I'll have to say that offhand, I'm not sure. I am not comfortable with the use of Isaiah 59:2 as a basis for proof that forgiven sins are the point of being saved; the flowery language of the prophets does not lend well to literal interpretation. And the point is, we sin as Christians as well; we do not fall from grace because we make mistakes. We are saved despite our sinful nature, not because we conquer it.
My point for Isaiah 59:2 is just what the passage says. If it is true that sins separate one from God - which the passage says - then, if those sins were removed, one would be united with God. Let's take the reasoning to Acts 2. The Jews were charged with killing Jesus - God's Son, and their Lord and Christ. Being convicted of sin, the Jews ask what they should do. Then, they are told what to do to have their sins taken away. Three thousand obey. Follow the context from verse 41-47. Note especially verse 47. The Lord added the saved to His church daily. Who are the saved in this context? Wouldn't it be those who had their sins taken away by obeying what they were told? If not, what other options are presented in the text? Are you getting a feel for where I'm coming from?
As for a Christian falling from grace, it's another topic. It's dealt with in Acts 8:13,18-24 and other passages. If you don't mind, and hopefully you won't, I really would like for us to stay focused on Acts 2 as much as possible and see what we can agree upon based on that text.
I used to believe as a teenager that there was a "salvation line". When I committed even the slightest sin, I moved below it, and when I prayed for forgiveness I moved back above it. As you might expect, I saw my life as a yo-yo, moving from state to state. If God came when I was asleep, my very salvation rested on whether or not I had impure thoughts after my nightly prayer! (Which is difficult for a hormonal teenage male.) I no longer believe this - God's grace covers all sins, and the only way I can "fall" is to reject God by turning from him or reveling in a sinful life.
I suspect you're talking about sin in life of a Christian, versus a person initially coming to Christ to be cleansed from their sin. The latter is under consideration in Acts 2, and I would really like to stay on topic.
So perhaps salvation is more, or separate, from the forgiveness of sins. Which begs the question "why do we need forgiveness then?" This would require some further study on my part.
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in the text of Acts 2 that leads me to suspect that salvation is a separate concept that the forgiveness of sins. Once again, folks were told what to do to have their sins taken away in verse 38. Three thousand obeyed. Why do you think they wouldn't be saved if their sins were taken away? Verse 47 notes that the saved were added to the church by the Lord daily. Therefore, the flow of thought is those who obeyed the instructions given in verse 38 had their sins taken away and were saved and added to the church by the Lord. Follow my reasoning?
I understand that I'm going off-topic here. I'm also speaking off the top of my head, this stuff will need some further study.
The biggest difference between the jailer and the 3,000? The latter had already received the Gospel message, the former had not. Which perhaps explains the difference in their questions; the latter already knew the answer.
Granted. Those in Acts 2 had already heard the gospel preached (the good news of salvation through Jesus). Therefore, it was not necessary to tell them to believe per se, because their question in verse 37 revealed they believed the message they heard, plus the inspired account tells us they were convicted in their hearts of their sin. And, the case with the jailer is different. He hadn't heard the gospel message when he inquired about salvation. Therefore, he was told right up front he would have to "believe" in the Lord. Which takes me back to Acts 2, and prompts the question again, "Who believed in the Lord, the 3,000 who obeyed in Acts 2:41, or the Jews that didn't?" I don't intend to sound like a broken record, but really think there's some basic reasoning here we shouldn't overlook.
The question is, who is the forgiveness for? Is it so God can look on them, or is it so that they can feel absolved of what they did to Christ? Perhaps they needed this gesture to move forward as new men in Christ, assured that their status as enemies was fully changed (and that, according to the customs of the time, they were fully accepting the new covenant). The same in the passage JDIBe referred to with Paul; he had been active in the persecution of Christians and needed the forgiveness for himself and for those he had persecuted.
Okay, let's see how we can answer this from the text in Acts 2. The Jews were charged with killing Jesus in vs. 23 and were convicted of this sin in vs. 37. And, in the following verse (38) the Holy Spirit tells them what to do to have their sins taken away. Let's consider the questions you raise. What was the forgiveness for? Was it so they could feel absolved, without God really forgiving the sin? Let's think ... they were charged with killing Jesus. Would it really do them any good to feel absolved of His murder, while still being guilty before God and condemned? If so, the 3,000 obeyed, felt good about killing Jesus, but were still condemned before God. Then, following the text, they thought they were serving God, and imagined themselves among the saved who were added to the Lord's church in vs. 47. However, all the while, they were still in their sins and condemned. Is that really the story that unfolds before us in Acts 2? Is that what you really see there? I sure don't. I see Jews who were genuinely, sincerely convicted of sin in their ives, and were told what to do to have those sins taken away (or forgiven). They obeyed what they were told to do, received the blessings, and the story ends on a postive note: they were saved and added to the church by the Lord. In reflection, they could look back upon their wrongdoing with sorrow for their actions, but could rejoice that God by His grace had forgiven them.
