Was Simon Magus a born again believer?

Anchor said:
Where in the world do you get that "the Bible doesn't say either way?"  If Scripture here is not communicating the conversion of Simon Magus it can hardly be trusted to communicate anything authoritatively.
Click to expand...

It also says demons believe, but they are certainly not saved.  The Scripture is unclear as to whether or not Simon's faith was unto salvation or if it was the kind of faith that James says is dead, i.e., faith not accompanied by good works which does not save. Treating the conferring of the Spirit as though it were a magic trick that he could buy from the Apostles hardly qualifies as the kind of works that would indicate someone had saving faith.
And as to your last statement, you seem to be making it a bigger deal than it really is.  The Bible's credibility is not built on so shaky a foundation as to be dependent on the correct interpretation of one passage, especially a passage that only communicates a minor historical detail.
 
I appreciate the give and take thus far.  The commentators I've read are almost unanimous in declaring Simon a heretic.  I think much of that speculation/declaration is based on the extra-biblical tales of his re-entry into magic, and alleged propagation of gnosticism.  Without getting verbose, I tend to agree with Anchor, that the plain meaning of Scripture should lead us to accept that pisteo was similar to those that were mentioned in the prior verses.

I'll add one item of discussion.  The "gall of bitterness" phrase (v23) is alluded to for proof that he was lost.  The term hearkens to Deut 29:18 in reference to the children of Israel who died in the wilderness, but I don't think that's a conclusive verse to make a final determination, unless one is dogmatic that all those Israelites died in unbelief.  I think the "gall of bitterness" phrase is used in the similar context that Anchor infers, which is a warning against serious sin in the life of the Christian.  Hebrews 6:4 speaks of those who have tasted the gift and fallen away (obviously a hypothetical  for us who adhere to eternal security), and it does so in order to be a stearn warning to avoid apostacy (and perservere).  The same idea about avoiding unbelief and departing the faith is expressed in Hebrews 3:12.

This text is one of those defining passages that deal with the Lordship controversy.  Is a person who is saved expected to immediately be in conformity with some preconceived notion of Christian behavior(s).  When I first got saved I didn't know what the Trinity was, at least with any clarity and precision.  I thought that Jesus was a created being, not having been pre-existent prior to the incarnation.  In such cases, the Holy Spirit instructed me through preaching/teaching and I accepted the truth of such orthodoxy.  That sort of teachability demonstrates to the watching Christian community realistic change by the grace of God.  In Simon's case, there is some evidence that he was unteachable, as when Peter told him to repent, but Simon seemed to be more concerned with a more superficial sort of repentance.  If you take into account the extrabiblical sources about his ongoing obstinance in heresy, it would appear by the judging of fruit that he was not saved.  But looking simply at the text, accepting it for what it seems to plainly say, Simon was rebuked for a heinous sin, but he did "believe".  Many folk don't come around real quick in the Christian realm of sanctification.  Maybe that was Simon.
 
wheatpenny said:
It also says demons believe, but they are certainly not saved.  The Scripture is unclear as to whether or not Simon's faith was unto salvation or if it was the kind of faith that James says is dead, i.e., faith not accompanied by good works which does not save. Treating the conferring of the Spirit as though it were a magic trick that he could buy from the Apostles hardly qualifies as the kind of works that would indicate someone had saving faith.
And as to your last statement, you seem to be making it a bigger deal than it really is.  The Bible's credibility is not built on so shaky a foundation as to be dependent on the correct interpretation of one passage, especially a passage that only communicates a minor historical detail.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. An instructional epistle and a historical narrative. 

If the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense.  Any Joe average with a modicum of reading comprehension would read through this chapter (Acts 8) and conclude that a significant Samaritan representation, the Ethiopian eunuch, and Simon all were converted because that is what the text says--they "believed" and were "baptized."  There is no reading into that.

What you are surmising is that the Holy Spirit inspired the historian, Luke, to record in a historical narrative and as Divine revelation (i.e., perfect truth) that the Samaritans actually believed, the eunuch actually believed, and Simon didn't believe, but chose to direct Luke to utilize the term "believed" without clarification though communicating that he actually didn't believe.  OK, that makes sense.

I'm going to go one better.  I think that the Samaritans actually believed, Simon didn't, and the eunuch didn't either since we have no further Scripture record of him doing anything at all spiritual after he gets out of the water except rejoice in the false assurance that Philip had obviously provided him.  I mean, at least Simon "continued with Philip...."  I'm  liking it, and I haven't done much more textual gymnastics than what you are purporting with Simon.

It's inspired history.  If Luke says he believed, he believed.
 
Anchor said:
Bob H said:
Anchor said:
Both were believers;
Click to expand...

I just can't go along with that....................specially Balaam
Click to expand...
"And he took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor hath said, and the man whose eyes are open hath said: He hath said, which heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth....Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city." Num. 24:15-20

What about Balaam's statements (such as the one above) gives any indication other than that Balaam was a believer?

Believers can and do do atrocious things.  Scripture makes that clear.  That doesn't vindicate their actions, and Scripture in most places records that correction, or at least recognizes their error.  But it doesn't change the fact that they are believers, and that their record in Scripture is for "doctrine,...reproof...correction, and...instruction in righteousness...."
Click to expand...


I can see the case made for Simon  for the scripture does indicate it's possibility. I'm not really dogmatic about it. But for Balaam I just don't see it. But that's just me  :)


2 PETER 2
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of BALAAM the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
JUDE 1
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of BALAAM for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
REVELATION 2
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of BALAAM, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.


