Acts 2:47

Those 3000 where added to the Church.
Those 3000 are the ones who form the community of believers.
If you read in context, 2:47 says that more people are joining their community in their nature, being saved isn't becoming a believer, being saved is 2:42

Pretty good exegesis

In the same way as the 3000, there were more who were saved and added to their church.
Upon being saved, they were added.

2:42 is what they were doing as a church, after salvation.

Attached: Screenshot_20190110-145435_Brave.jpg (810x3367, 1.14M)

I'm meaning to show that this is incorrect:

The ones added are distinct from the previous body. The implication here is that being saved is a condition for membership.
This point is obscured in the NLT and you really shouldn't be using it for close study like this. It's a nom-literal translation that was marketed to get children to read the Bible.

Attached: Screenshot_20190110-150130_Brave.jpg (1565x2729, 615.33K)

No. It says those who were added were being saved.

It does not say upon being saved they where added.

Neither of the images in your post contradict what I say

Again I say you have it backwards.
The NLT and some other "dynamic equivalence" translations mix the verb tenses, maybe for easier readability
"Were being saved" is past continuous, but "added" is past simple

It would be better rendered in just one or the other to avoid the error you're making
"Was adding" "were being"

"Added" "such as should be saved"

Do you agree that these "formal equivalence" translations don't make the same implication you're finding?

No. I really can't I'm sorry. I'm not being belligerent nor purposely ignorant. But what I'm saying still holds

Ok, well that's the dominant Protestant view to answer the question of the OP. This passage does not present a contradiction to sola fide as interpreted from the relevant passages elsewhere.

Thank you for their perspective. I know this isn't a clear passage for assertions into either direction, but it does seem like a hinge that changes depending on ones docterinization.

I don't think so, I think it pretty clearly goes my way by the hermeneutics. Is there a Catholic source you've read that teaches what you've presented?