Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Well Sam...thats why I respect you so much. You made stop and think about my words.

I was a bit sharp in my comment. Both positions of the debate of course feel they are the ones that are right.

It does get old debating what we've debated so long, so many times before.

My apologies.

Ya did good.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Here is the bottom line

27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

I would concede Verse 28 may indicate "speaking in tongues" silently or softly (inaudible), but not that others can hear.

Paul says in verse 12, "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are "zealous" of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."

That indicates to me that some saints want to be used so much that they are going about it in the wrong way. The chapter doesn't speak to me of anything other than decency and order.

What about when we come together to pray and are in intercession? How can you stop the flow of the spirit in such an intense situation and under such a burden?

When I got the call that my father died and when my sister said, "It's daddy..." I said several words in tongues. It just came out. I couldn't have stopped it. That's what I am speaking about.

I think we should covet the best gifts, but quench not the spirit and operate in decency and order.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Paul says in verse 12, "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are "zealous" of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."

That indicates to me that some saints want to be used so much that they are going about it in the wrong way. The chapter doesn't speak to me of anything other than decency and order.

What about when we come together to pray and are in intercession? How can you stop the flow of the spirit in such an intense situation and under such a burden?

When I got the call that my father died and when my sister said, "It's daddy..." I said several words in tongues. It just came out. I couldn't have stopped it. That's what I am speaking about.

I think we should covet the best gifts, but quench not the spirit and operate in decency and order.

It would be unfair for me to comment concerning your personal experience.

In spite of our Pentecostal conditioning it's apparent to me that giving instruction, to limit speaking in tongues in the public assembly to those tongues being interpreted - with an alternative of keeping "silent", is not quenching the Spirit.

If we need to re-think some things, then so be it. The Corinthians had to restructure as well.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

It would be unfair for me to comment concerning your personal experience.

In spite of our Pentecostal conditioning it's apparent to me that giving instruction to limit speaking in tongues in the public assembly to those tongues being interpreted - with an alternative of keeping "silent" is not quenching the Spirit.

If we need to re-think some things, then so be it. The Corinthians had to restructure as well.

I also read verse 23 as saying, "If therefore the WHOLE church be come together into one place, and ALL speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"

The hearers are learning nothing if the other gifts are not used properly - If the WHOLE church is just speaking away in tongues with no order. Again, I think the point is decency and order.

If in verse 28, he is saying, "....let him speak to himself", he is not quenching the spirit, but offering instruction what to do with himself when the tongues and interpretation or prophesy are not upon him.

We all that have been used in the gifts know what it feels like to propel forward and use that gift and when it's a personal move from God that doesn't override the service, but flows with the move of the Holy Ghost.

[Sam]

How do you know if there is no interpreter present without going ahead and giving the message? After the utterance is given, let there be a pause and see what happens. If there is no interpretation, let the service go on, but don't give out with another message.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Mizpeh,

Please understand that I'm on parole. The number of posts I can make in a 24 hour span in a given forum is limited. I also worked yesterday.

Is this self imposed?

You like EP, the Bishop, TR, and EP, and maybe even Dave are missing the forest from the trees in this thread I believe. First, the thread title speaks of SOLELY using Acts to formulate doctrine while my initial thread also speaks of the pitfalls of making historical narrative pre-eminent over didactic teaching.

I realize that, Dan, and I made a couple of "short" comments which you did not address. Dave addressed this topic in an excellent post which you haven't responded to. Dan, all scripture is equally important whether it's historical or teaching. There is teaching interspersed within the historical narratives.

Ironically, I see how all are using Paul's teaching in Corinthians to be the lead in the pneumatolical discussion that I knew would follow. Why doesn't this happen when we discuss other soterological discussions is what I can't understand? Often when epistles are discussed in a conversation about salvation it's dismissed w/ "The epistles were written to believers" yet we find lots of teaching in the Pauline, Petrine, Johanine writings on how we were saved. None matching what is proported by some here.

We do use verses from the epistles, Dan, in soteriological arguments but they must jive with all the other scriptures found in the historical narratives of the gospels and the book of Acts. We don't hold to a Romans soteriology and ignore what Paul actually did and taught in the book of Acts.