I will say this about Balaam, along with Melchizedek they are the two most mysterious men in the Bible.

 
wheatpenny said:
  The Scripture is unclear as to whether or not Simon's faith was unto salvation or if it was the kind of faith that James says is dead
Click to expand...


:) :) And thus why Al brought up the question.


 
[quote author=Anchor]
What you are surmising is that the Holy Spirit inspired the historian, Luke, to record in a historical narrative and as Divine revelation (i.e., perfect truth) that the Samaritans actually believed, the eunuch actually believed, and Simon didn't believe, but chose to direct Luke to utilize the term "believed" without clarification though communicating that he actually didn't believe.  OK, that makes sense.
[/quote]

I think this agrees with my hermeneutical grid in the most salient way.  It seems to me that to assume Simon really didn't believe unto salvation impugns the integrity of Scriptures.  It implies that though the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures, that Luke's imperfect and erroneous judgment/assessment of the spiritual state of Simon was written as fact, when in reality such an assessment was not what the Holy Spirit knew to be true.  In other words, such a gridwork of interpretation would appear to pit the human author's use of words against what the Holy Spirit actually knew to be the case about the state of Simon's soul.  Why would Holy Writ use such trickeration?  It is easier for me to understand, as Anchor pointed out, that the plain sense makes the most sense, without jumping through theological hurdles of Lordship/sanctification speculation from such limited info in the text.
 
Why would Holy Writ use such trickeration?

No trickeration. "Believed" doesn't necessarily entail "believed unto salvation." There are at least two passages of which I am aware where pisteuo is temporary or superficial (John 2:23ff as mentioned earlier, and Luke 8:13).
 
Ransom said:
Why would Holy Writ use such trickeration?

No trickeration. "Believed" doesn't necessarily entail "believed unto salvation." There are at least two passages of which I am aware where pisteuo is temporary or superficial (John 2:23ff as mentioned earlier, and Luke 8:13).
Click to expand...

Well, two quick thoughts (of  the Lordship controversy variety) come to mind regarding the Lukan passage.

1) Parables have theological/doctrinal limitations as to how far they might be pressed.
2) It might be argued according to the structure of the analogy of the seed (germination versus growth, regeneration versus full perfect sanctification).
 
ALAYMAN said:
Ransom said:
Why would Holy Writ use such trickeration?

No trickeration. "Believed" doesn't necessarily entail "believed unto salvation." There are at least two passages of which I am aware where pisteuo is temporary or superficial (John 2:23ff as mentioned earlier, and Luke 8:13).
Click to expand...

Well, two quick thoughts (of  the Lordship controversy variety) come to mind regarding the Lukan passage.

1) Parables have theological/doctrinal limitations as to how far they might be pressed.
2) It might be argued according to the structure of the analogy of the seed (germination versus growth, regeneration versus full perfect sanctification).
Click to expand...

"Believe" wasn't used in the parable. It was used in the explanation of the parable.
 
Well, two quick thoughts (of  the Lordship controversy variety) come to mind regarding the Lukan passage.

Since I am not a dispensationalist, quibbles over so-called "lordship salvation" is not my problem.

1) Parables have theological/doctrinal limitations as to how far they might be pressed.

No one is "pressing" a parable; I simply pointed out that there are two places where pisteuo does not entail salvation.  The very point of the parable is that not everyone who hears the Gospel, or indeed believes it for a time, ends up amongst the saved.

2) It might be argued according to the structure of the analogy of the seed (germination versus growth, regeneration versus full perfect sanctification).

It might be argued that way, if you were to press the parable beyond its limitations.
 
My main scriptural reason for believing Simon was not saved is that Peter told him "Your heart is not right in the sight of God" (Acts 8:21). Can that be said of a saved person?
 
wheatpenny said:
My main scriptural reason for believing Simon was not saved is that Peter told him "Your heart is not right in the sight of God" (Acts 8:21). Can that be said of a saved person?
Click to expand...

Sure.  Read I Corinthians; Jude; Rev. 1-3; and any number of other passages. 
 
wheatpenny said:
My main scriptural reason for believing Simon was not saved is that Peter told him "Your heart is not right in the sight of God" (Acts 8:21). Can that be said of a saved person?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't James 4:8, written to believers, fall into your criteria?

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.  Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.
 
Bob H said:
I can see the case made for Simon  for the scripture does indicate it's possibility. I'm not really dogmatic about it. But for Balaam I just don't see it. But that's just me 
Click to expand...

A thesis accepting either Balaam or Simon as unbelievers changes the whole communication. 

Balaam and his philosophy are referenced 3 times in the NT for the destructive tendencies they will bring into the church.  Jude makes it clear it will creep in under the umbrella of grace. The doctrine, way, error of Balaam is not a woodpecker hammering at the church from without; it is a termite working from within. 

The record of Simon, if he is an unbeliever, has nothing to offer the church.  What is the problem if an unbeliever seeks to purchase with money the power of the Holy Spirit?  Unbelievers have and will continue to seek to purchase influence with God.  There's nothing new there.  Unbelievers do unbelieving things. 

What if Ananias and Sapphira were unbelievers?  Lying about their generosity is the accepted norm concerning unbelievers. There's nothing to see there. 

What if the Grecians were unbelievers? The problem of ethnic discrimination would be expected and normal because that is what unbelievers do.

Or the Pharisees of Acts 15?  It should come as no surprise that unbelievers attempt to add work to salvific grace. The council would have been moot. 

Simon's attempt to drag his former perspective into the Samaritan church is far more important than simply an unbeliever acting like unbeliever's always do. 

Luke, under inspiration, made a point of Simon's conversion, and then made a point of Simon's error for the benefit of the church for ages to come.  It is important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top