Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's not the fact that tongues is mentioned 3-4 times. It's the context in where they appear and what was said.

For example Peter, speaking of the baptism of the Spirit (Joel's Prophecy) "This is what you now see and hear"

And In Cornelius's case they KNEW they received the Spirit when they were heard to have spoken in tongues and then Peter compared that to when they received the Spirit at the beginning. Acts seems to make tongues, upon receiving the Spirit for the first time, the normative experience

bingo!

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Hey. Bro Dan. How ya been? Good to see you with us.

I second this motion.

[bkstokes]

Dan

I would say that the main problem with your original post is that its too long. You get past two paragraphs here and most people just move on.

[Cindy]

Bless his heart.

[Bro-Larry]

[QUOTE=mizpeh;645428]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16


ALL scripture not just the scripture written in the epistles and gospels.



I think it's important to remember that there was no KJV when paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16.

Therefore Paul could not have been including KJV as "all scripture".

[deltaguitar]

I tend to agree with Fee in that while the experience is valid the theology needs to be examined. I find no scripture in Acts that says that speaking in tongues is THE evidence of Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Also, I am finding more and more Pentecostals outside of the Oneness movement that are interested in what the scriptures say and not necessarily validating doctrine with an experience.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

A very common argument among some Oneness Pentecostals is that Acts should be the pre-eminent source for doctrine on how to be saved ... and in examining topics such as pneumatology.


Some often discount the epistles as being sources of doctrine that deal with the unbeliever because they were only addressed to saved.
This hermeneutical tradition, some call pragmatic hermeneutics, dates back to the early 20th century with men like Charles Parham.

One writer states Parham's role as follows:He continues describing pragmatic hermeneutics as follows:
In recent decades, other Pentecostal/Charismatic have challenged this approach to bible interpretation .... somewhat echoing the thoughts and approaches of other Evangelical groups.

One these scholars is Gordon Fee who wrote the ground-breaking book Gospel and Spirit.

Fee finds that relying on historic narrative for doctrine may be problematic in some ways.



What say ye? Should we re-examine the notion that historical narrative is our best source for teaching our Apostolic doctrine? Thoughts on Fee's points? Are there pitfalls in relying solely on a historical narrative like Acts as the focal point to our doctrines?

as the late John Wimber states, the happening of theology came before the writing of theology. In Acts it happened, in the Epistles they wrote about what happened to them and what to do about it.

[Timmy]

So, who here really believes that speaking in tongues is "indisputable evidence or proof of the baptism in the Holy Spirit"?

Why did God decide to remove the flames from the list of things that happen when the Spirit shows up? And the windy noise? These would be much harder to fake.

Yes, they were things that seemed to be tongues of fire, not necessarily actual fire, but so? It was something visible. That's how it was described. They separated and landed on their heads! I haven't seen anything like that happen lately. If anyone else has, that's great, but that would open up a whole set of questions: why is it so rare? Are there literally just a few dozen or so true believers in the world?

[iceniez]

Originally Posted by Timmy

So, who here really believes that speaking in tongues is "indisputable evidence or proof of the baptism in the Holy Spirit"?

Why did God decide to remove the flames from the list of things that happen when the Spirit shows up? And the windy noise? These would be much harder to fake.

Yes, they were things that seemed to be tongues of fire, not necessarily actual fire, but so? It was something visible. That's how it was described. They separated and landed on their heads! I haven't seen anything like that happen lately. If anyone else has, that's great, but that would open up a whole set of questions: why is it so rare? Are there literally just a few dozen or so true believers in the world?

WOW Timmy great Question! All I know is that I expeirenced a Change in my life after Speaking in Tounges.For me I did not Know what speaking in tounges was it just happened to me while I was Praying before I was even introduced to Pentecostalism.I know You can't make a doctrine of expeirence,However I saw in Scripture where this is a Biblical expierence.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

A very common argument among some Oneness Pentecostals is that Acts should be the pre-eminent source for doctrine on how to be saved ... and in examining topics such as pneumatology.


Some often discount the epistles as being sources of doctrine that deal with the unbeliever because they were only addressed to saved.
This hermeneutical tradition, some call pragmatic hermeneutics, dates back to the early 20th century with men like Charles Parham.

One writer states Parham's role as follows:He continues describing pragmatic hermeneutics as follows:
In recent decades, other Pentecostal/Charismatic have challenged this approach to bible interpretation .... somewhat echoing the thoughts and approaches of other Evangelical groups.

One these scholars is Gordon Fee who wrote the ground-breaking book Gospel and Spirit.

Fee finds that relying on historic narrative for doctrine may be problematic in some ways.



What say ye? Should we re-examine the notion that historical narrative is our best source for teaching our Apostolic doctrine? Thoughts on Fee's points? Are there pitfalls in relying solely on a historical narrative like Acts as the focal point to our doctrines?

David Reed makes much the same point that Fee makes in regards to Parham's reliance on an experiential hermeneutic and establishing this experiential hermeneutic in the New Issue camp. Obviously there are great problems with relying on 'experience' and 'feelings' as an interpretive tool as it leads to all sorts of variant interpretations and 'revelations'. Feelings and experience have their place, but they shouldn't be the litmus test for theologicial certitude. It's ironic that this idea of experiential theology seems to be at the heart of post-modernism as well.

Acts needs to be taken in the context of ALL scripture and should be interpreted in that light, not the other way around. Taken in context of the entire canon and the NT in particular it seems obvious that Acts is historical in nature was not meant to be primarily theological in nature, thus the doctrinal issues alluded to there should be explained in light of the rest of the Bible and the NT in particular. It should not be the focus of doctrinal formulation, imo.