Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

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.

When things are common knowledge and written to Christians who've already had the experience, there's no point. There was no disagreement about tongues being evidence of God's Spirit. In some ways, Paul's letters only responded to PROBLEMS in the church.

[SDG]

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?

This was not the question asked, El Predicador. But you know that already.

The question was asked by the jailer in Acts ... and Paul's response was not the Petrine statement you hang on to as the focal point of all soteriological doctrine.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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.

DA, I love ya man…….. but this is one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen you use.

Whoever the writer is, he/she has (if they are writing this to “debunk” the “initial evidence” doctrine) made a grave hermeneutic (rightly divide the Word) error. The writer would be correct to make such an assertion, if Acts 2 was the only historical narrative where speaking with other tongues as the spirit of God gives the utterance was experienced at the time of “receiving” the spirit. However, we have three separate times (Acts 2, 10, & 19) in which the narrative explicitly describes speaking in tongues at the point of receiving the Spirit, and one which implies it. (Acts 8) In one of these accounts, (Acts 10) those witnessing the event directly identified how they “knew” that the people had “received” the spirit. The Jewish believers[e] who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, too. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. (Acts 10:45-46 NLT).

Moses striking the rock was not the "normative" manner of getting water, however, there is nothing in the book of Acts that describes any other manner or initial "sign" of having recieved the spirit than speaking with other tongues, thus it was not only normative it was indeed the precedent.

Using this type of argument is an extreme stretch at best, (which your author admitted) or an outright attempt to wrest the scriptures and mislead people away from truth, at worst.

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This was not the question asked, El Predicador. But you know that already.

The question was asked by the jailer in Acts ... and Paul's response was not the Petrine statement you hang on to as the focal point of all soteriological doctrine.

It was not a quote, hence the lack of quotation marks, but it was of course the essence of what was asked.

Paul's response was not inclusive by any means since the next verse speaks of him explaining scriptures to the jailer and his family.

Acts 2:38 in total isolation of course means almost nothing, however you will not find a single verse more inclusive and better suited to stating the response to hearing the gospel.

And it is also of note Paul's response about salvation was also in the Book of Acts further dismantling the argument that Acts is a mere narrative and unworthy or rather incapable of theological statement.

[Sam]

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?

Please note that in the KJV, Acts 2:37 does not say what must we do to be saved? Actually it says, "Men and bretren, what shall we do?"

There is only one place in the KJV where the question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" was asked. That is in Acts 16:30. The question was asked by a jailer in the Roman colony of Philippi. He asked that question to the Apostles Paul and Silas. The Apostolic answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).

So, for the record, the only time in the Bible that an Apostle is asked
what must I do to be saved
is answered by an Apostle
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

This is not meant to minimize the ritual of water baptism. We read that the Apostles spoke the Word of the Lord to the jailer and his family and that they all were subsequently baptized in water. The record goes on to say that the jailer and his family believed in God. There is no mention as to whether or not some or all received the Holy Ghost Baptism.

[El Predicador]

Bro Sam,

Covered in post #124

[Steve Epley]

Baptist Friends Forum.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

I believe Daniel A was questioning rather than stating.

And if you will pardon my language the premise is poppycock.


A secular example: the Declaration of Independence. Most people would not research the notes of the Continental Congress to determine what they meant by penning it. They simply read the HISTORY books to see how the men who authored it and the men who read it reacted.

HISTORY, even more than the notes of the debate, can tell us its intent, purpose and follow through based on that understanding. Those notes are great back up material, and confirmation of what history records and either one standing alone can support what the belief system of those men. Together they are multiplied confirmation. But nevertheless HISTORY is what most people read.

In ACTS of the Apostles we find the history of how the Apostles reacted to what they had seen and been taught, it is very easy from that to derive their beliefs.

Excellent example and great reasoning, sir. Thank you.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This was not the question asked, El Predicador. But you know that already.

The question was asked by the jailer in Acts ... and Paul's response was not the Petrine statement you hang on to as the focal point of all soteriological doctrine.

The question in Acts 2 and Acts 16 may not be worded the same, but the intent is exactly the same.

Paul and Peter taught the same message to Jews and Gentiles alike.

[El Predicador]

And tapping on rocks is how we get water?

Post #113

Sorry I missed that argument earlier.

I do not know whom you were quoting but they have done further violence to their premise.

The scripture is PLAIN, the rock was struck ONCE. When Moses struck it the second time he was rebuked and it was the cause him not being able to enter the promised land.

As opposed to Acts where is it clear speaking in tongues was NOT an isolated event, by time, place, or people involved.