First, I must admit that I am not what would be called a theologian by any stretch of the imagination. Much of my life was spent in “non-credal” churches, and what little reading I have done on systematic theology has convinced me that, as some wise person has said, “Creeds manage at the same time to say more and less than the Bible does on any subject.” I would prefer to examine passages one at a time and leave it to the theologians to try to distill the various teachings and examples into a few concise words.
One sticking issue that divides different denominations from one another is in regard to the concept of assurance of salvation for believers. And since I have attended churches of varying denominational affiliations over the years, I have been exposed to the extremes on both ends of the theological spectrum in regard to this issue.
On the one hand are those who believe that a mere statement of faith made at any time in one's life is sufficient to guarantee one a place in heaven no matter what you do with the rest of your life, including renouncing your faith. One acquaintance of mine explained that even Judas was in heaven.
Then there are those like my dear departed mother-in-law who admitted to my wife that she felt if she didn't ask for forgiveness every night for every sin she had committed that day, she would go to hell if she died in her sleep. I didn't have the heart to ask her what would happen if she died suddenly during the day before her nighttime prayers.
Although most of us would probably rightly reject both of these extremes, there are still a number of intermediate ways of expressing the concept of what assured salvation really means in practice. Thus, those who gravitate toward the “Once saved, always saved” side will quote from Paul regarding our being sealed by the Holy Spirit or ask the logical question, “If we can do nothing to earn our salvation, then we can do nothing to lose it.” By contrast, those who do feel that it is possible under extreme cases to “lose your salvation” might point to Jesus' comments on the Unforgivable Sin, note Jesus' parable of the soils, quote Paul's emphasis on persevering in the faith, or cite Hebrews 6:4-8.
But rather than getting embroiled in all the arguments and counter-arguments involving this issue, I would just like to look for a minute at the concrete example of Simon Magus found in Acts 8:9-24. There are two separate issues to consider concerning his salvation: (1) Was he ever saved to begin with? and (2) Did he truly lose his salvation (assuming that he ever had it)? And neither issue is completely black and white.
Was he ever saved?
Verses 9-11 outline Simon's credentials before hearing the Gospel message. He apparently had quite a reputation among the Samaritans due to his acts of magic to the point where they called him “the power of God that is called Great.” Thus, he became known as Simon Magus, or Simon the sorcerer. Note that the plural of “magus” is “magi,” as in the three wise men from the East who also came to see Jesus.
Verses 12-13 describe how first the Samaritans believed Philip's teaching regarding the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. Simon himself believed all of that, was baptized, was constantly at Philip's side, and was amazed at the signs and miracles that took place. This piling on of descriptors certainly would seem to indicate to anyone not filtering the words through a prior theological commitment to the contrary that Simon was at that point “saved” in every sense of the word.
In a way, it reminds me of the multiple phrases found in I Thessalonians 4:16 in which Christ descends with (1) a cry of command, (2) the archangel's call, and (3) the sound of God's trumpet to gather His people. In spite of all those loud noises, one branch of eschatology still insists that this is a description of the “secret coming” of Christ, to be distinguished from the Second Coming. In both cases, we are much better served by first taking each scriptural passage on its own terms rather than starting with some doctrinal position and then trying to fit the passage into it.
Despite my own personal feeling, whether Simon was truly saved remains a matter of controversy among Bible scholars, as you can see from the following comments:
“Thus Simon becomes a Christian through faith and baptism...Later tradition understood Simon as having feigned 'faith in Christ even to the point of baptism' (Eusebius). This, however, is not the Lucan picture.”
“Luke uses his regular expression 'believed', and there is no reason to doubt Simon's sincerity thus far. The sequel, however, shows that his basic attitudes were still those of the magician.” (Walls)
“The nature of his belief must remain uncertain. No doubt it was sincere as far as it went, but was very superficial and unsatisfactory.” (Bruce) Lim similarly says, “Concerning conversions, the apostolic fathers remained wary of superficial faith even after baptism (as in the New Testament case of Simon Magus.”
“Clearly his conversion had been no more than skin-deep.” (Neil)
Spencer calls it an “apparent conversion.”