The common thread in this entire discussion is WHAT IS NORMATIVE.

Okay.

TR thought he gave Mike that ever so elusive smack down he seeks in his cutesy retort that if repentance is not mentioned we can't assume it happened.

This is the kind of ........ that I cannot stand to respond to. It degrading and belittling of a Christian. This is what turns me off from responding to any of your writings and cut and paste commentary. TR made a good point. Why don't you address what TR says and not belittle TR?

Do you know what necessary redundancy is?

First, as Mike pointed out that throughout Scripture, from the OT, Jesus and the Apostles it's described as necessary for repentance. Two, it's described as not just being a one stop, mucous-filled, cry-fest but rather a lifestyle where one turns from sin and believes, or turns to God in faith. We can see throughout scripture that there is fruit of repentance and being born of God ... and that includes baptism and obeying other commandments. No one can dispute Jesus when he says repent or likewise perish. It's irrefutable doctrine because it's normative ... it applies in all contexts and specific situations.

The new covenant added something new, Dan. The infilling of the Spirit. The book of Acts lets us know what the normative expectation for someone who is baptized in Holy Spirit. Jesus said there would be a sound when someone was born of the Spirit. Isaiah prophesied that there is a rest and refreshing and linked it to other languages and stammering lips which Paul picked up on in 1 Corinthians.

Just as faith, repentance, and water and Spirit baptism are not spelled out in every incidence of conversion in the Acts, it doesn't mean they are not there or were not taught. The disciples all taught the same things when it came to these foundational doctrines. They had to because there is only one gospel for all races and sexes, bond or free.

It is one of the reasons the extreme example of the rock to water illustration. As is EP's custom, he's wrong that it happened only once in scripture. Most, if not all scholars agree this happened on two separate episodes in Scripture in regards to Moses.

I'm not interested in this argument. I don't think it correlates in any way with the baptism of the Spirit. In the OT when someone was filled with the Spirit of God...they prophesied. That is how the people knew someone had the Spirit, they prophesied. And in the OT the Spirit was given in a limited way. IOW, the entire congregation was not filled although Moses wished that they had.

One instance but if it happened twice or even 3 times can I prove a pattern on how we should extract water from a rock? Or even formulate doctrine? Would I be missing what is really happening here?

Moses received SPECIFIC instruction each time water was obtained from a rock.

Isn't this what's being said w/ 3 examples of tongues in Acts manifesting as evidence of the the infilling of the Spirit? Is this the how?

No. Acts 2 set the benchmark. Peter understood "this is that". IOW Peter understood that the tongues and the other manifestations was the fullfillment of God's promise through the prophet Joel. How did Peter know this? We can only speculate. But we do know that God specifically told Moses each time and with a different method each time of how to get water out of the rock. If there truly was a precendent set we would have seen Moses speaking or hitting another rock without God specifically telling him to. Like BishopH stated...this is a weak arguement, Dan.

The "implied" example of Acts 8 is where the "smoking gun" theory falls apart for the initial evidence crowd. Mike pointed out that often a Pentecostal hermeneutic has always been that if Scripture is silent on a topic we can't assume it happened. Yet we compelled to do so in this instance.

If you don't think tongues is the normative sign to know when one has received the Spirit of God when that is the way the apostles, Gentiles, and other disciples of John CLEARLY recieved it then would you mind showing us how a new believer would know that Christ's Spirit is now dwelling within them? and if you would address the comment of Paul in Acts 19...Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? Can you come up with a normative experience for the baptism of the Spirit? Can you give a believer an assurance that they have received God's Spirit? And does your argument line up with the rest of the Bible? What do you say when someone asks, why did all those believers in the book of Acts speak in tongues when they received the Spirit? Why does God pour out His Spirit differently on some?

Peter in Acts 11 considered the Gentiles to have had the same experience that he had in Acts 2 even though there was no cloven tongues of fire, or rushing mighty wind. The commonality was they each spoke in tongues they did not know.

Dan, I don't know if you noticed my question to you or if you even read my posts since you didn't respond to them, but I spoke in tongues when I first became a Christian. That was years ago and I haven't spoken in tongues since despite seeking God diligently about this. If you believe the tongues spoken in Acts is the gift of tongues, I have to ask why did God take that gift away from me?