In Acts 22:16, Ananias, whom Jesus sent, came to Saul and told him what to do to have his sins washed away. Saul obeyed, and his sins were washed away. However, that didn't erase the memories in his own mind of his consent to Stephen's stoning and other acts of violence against Christians. Paul later reflected upon that period of his life in passages such as 1 Cor. 15:9. However, he didn't let it beat him down or hinder his service to God. If anything, it made him appreciate God's grace that much more (note the point made in 1 Cor. 15:10).
I would agree about those outside the 3,000 who did not get baptized. Were they truly changed if they would not be obedient?
Good. Something to build on. The command was given in Acts 2:38 - repent and be baptized. Three thousand "gladly received" and obeyed it. Therefore, they received the blessings. The other Jews didn't obey, which means they didn't receive the blessings.
Now, let's focus on Acts 2:38. The command/direct statement is given: repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins." Therefore, when can one expect/claim the blessings? Before, or after obedience is rendered? Is there any indication in this text the remission of sins occurred to some or all the 3,000
before they obeyed? Or, does the flow of thought lead us to conclude they obeyed and
afterward received the blessings promised?
One interesting thing about the conversions in Acts is that they seem to be different based on the situation. We've spoken about three of them above. Look at another; Acts 10, the conversion of Cornelious. In this case, alone in scripture, the holy spirit comes upon Cornelious BEFORE his baptism (apollos1 had a good thread on this). In this case, it was done to demonstrate to the Jewish believers that Gentiles were to be accepted into their number.
For me, these differences make me believe that achieving salvation is something that God gives at His own time and we should not try to pin down an exact time when it happens. I do not believe in this "new age Christianity" stuff where you just ask God into your heart and you're saved. Perhaps that IS the point at which you are first saved; but an encounter with God should be a life-changing event, and if a change is not evident in your life then perhaps the change never happened. Obedience and a desire to be free of sin are a characteristic of the devoted Christian; but they are not what save us. In the end, it is God's grace that saves us, and that alone.
Agreed. The conversions in Acts are different. The same is true for 4 different accounts of Jesus' birth, life, teachings, works, death, burial, resurrection, and final appearances before His ascension. By accepting all the accounts ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" - 2 Tim. 3:16a), we can determine the truth without omitting any relevant information. Now, going back to the conversions, the account in Acts 2 doesn't even mention faith or belief once. Why not? You can't please God without faith per Heb. 11:6. I believe it is necessarily inferred in Acts 2. The Jews heard the message, were convicted in their hearts of their sin, and asked what they needed to do. That infers/implies they accepted the message, that is they believed that Jesus was both Lord and Christ as declared in vs. 36. Then, repentance and baptism are commanded in vs. 38. Acts 8:12 gives us a different glimpse of the conversion of the Samaritans: when they believed they were baptized. Acts 8:35-39 gives us another glimpse/snapshot: the conversion of the enunuch from Ethiopia. He heard the gospel and desired to be baptized. Philip ensured he (the eunuch) believed, and based on the eunuch's confession, Philip baptized him (the eunuch). Other conversions follow. Each account is inspired, and must be accepted as truth (just like the gospel accounts of Jesus' life). It's not a pick and choose process, but rather a willingness to accept all that God's word says about being converted to Jesus.
I still think there's more concrete evidence about salvation that we can agree upon from the Scriptures. Sticking with Acts 2, and repeating myself, when could one expect to receive the blessings promised in Acts 2:38, before or after the commands were obeyed? As for the "new age" example you give about asking Jesus into your heart and you're saved, where does that fit into the teaching of Acts 2? You know, we both can read about the 3,000 in verse 41, but I simply can't find any indication of any who asked Jesus to come into their heart while not obeying the commands given in vs. 38 who received the blessings promised anyway. If it's there, I'm missing it and need some help to see how/where that point is being made. But, I suspect we both know the concept is not there. Rather, I believe the "message" is loud and clear: the terms were given, and those who obeyed them were entitled to the blessings after they obeyed. Simple as that. Make any sense?
God's grace is extended to all (Titus 2:11). However, all will not be saved (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23). Therefore, I really don't quite see the basis for saying salvation is by grace alone. If by salvation alone, then everyone should be saved. But, they will not be. Of necessity, other factors must also be involved (i.e., Hebrews 11:6; 5:9).
