way of Christian thinking and living).

What about the Offer to Buy the Holy Spirit?

The first thing you should notice was that if Simon was as deceitful as claimed, that he only wished to return to his former social status enhanced by what Christianity could offer, you have a problem with the fact that while Simon steadfastly continued with Phillip and while Phillip was constantly exercising signs and miracles, it says only of Simon that he was “amazed”. While one cannot argue from silence that this proves Simon had pure intentions only in being amazed, what it does do is act contradictory toward the claim that Simon was just a carnal man professing faith so he could obtain the virtues of Christianity for his magic business because in all of this he does not solicit to buy or gain such abilities from Phillip.

Now, Peter and John come along and Simon witnesses them giving the Holy Spirit via their apostolic gifting and Simon wishes to do this as well. The text does not reveal why this laying on of hands and giving the Holy Spirit was of more interest than the signs and wonders by Phillip, but it does speak to something else, that Simon did not seek this for any magical powers per se, that is, to promote himself as a magician and further his former career. Instead, it only shows him interested in becoming a vehicle of the giving of the Holy Spirit. It is rather removed from assertions and charges by John Piper who completely ignores the text’s properties when he says:
“So when Philip came to town and not only preached but performed signs by healing people and casting out demons (Acts 8:7), Simon knew the power was real, and that it was stronger than his power. So he was ready to switch sides. He even tried to buy the power with money because he wanted it so badly (v. 18).”
No John, no where in the text does it claim Simon wanted the power to perform signs, it says he wanted the ability to lay hands on people and give them the Holy Spirit! I often have warned people about John Piper, not because he is not sincere but because he simply is an awful reader and interpreter of Bible texts on too many occasions. He appears preoccupied with his theological presuppositions and novel ideas which blind him to texts and results in him making assertions about Biblical texts which a novice would recognize are not present. It is rather amazing, the level of acceptance and tolerance he gets from so many Evangelicals but worse, some alleged Fundamentalists who, while having their shortcomings over the years, have been noted for refusing such exegetical flamboyancy in their better circles.

The Offer of Money and Spiritual Immaturity. The offer of money by Simon was frankly, quite normal, with regard to the historical/social context of the event. He understood the giving of the Holy Spirit as a commodity. What he did not understand was that it was a free commodity and that it was only given by God, at that time, through assigned persons. It was a divine commodity with a divine protocol. And this it is very typical of a new, adult believer, to erroneously import into their new faith the baggage of errant human viewpoint and attempt to superimpose it onto the Christian way of life. Simon had quite a bit yet to learn.

What clearly took control of Simon was not a lack of conversion but spiritual immaturity and ignorance which ignited human arrogance. He, in fact, is an outstanding example many of the kinds of things that immature or new believers do in the spiritual diapers stage; they mix their former thinking with their new thinking because they have not had time to be transformed by the renewing of their mind. You have seen it and I have seen it and likely we have all done it and what Simon did was just that, act in immature spiritual ignorance resulting in arrogance toward the protocols of God. 

Peter’s Rebuke to Simon

If nothing so far is of help to you in understanding that Simon is a believer, this final portion of the event ought to aid your comprehension of one thing, that if he is not genuinely a believer but somehow magically “believed but was not saved” as it may happen in World Bizarro of Theological Claims it ought to be of some additional weight that such a foolish charge is unsupported by Peter’s rebuke.

Peter’s Rebuke. Peter does not rebuke Simon as an unbeliever rather, with the view that as a believer, Simon has sinfully attempted to gain something and and for which God has not assigned him. In verse 21 Peter emphatically states, You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God”.

What lot? The word lot refers to a part of something which is, in fact, confirmed by the antecedent use of the words lot and part to describe that of which Simon has no part. And what is this lot of which Simon has no part? Clearly the text tells us, that the part or lot is the apostolic work of the laying on of hands and the giving of the Holy Spirit and not salvation.

The Arrogance of Spiritual Childhood. Remember, Simon was not trying to buy salvation as the Reformation Theology article asserted in rather amazingly bad fashion. He was trying to purchase an ability, an apostolic ability. Was it sinful? Yes. Was it the sin of a spiritual child? Yes. But it still warranted Peter's rebuke. Why? Because arrogance, whether the arrogance of a spiritual child or adult, is just that, arrogance and is not an acceptable way of thinking for the Christian way of life. Simon was at the initial stages of discipleship and of his mind being transformed when he ran into a major misconception and Peter did just what the Bible instructs spiritual leaders and Teachers to do, rebuke and correct.

The Remedy of Christian Arrogance. Notice the remedy Peter gives, not that Simon is to go believe and be saved rather, that he repent of this wickedness”. Peter’s instruction is not that to the unbelieving/unregenerate who must be directed to the gospel rather, it was to a believer in the midst of sin, which is the call to repent of that sin. It is highly consistent with 1 John 1:9 in which we confess our sins as we continue in our walk with the Lord. Peter did not call on Simon to believe the gospel because it is understood his problem was not one of failing to have been converted, instead, it was one of failing to understand the protocols of God for apostolic spiritual gifting (and all spiritual gifting) and allowing human arrogance to lead him about in his immaturity.

Conclusion

The overwhelming demand of the text is that we accept it as it is stated, that God is declaring by record, through Luke, that Simon believed which is always treated in Scripture as resulting in regeneration and having eternal life. The Word of God never refers to someone believing the gospel and not being saved, ever. It is of supreme arrogant to impose upon “believe” the idea that one can believe the gospel but not be saved.

Academic Knowledge is not Equated with Belief. Remember this, knowing what others believe is not belief. While it might be true that someone can recite, academically, what the gospel says the Bible never considers this context as any form of belief, ever. The words believe, trust or faith when used in context of a person believing the gospel, exercising faith in the gospel or trusting the truth of the gospel is exclusively and absolute one which results in regeneration, eternal life and all of the assets of our union with Christ which are perfectly and endlessly sustained by the Godhead. In other words, belief in the gospel always performs its saving objective and there is no such thing as another kind of faith in the gospel for humanity which is taught in God's Word.

But that aside, as painful as it is to lay it aside since it is the demand we must meet, I will entertain the Reformed assertion of Augustine’s rather self-righteous children that Simon could not be saved because of the nature of his sin. To that I would and do say, learn more of yourselves. The more you learn of yourselves and the more honest you are with yourselves the more you will understand just why you and Simon are no different and why your salvation is not based on looking at your performance as the certainty that you are saved rather, that it is based on and in the integrity of God. This is because we will and do fail on tremendous scales whether we know it or not. Save the sanctimony for books and plays, it has no place in the Christian life.

But more so, look at the text. It says Simon believed, he sinned, and was rebuked and corrected by the Apostle Peter whose correction was not to assert Simon was not saved but that he needed to repent of that sin. In fact, Peter tells Simon what he sees, not an unsaved man but someone caught up in a sin and describes that sin. The remedy is not to go get saved because he already is saved but to repent of this sin. One does not repent of one sin to be saved but they do repent of a sin if they are a believer in order to return to fellowship and have their heart “right with God”. But maybe you know something the Apostle Peter did not at that moment when he was face to face with Simon. You can take that up with him when you see him in eternity.