Originally Posted by Esaias
Also, what was Luke's purpose in writing Acts? It was the same as his Gospel account - to set forth those things certainly believed by the apostolic church. Therefore his accounts are not merely accounts what happened, but selective accounts chosen to identify and illustrate key concepts, authenticating the apostolic ministry and message. It is the ONLY RECORD of post resurrection conversions. It MUST be considered normative for conversion, otherwise there is no way to objectively identify what "getting saved" looks like.
The other epistles, written exclusively to converted persons, are obviously meant to expand on, not refute or contradict, the record in Acts. Then, as now, the problems of false conversions and backsliding and deception were real. Then, as now, people could APPEAR to be converted who may not have been, and people could be led astray away from continuing in grace and falling into works or other heretical doctrines, while thinking they were genuine saints. Thus the epistles provide corrective teachings.
For example, John's epistles teach that anyone who thinks they are converted needs to verify their status with God, because people practicing sin HAVE NOT BEEN CONVERTED, regardless of what external "evidences" may have attended their so-called conversion (tongues, baptism, prayers, professions of faith, etc).
But that does NOT do away with those external, initial evidences of conversion.
Everyone agrees a confession of Jesus is part of conversion. But a confession of Jesus with no change in lifestyle means the person is unconverted
YET THIS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ROLE OF CONFESSION IN CONVERSION. One cannot say "since many make a profession of Christ with no real repentance and faith, therefore a profession of faith is unnecessary to conversion."
|