John Stott simply states without any further discussion that Luke “is clear that Simon Magus' profession [of faith] was bogus.”
“Peter's stern denunciation in 20-23 shows that he never was regenerate. His baptism is the classic example of the outward sign wrongly applied to one whose profession of faith was not genuine.” (Trenchard)
Very helpfully, Toussant first asks “Was Simon saved? Luke did not specify this clearly, so it is difficult to be dogmatic. But seven facts suggest that Simon was probably not born again.” I will list them one at a time with possible rebuttals:
1. The verb “believe” does not always refer to saving faith (see James 2:19).
But, as Walls points out, that is Luke's common way of using the word. The example in James is rather unique in that it specifically refers to the “belief” of demons.
2. Faith based on signs is not a trustworthy faith (John 2:23-25; 4:48).
“Among those who professed their faith in the Gospel and were baptized was Simon himself, who would appear, however, to have been more impressed by Philip's healing powers than by his message” (Neil) Bruce similarly notes that “Jesus Himself...attached little value to the faith that rested on miracles alone.” Neither scholar, however, points out the fact that the text does not even mention any miracles performed by Philip until after the Samaritans, including Simon, had been converted by Philip's preaching alone.
3. Luke never specifically stated that Simon received the Holy Spirit.
Any argument from absence is a weak one. And in this particular case, it is totally inconceivable that someone like Simon would have been purposely excluded from having the apostles' hands laid on him. And even in the unlikely case that they happened to skip him, from what we know of Simon's character, he would have hounded Peter and John until they gave him the gift that the others already had.
Davids seems to also doubt that Simon received the Holy Spirit when he states without any supporting evidence, “On the coming of the apostles to lay hands on...these baptized believers (except Simon Magus) were initiated fully, just as the believers in Jerusalem.”
4. Simon continued to have a self-centered interest in the display of miraculous power.
This is probably a safe statement to make, and Bruce proposes that Simon remained in Philip's company because “perhaps he also hoped to master the secret of Philip's deeds of divine power.” But how is that different from all of us carrying around with us the remnants of our pre-salvation life, even years after conversion. Keep in mind that Simon was a very new believer at this point in the story.
5. The verb “repent” (metanoeo) used in verse 22 is normally addressed to lost people.
However, one must take into account the specific contexts each time the word is employed. For example, in the book of Acts, except for this one case, the context is during the preaching of the gospel for the first time to a group of pagans. And then, if you consider Luke's usage of metanoeo in his Gospel, Luke 13:1-5 finds Jesus warning the people of Jerusalem in general that if they don't repent of their attitude toward him, they may find themselves facing earthly destruction of their city. Then in Luke 17:3-4, the same word appears twice in the context of one brother wronging another brother in some specific way. Lastly, consider the seven times metanoeo is employed in the letters to the seven churches. There the context is by way of warning those who are obviously believers that they need to repent of some specific actions they have done or there will be dire consequences for them.
6. The word “perish” (eis apoleian) in v. 20 is strong and related to the word “perish” in John 3:16.
But that is really not an issue here since it doesn't really address whether Simon was initially saved. It is warning about a future possibility.
7. The description of Simon in Acts 8:23 is a better description of one lost than of one who is saved (Deut. 29:18).
Again, this is a safe contention. However, see some of the contrary opinions below concerning Peter's characterization of Simon.
8. To these seven reasons above, Maynard-Reid adds an eighth. He says, “In the case of Simon Magus, repentance and prayer were presented as possible means of forgiveness. But the inclusion of 'if [possible' in v. 22] raises questions of full assurance of that gift in Magus's case even if those conditions were met.” I am strongly reminded of Paul's judgment in Philippians 3:11regarding his own hope of salvation when he says, “and so, somehow to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” Scholars who believe in the assurance of salvation go to great pains to deny that Paul is expressing any doubts whatsoever in that verse. But the same could easily apply to the “if possible” of Acts 8:22.
Despite the above reasons, Toussaint wisely concludes: “Still one cannot be dogmatic on this point. The Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).”
