Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

Dan

Do you write stuff like you wrote to get a response like Bro. Epley's or are you sincerly trying to compart knowledge?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Yes. Perhaps I am misunderstanding iceniez? I thought he was saying they all spoke in known languages...

ok.

It seems apparent that you misunderstood him.

He was responding to Sam's post regarding speaking in an actual language vs gibberish or "nonsense syllables". So ICE was saying when he and his family do it, he knows its an actual language, as opposed to gibberish.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

And here we go....


The primary def of that word is: an abrupt, exclamatory utterance.

It is a definition of the word; but it's not a primary definition of the word.
If you ask 100 random people to define that word, I hardly think even one of them would give that as the primary definition of the word.

See also:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...aculate%5B1%5D

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

David Pawson needs to un-coin that term.

I agree.
There are so many other words he could have used. He really could have avoided that term.

[ronharvey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Here is the question, Do we at least all agree Acts does teach theology?

I like the Chronological Bible. It places the Epistles in Historic Perspective as they relate to the Book of Acts.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by keith4him

I agree with this nice summary, but it seems the common one is tongue speaking, but I won't put God in a box if he chooses some other form of ejaculation (term coined by David Pawson where referring to the phenomenon by which the Spirit expresses itself in a notable way)

I agree.
Speaking with tongues is mentioned in Acts 2, 10, and 19.
And it is implied in Acts 8.
I was not denying that.
We seem to have witnesses that there is a post conversion experience in the Spirit that we may give different names (baptism, receiving, filling, falling upon, promise, coming upon, gift) that is usually received through the laying on of hands, and that experience is often accompanied or followed by speaking with other tongues/languages. I think most of us can agree with that.

Can we draw the conclusion that a person has not received that experience if they have not spoken with tongues? Or, can we say that everyone who receives that experience will speak with tongues? Or can we say that a person has not received that experience until he/she has spoken with tongues? We probably have differences of opinion here.

The "initial physical evidence" doctrine is based on three witnesses where Jews and Gentiles spoke with tongues when receiving that experience. To some that is sufficient "proof." For others it is not.

I'm not arguing for or against here.

I speak/pray with tongues just about every day.
I do not judge someone who does not.

P.S. I do not recognize or categorize my "prayer language." I don't know if it is a currently known human language, a language from somewhere in the past, an earthly language, a heavenly language, or what. It is a special, privileged communication between my spirit and my Lord and it builds me up.

[El Predicador]

The book of the Acts of the Apostles carries such weight because it is the chronicle of the culmination of all the OT looked unto.

The gospel would be a hollow victory if it had not been acted upon.

The Epistles would be useless if there were no blood bought, Jesus' Name Baptisted, Holy Ghost filled believers to pastor.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Any thoughts on Gordon Fee ... Elder Epley?

Who were you quoting in the opening post?

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by keith4him

Dr. Daniel Segraves was in the particular class where Synan addressed the question.

He was talking about Pentecostals and the initial evidence doctrine and how many in differing Pentecostal groups claim to receive it.

He mentioned all the various groups then had Dr. Daniel Segraves stand up and said to him before the entire class of PhD Scholars, the decline in the experience and teaching is not so with you Oneness Pentecostals and quoted a # to Dr. Segraves, Dr. Segraves said that the number somewhere above 90% was accurate.

Obviously this is because the Oneness groups teach that speaking in tongues is part of the new birth. If you teach hell or tongues then I can guarantee you will have folks speaking in tongues just as rapidly as the denominational world has folks being "born again" by saying the sinner's prayer.

I think that the same would be true with Oneness groups stressing baptism more than other groups. You can't even be saved in most Oneness churches unless you speak in tongues and are baptized.

Look at the number of spirit baptisms versus water baptism and the relation to conversions. See page 2.

You have an average of 47 conversions per church.
Of these 47 only 12 speak with tongues which is 25% of converts.
Of these 47 only 14 were water baptized which is 29% of converts.

http://www.ag.org/top/About/Statisti...rt_Summary.pdf

The way I see it the figures aren't comparable at all. Oneness churches don't even count someone as saved until they have been baptized and have spoke in tongues. So naturally, the only people in the church who would be considered not tongue talkers would be those seeking to be saved and maybe small children.

Now, the question I have is how many of those really speak in tongues? We have all seen people who we know didn't speak in tongues and then were proclaimed as having received the Holy Ghost.

Also, if you were to visit one of the "one-stepper" churches that didn't preach tongues or hell then I think it is very possible that the stats would be much lower than 90%?

Dr. Seagraves should have informed all those PhDs that you aren't considered even born again until you speak in tongues in the Oneness organizations. This would directly explain the difference.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

The book of the Acts of the Apostles carries such weight because it is the chronicle of the culmination of all the OT looked unto.

The gospel would be a hollow victory if it had not been acted upon.

The Epistles would be useless if there were no blood bought, Jesus' Name Baptisted, Holy Ghost filled believers to pastor.

OK, that just flat out scares me. Yes Acts is important but you still have to interpret Acts from other scripture and not the other way around. How is the gospel acted upon? Maybe this would be a good topic for another thread?

[2020Vision]

The New Testament is the theory, we ask the questions which create the test, Acts is the answer key - that is, theory put to work, or put to ACTions.