First, Scripture is silent here about tongues. Second, he saw, NOT HEARD, that the Spirit was given at the laying of hands. We don't know what manifestation was seen - AT ALL. How can we be consistent and assume it's tongues. Maybe they prophesied, danced? Prophesying was a common manifestation of the Spirit in the OT and Paul calls it a gift of the Spirit. May it was dancing ... today's Pentecostal says that it's a manifestation of the Spirit.

Why can't we go with what God gave initially on the day of Pentecost and with what Peter recognized immediately in Cornelius's house...speaking in other tongues? Are you saying Acts 2 was a one off event? You've got some 'splaining to do here, Dan!

We are not consistent.

You are the one, IMO, who is being inconsistent.

Nor do we find any Apostle, who time after time discuss the necessity of repentance ... and yes even baptism (we differ in whether for salvation or obedience), say that tongues is a necessary sign of being filled with Spirit. Not one.

Can you explain the baptism of the Spirit apart from tongues and not have any loose threads? Go ahead.....

[mizpeh]

part 2

No concrete examples to prove it's normative ... no persuasive authority to show this in the didactic teachings of the epistles. Nothing.

I will agree with you that teaching tongues as the initial evidence of the infilling of the Spirit is "here a little and there a little" with the normative expection set as a benchmark in Acts 2 as experienced by the 120 disciples on the day of Pentecost. If I was one of the 3000 converts that day, I would have expected to speak in tongues as well. I would have wanted what they had and known for a surety that I had the Spirit considering Peter was accusing me of murdering the Messiah!

I think Acts 10 is a concrete example that the sign of tongues was enough to persuade Peter who preached the gospel to Gentiles for the first time.

How can we make it (tongues) on the par with repentance?

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is NEW to the new convenant. Tongues are a NEW thing as well. They go together. We must have the Spirit of Christ to be saved and part of the body of Christ. That reason in and of itself is enough to make it on par with repentance.

Again I believe it is evidence. I believe it's real. I believe that a believer should seek this experience. I even believe it's part of some's prayer language ... IT'S PART OF MINE. Paul speaks of it's benefits as well as the benifits other gifts of the Spirit.

What exactly would you call this "EXPERIENCE", Dan? A second blessing? And why do some folks only speak in tongues once or twice and not again?

But I will not base this on experiential hermeneutic which seems to be the foundation of your belief on the topic of tongues and pneumatology (what you personally experienced) ... nor can I state through Scripture that it is normative ... nor can I teach ... definitely that it is necessary for salvation. Doctrine is important ... it must be supported in all contexts ... and simply stating I feel ... or because it happened to me ... does not make it so.

I agree that scripture trumps experience. Matthew 17:1-9, 2 Peter 1:16-21 How many witnesses in the scripture do you need before you will accept something as normative? Obviously three is not enough. I would like to know why you believe the events in Acts 2:1-4 were only a one time event.

I too would like to see it explicitly stated in scripture that tongues is the sign that a believer has been filled with the Spirit. And sure it would be great to see it in the epistles but like one poster stated, "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." post 121. If there was any question that tongues was not the norm, we would expect it to be addressed in the epistles.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

OK, I am a one-stepper, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

I think both one-steppers and three-steppers get tired of these conversations after a while and just stop posting.

How often can we just keep saying the same things over and over?

Just realize that there are both one-steppers and three-steppers in the Church, or in the Body of Christ, or in the people known as Apostolic, or whatever we want to call ourselves. And both one-steppers and three-steppers need to follow the three "R"s:
Recognize one another,
Respect one another,
Realize we're all in this family together as brothers and sisters

We should all practice what we preach.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Sam

How do you know if there is no interpreter present without going ahead and giving the message? After the utterance is given, let there be a pause and see what happens. If there is no interpretation, let the service go on, but don't give out with another message.

Good question. In addition to what you stated, I also believe the gift (of interpretation is a gift that one receives and is often used repeatedly in.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

We should all practice what we preach.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.
Have I ever stated in any of my posts that three-steppers are not saved or not Apostolic or not part of the Body of Christ?