Did he subsequently lose his salvation?
If the story ended here, none of us would doubt Simon's salvation any more than we would the salvation of the Philippian jailor or Lydia the seller of purple. But unfortunately, the story doesn't end here. In vv. 14-19, the apostles Peter and John from Jerusalem come to Samaria and lay their hands on the Samaritan converts at which point they receive the Holy Spirit. Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the text, it is logical to believer that Simon himself, being one of the body of converts, also received the Holy Spirit at this point.
Simon is so impressed by this last miracle that he offers to pay Peter to give him this same power of laying on of hands (which even Philip did not apparently possess). Simon apparently wanted authority, not the Spirit's power over him. Peter soundly rebukes him using another string of descriptors designed to clearly indicate what Simon's spiritual status is now: (1) “May your silver perish with you,” (2) “You have no part or share in this,” (3) “Your heart is not right before God,” and (4) “You are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness.” In addition, Peter tells Simon to pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.”
Let us look at each of these phrases in turn, keeping in mind at the same time that the cumulative effect of all these phrases certainly seems to indicate that Simon has lost his salvation at this point in time. Marshall has noted that each of these phrases have their origin in Old Testament texts (given in parentheses after each one below). To truly study this subject more carefully (which I do not have the space for), it would be necessary to consult each of these OT passages to shine a better light on what Peter is actually driving at.
“May your silver perish with you.” (Daniel 2:5; 3:96)
These are literally the most damning words out of Peter's mouth since commentators note that the literal meaning of the Greek is much closer to the statement: “To Hell with you and your money!”
Fitzmyer: “Even though Simon has put his faith in Christ and been baptized as a Christian, he could still find himself disoriented from God. With spiritual insight, Peter warns about requisite Christian conduct. A Christian who is not on guard about his or her actions or designs may still end in 'perdition', the opposite of salvation.” (Fitzmyer) According to this understanding, (1) it is indeed possible to “fall from grace” and (2) but this comment from Peter was by way of a warning, not a pronouncement of eternal judgment on Simon.
“You have no part or share in this.” (Deuteronomy 12:21; 14:27,29)
But what does “this” refer to? Look at two paraphrases: TEV says, “You have no part or share in our [the apostles'] work.” Similarly J.B Philips renders it as “You can have no share or place in this ministry.” So all that Peter is stating here is that Simon has no place trying to elevate himself to the status of an apostle; that is not the job that God has in mind for him. One scholar paraphrased this as referring to neither inheritance (by right) nor lot (by chance).
The alternative, but probably not preferred, understanding of this phrase is that Peter is pronouncing a sentence of excommunication on Simon. Although Neil is one who holds to this view, nevertheless he feels that “repentance and forgiveness are still possible.”
Other noted scholars weigh in on both sides of this issue . For example, Henchen feels that it is “a form of excommunication” but Fitzmyer doubts that is the case.
“Your heart is not right before God.” (Psalm 78:37)
One could argue from silence that if Simon were not truly a Christian at this point, Peter would have said, “Your heart is still not right before God.” And the same is true of the following phrase.
“You are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness.” (Deuteronomy 29:18; Isaiah 58:6)
But Bruce points out that the Greek wording at this point “may mean that Simon is heading for the bitter gall and the bonds which are the penalty of iniquity” rather than stating he had already reached that point. And that future, rather than present, interpretation is adopted by the NEB. Thus, it is given by Peter as a warning, not a foregone conclusion.
“Pray that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.”
Subsequent to this massive bawling out by Peter, Simon's only rather weak reply is, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.” On the one hand, Simon does not reject Peter's assessment of his sin. But on the other hand, there is the strange fact that Peter had told him to pray to God, but instead it is Simon who asks Peter to do the praying. Does this indicate Simon's unwillingness to repent while still escaping the penalty of his behavior? Or is it a sign of humility on Simon's part feeling that he is too unworthy to approach the throne of God after his failure? Or is it an indication of the magical view of life that Simon still has, feeling that Peter has a special relationship with God that gives him powers not available to others? We will probably never know. But here are a few opposing views on the subject:
Fitzmyer states, “Simon repents, taking Peter at his word. He begs, moreover for Peter's prayers on his behalf. Contrary to the later traditions about the apostasy of Simon, Luke's story of him ends on a favorable note.”
