Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by bishoph

The highlighted portion of your post, seems opposed to the "historical narrative" of the New Testament based on these scriptures:
Acts 10:44-47
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts 11:15-17
15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

These are examples of what happened. If I were to walk into a Pentecostal service and describe that I saw running, jumping, falling out in the spirit and folks tried to make the plan of salvation from my story it is possible that some confusion could take place. Many would interpret that falling out and running was the evidence.

[Sister Alvear]

I am an ole timmer and most know that but I did have to laugh at something that happened one of the times I was in the states. My sister came to hear me speak and brought a friend from a luthern church with her. The service was very lively after it was over the Luthern lady ask my sister what the people were running after...

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

The highlighted portion of your post, seems opposed to the "historical narrative" of the New Testament based on these scriptures:
Acts 10:44-47
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts 11:15-17
15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

And tapping on rocks is how we get water?

Historical Narrative Example- When the historical narrative in Exodus tells us that Moses struck a rock with his staff and water came out, are we then to assume that all believers can strike a rock to have water? God is speaking to Moses, and he says:“I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exodus 17:6).

However, one narrative does not a doctrine make. Something must be repeated to establish a norm (a “have-to pattern”). Furthermore, this “thing” must be consistent each time it is repeated. It is interesting that this “water from a rock” did not happen only once. It happened again.

In the book of Numbers, it says:Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank (Numbers 20:11).(3)However, even with two separate accounts of Moses striking a rock to retrieve water, this narrative description of what happened should not be treated as though it were a prescription for “the way to get water.” And, as far as I know, no thoughtful Christian believes that we can simply take a stick and hit a rock for our water needs.Though this is an extreme example of how not to build doctrines on narratives, the point should be clear

I believe the benefits and purpose of tongues (i.e. edification, intercession, a gift among many, etc) is clearly taught in the didactic genre by the protagonists in Acts.

That it is a sign to the unbeliever seems to also be ignored by the tongues census takers who use it as a sign to prove belief (see Borat) .... or that Paul and Christ teach on what the fruit of the Spirit truly is ....

Adding to the Word ... however, and making tongues salvific has serious consequences as taught in Scripture, IMO.

[El Predicador]

So Bro Alicea,

For the record, you do or do not believe Acts 2:38 to be THE correct response to the gospel?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

So Bro Alicea,

For the record, you do or do not believe Acts 2:38 to be THE correct response to the gospel?

Yes .

It describes the correct response - with repentance and the fruit of repentance which includes baptism.

A start in our Christian walk....


In Acts we see baptism as evidence of initial conversion.

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

And tapping on rocks is how we get water?



I believe the benefits and purpose of tongues (i.e. edification, intercession, a gift among many, etc) is clearly taught in the didactic genre by the protagonists in Acts.

That it is a sign to the unbeliever seems to also be ignored by the tongues census takers who use it as a sign to prove belief (see Borat) .... or that Paul and Christ teach on what the fruit of the Spirit truly is ....

Adding to the Word ... however, and making tongues salvific has serious consequences as taught in Scripture, IMO.

This isn't a Great Awakening, my friend. People like yourselves have been falling for the seduction for decades. I was a young person in the late-70's and I remember this going through the churches.

To state that tongues is NOT the intial evidence of the HG, forces you to say WHAT about the historical narrative in Acts. I understand your way of thinking, but just tell me your explanation for Acts. Someone like you understand the difference between gifts of the Spirit, fruit of the Spirit and the gift of the Holy Ghost. You're bright enough to not be seduced by this theology.

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

These are examples of what happened. If I were to walk into a Pentecostal service and describe that I saw running, jumping, falling out in the spirit and folks tried to make the plan of salvation from my story it is possible that some confusion could take place. Many would interpret that falling out and running was the evidence.

Which is why Paul had to correct many things. Tongues was not your spirituality, it did require FRUITS. He did not, however, discount that tongues was the evidence of God's Spirit.

We aren't relying on yours or mine interpretation. It's there pretty clear in every instance of individuals receiving the Holy Ghost.

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yes .

It describes the correct response - with repentance and the fruit of repentance which includes baptism.

A start in our Christian walk....


In Acts we see baptism as evidence of initial conversion.

And when the crowd on Pentecost heard the gospel, that Jesus was indeed both Lord and Christ and then the crowd asked what to do with that knowledge ie what must we do to be saved(which sounds like the ultimate pressing theological question from where I sit) was not the response Repent be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost?

How could anyone with a straight face purport that was not a deeply profound theological discussion?

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

And when the crowd on Pentecost heard the gospel, that Jesus was indeed both Lord and Christ and then the crowd asked what to do with that knowledge ie what must we do to be saved(which sounds like the ultimate pressing theological question from where I sit) was not the response Repent be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost?

How could anyone with a straight face purport that was not a deeply profound theological discussion?

Not to mention the authority the man speaking had, from Christ Himself. Hmmm... maybe that whole part in the Gospels about Peter having keys was just for fun and added to the story.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

Which is why Paul had to correct many things. Tongues was not your spirituality, it did require FRUITS. He did not, however, discount that tongues was the evidence of God's Spirit.

We aren't relying on yours or mine interpretation. It's there pretty clear in every instance of individuals receiving the Holy Ghost.

Paul didn't discount tongues as the evidence in fact he didn't even mention it at ALL as being the evidence. Really, if it was that important why was it never mentioned except during Acts.