# A contradiction? Simon's conversion Acts 8:13



## Eoghan

We are told of Simon the sorcerers conversion in Acts 8:13 yet Peter launches a blistering attack on him that casts doubt on his conversion, in Acts 8:21-23.

Was Simon the Sorcerer converted or is Acts accomodating itself to the language of the visible church? To be "in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity" does not sound "born-again" to me?


----------



## Jack K

Not a contradiction, since the reader is clearly supposed to see the disconnect between Simon's initial belief and baptism and his wicked heart revealed later on. But do we take this to mean that when the text says Simon "believed" it does not, in this case, indicate saving faith? Or does Peter's rebuke, harsh as it is, apply to a true believer who has stumbled or remains woefully immature but is nevertheless still converted? That's what you ask, right? A good, intriguing question. I await lively discussion.

I'm going to cast my initial vote in favor of Simon being converted. Reasons:

* The text says he believed. This is the "pisteuo" word commonly used in the New Testament to indicate saving faith.

* The passage is celebrating the spread of the church into Samaria, a key point predicted by Jesus at the start of Acts. An example of a false conversion wouldn't support this point. The idea that Samaritans _were_ converted and, on top of that, called to faithful ongoing repentance and the putting away of their horribly false ideas about God seems to fit better in the scheme of where Acts is going.

* The surrounding chapters of Acts are concerned not only with how the Spirit enlarges and spreads the church but also with how he purifies it. Think of Ananias and Sapphira. Peter's words to them are just as harsh and their sin is somewhat similar. Their penalty is more severe, but Peter's rebuke of Simon suggests he fears Simon could suffer the same fate. So I see the point being that in Samaria, as in Jerusalem, the church is growing both numerically and in purity. True, this might mean purging the church of false believers. But since we're never told directly that any of these three (Ananias, Sapphira or Simon) were false converts, it seems more sensible to me to see it as the Spirit insisting on ongoing repentance and bringing the church to take holiness seriously. In fact, that was the result after the first incident in Jerusalem.

All that said, I'm open to being convinced the other way. The notes in my ESV Study Bible argue for the opposing view. So I hope this discussion gains traction. Could be a good one.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

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.

I would also say this text clearly overturns the view that ritual baptism has saving (or probative) force, re. conversion.


----------



## au5t1n

If I'm not mistaken there are church fathers who said Simon Magus later started a gnostic cult.


----------



## py3ak

I would take it that "believed" stands for "confessed Christ" (by a metonymy), and the event subsequently showed that this was a superficial confession, based on wonder and a desire for "strong medicine" rather than conviction of sin and a sight of the glory of Christ.


----------



## Eoghan

Is the gospel message not to repent and believe? I know much of what passes for evangelism reduces this to "believe" but surely the apostolic era was a bit clearer about repentance and fleeing the wrath to come. Simon was a known sorcerer surely he was called on to repent? Or does this fact only become clear after he has "believed" and been "baptised".

It occurs to me that the Apostles and early church put no obstacles in the way of people professing faith and wanting to be baptised (Believers Baptism). However subsequently they expected any converts to bring forth works in keeping with their profession. This is perhaps where we are less demanding of professing Christians.

I hear on the news that Tiger Woods is to be treated for "sex addiction" - hopefully we are all adicted to sex with our spouses! G-d gave us sex, Satan gave us adultery! There is a real need to call sin sin and raise our expectations of christian behaviour.

We need sound teaching on the distinguishing traits of true conversion (sanctification) and a warning re: trusting in a a verbal assent and a deep bath!

---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------

Perhaps this passage best serves as as a warning to the complacent about true faith. As my old minister said "You made a decision - good! Now tell me what did you decide?"


----------