But then we have Trenchard who says that the comment 'You pray for me' “shows that he still thought in terms of magic powers and of 'influence', having no desire to draw near to God personally as a repentant sinner.” Ogilve concurs: “He remains immovable in his determination to coexist with both himself and Christ as lords of his life. Instead of changing his heart and repenting, he says, 'Pray for me'...”
It seems to me that neither position is based on much solid information.
Perhaps the earliest “commentary” on the Book of Acts was the Western Text. Bruce Metzger explains: “The text of the book of the Acts of the Apostles circulated in the early church in two quite distinct forms, commonly called the Alexandrian and the Western. The former...has been traditionally regarded as the authentic text of Acts.”
After conducting a 12-page detailed review of all the theories involving the origin of these two different versions, Metzger and the others in the committee preparing the third edition of the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament conclude that “as a whole...more often than not the shorter, Alexandrian text was preferred. At the same time the Committee judged that some of the information incorporated in certain Western expansions may well be factually accurate, though not deriving from the original author of Acts.”
Why do I mention all of the above? It is because the Western version of Acts 9:24 has the following words appending to the end of the sentence: “who did not stop weeping copiously.” Metzger notes, “The addition gives the suggestion that Simon's tears are of remorse and perhaps of repentance.” The noted scholar F.F. Bruce also feels that this addition “may be true enough to the facts, if Simon was the emotionally unstable type of spiritualist medium who is not unknown in our own day.”
Assuming that these commentators are correct, I see a strong parallel here between Simon's tears and those of Peter himself after he had actually denied his Lord three times. Both Matthew and Luke record that he wept bitterly on that occasion, and Peter did not find himself cut off from God but was forgiven for a sin which appears to be much more serious than Simon's. Why is the same not available for Simon Magus?
Subsequent Events
We would love to know how the story turned out in the end, but all we have to go on are later accounts that may be more legend than fact. For one thing, the later term “simony” in the medieval church referring to the common practice of buying church offices is clearly derived from Simon's name.
But beyond that point we only have later church legends to rely on, and they are uniformly negative regarding Simon's reputation. Walls' opinion regarding these legends is more charitable than that of most scholars. He states, “If they include incongruities and legends there is no no need...to discount the patristic descriptions, or to deny a connection between the Simon of Acts and the Simonian sect.” A heretical group called the Simonians was active in the second-third century AD.
The more common view is expressed by Trenchard, who says, “the traditions which connect it with this Simon are unreliable.” Similarly, Maynard-Reid states that “these...Gnostics seem to have co-opted the Lukan Simon in order to give their movement roots in the NT.”
Irenaeus says that Simon was the founder of Gnosticism. Hippolytus relates how Simon had himself buried alive, promising to rise on the third day. Which is how he died.
I would have to agree with Neil when he said, “So much legend has gathered round his name that it is difficult to assess its real importance.” One thing seems to be clear, and that is that Simon was not at all remembered kindly according to post-biblical church tradition.
Conclusion?
It is almost impossible to use the example of Simon to definitively answer one way or another the doctrinal contention that Christians can or cannot “lose” their salvation. And, of course, the self-evident fact is that only God, through his omniscience, knows who will and won't be saved ultimately. Also, we should keep in mind that fortunately perfection in the Christian life is not demanded for salvation. So, no matter how many literally damning things Peter or modern scholars may say concerning Simon's post-baptismal character, keep in mind that the saved Paul considered himself to be the chief of sinners, and even Peter denied his Lord three times and was later rightly accused by Paul of being a hypocrite. We each have some of our “old man” left in us. The important thing is to cease pointing the finger at others in terms of their failings and begin to realize that we are no better nor worse than Simon Magus, even after our common conversion.
But at the same time, we need to all keep striving in the power of the Holy Spirit to improve our spiritual life every day and not trade on the grace that has been given us through Christ.
Posts
