Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Should we follow the actions of the apostles or not? Does a narrative allow that?

Is there anyone here with common sense?

Not sure why you are asking this following a quote from me?

I believe I have plainly stated as much.

Peter presented the gospel, actually summarized the essence of the OT and related the gospel, when they heard they asked him what THEIR RESPONSE SHOULD BE which led to the reply in Acts 2:38

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Not sure why you are asking this following a quote from me?

I believe I have plainly stated as much.

Peter presented the gospel, actually summarized the essence of the OT and related the gospel, when they heard they asked him what THEIR RESPONSE SHOULD BE which led to the reply in Acts 2:38

Dan is trying to make the point that we cannot derive doctrine from narrative accounts, such as the book of Acts. I'm asking your opinion.

Should we follow the actions of the apostles or not? Are the acts of the apostles indicative of what we should teach and preach? Does a narrative allow for that?


(the common sense remark had nothing to do with you. I was letting off some steam! )

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan is trying to make the point that we cannot derive doctrine from narrative accounts, such as the book of Acts. I'm asking your opinion.

Should we follow the actions of the apostles or not? Are the acts of the apostles indicative of what we should teach and preach? Does a narrative allow for that?


(the common sense remark had nothing to do with you. I was letting off some steam! )

I am very busy today and don't have time to get caught up in this (though I would love to).

However, no one is suggesting that doctrine cannot come from historical narrative and that there is no use for the narrative. But the rules for biblical interpretation say that we should rely on didactic text to help interpret the narrative. When there is confusion, such as in Acts 2:38, we must look to other books of the bible to help interpret.

We have no one in Acts teaching that we must speak in tongues to be saved nor that the evidence of speaking in tongues is the initial sign of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Prophesying, miracles, and tongues of fire were also mentioned when people received the Holy Ghost but I don't see anyone suggesting that we have to have these evidences.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't think speaking in tongues were mentions in the epistles as evidence of anything. If it was a requirement surly one of these guys would have mentioned tongues. We have altar training seminars and we know exactly what to say to people so that they will receive that Baptism of the Holy Ghost but I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the epistles.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

We have no one in Acts teaching that we must speak in tongues to be saved nor that the evidence of speaking in tongues is the initial sign of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Prophesying, miracles, and tongues of fire were also mentioned when people received the Holy Ghost but I don't see anyone suggesting that we have to have these evidences.

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?

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan is trying to make the point that we cannot derive doctrine from narrative accounts, such as the book of Acts. I'm asking your opinion.

Should we follow the actions of the apostles or not? Are the acts of the apostles indicative of what we should teach and preach? Does a narrative allow for that?


(the common sense remark had nothing to do with you. I was letting off some steam! )

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.

[Steve Epley]

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 11:15-1715And 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?

Watch pulling the Bible on them and Acts at that.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Watch pulling the Bible on them and Acts at that.

Ahh Elder, isn't it funny that the "Sola scriptura" crowd is always trying to undermine the very scriptures themselves!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Ahh Elder, isn't it funny that the "Sola scriptura" crowd is always trying to undermine the very scriptures themselves!

Their bitterness toward the Apostolic Church and it's message never tires but they are consistant in their hatred and mockery of all holy and true.

[El Predicador]

Amen brethren.

ACTS is the most concise book in the entire Bible as far as NT plan of salvation.

[SDG]

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.

I agree no assertions have been made ... just questions and opinions about principles used in hermeneutics by most Christian circles.

Your Declaration of Independence example is somewhat faulty. Acts is historical narrative summarizing events that happened over a span of decades ... and so it must be looked as just that a summary .... Acts would be the notes you speak of.

Also the DI sets forth principles ... and explicitly explains the intent of the authors in the document itself signed off by each member of the CC at one particular moment in time. We do not know ... nor can we assume Luke's intent ... not can we ascertain with all certainty that these examples expressed as being normative ... especially if the examples given do not apply in all contexts or even in each scenario described in this Lucan book.

Lastly, in understanding that this genre does not lend itself to prescriptive teaching as we may find in a didactic epistle. I think this should play a leading factor in interpretation and formulating doctrine, IMO. I will even go as far as saying that some of the teaching by Paul to his churches may be specific to just that church's particular situation.

Scripture interprets scripture ... I believe that we have plenty of teaching in the epistles that speak to how we are saved and must be factored in the interpretations we make about the acts of the apostles. There are summaries of sermons also in Acts that we must be careful in intepreting too much into.

Two or three examples of tongues with other examples sans tongues ... cannot be seen as a NORMATIVE experience of the infilling.

Nor can the lack of teaching by the apostles that tongues are salvific be ignored in articulating doctrine.