Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[bkstokes]

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?

Timmy

Concerning the fire and wind: If you look in the OT there was also similar demonstrations at the begining or giving of the Law. Pentecost was the beginning of the NT covenant.

[Pastor Keith]

I would recommend David Pawson's the Normal Christian Birth, he is a great scholar and makes a commendable case why Acts should be a text to show the Normative way to be born again. By the way he is not oneness or even leans this way. I wish I had his book with me so I can share his main points, but I think it to be notable.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

Timmy

Concerning the fire and wind: If you look in the OT there was also similar demonstrations at the begining or giving of the Law. Pentecost was the beginning of the NT covenant.

Bingo, you win the prize! Good thoughts.

[Pressing-On]

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

Originally Posted by bkstokes

Timmy

Concerning the fire and wind: If you look in the OT there was also similar demonstrations at the begining or giving of the Law. Pentecost was the beginning of the NT covenant.

Amen!!!

[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?

In rereading this, this seems to give the reasons why the AOG is at a dry place regarding their membership receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I believe the last percentage was around 35% claim to be tongue talkers or have experience Tongues at all.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by keith4him

In rereading this, this seems to give the reasons why the AOG is at a dry place regarding their membership receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I believe the last percentage was around 35% claim to be tongue talkers or have experience Tongues at all.

I think that if you realistically polled most UPC churches that those who really speak in tongues are probably less than 50%. However, just the fact that the AOG doesn't teach that you must speak in tongues to be saved has a lot to do with this statistic.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

I think that if you realistically polled most UPC churches that those who really speak in tongues are probably less than 50%. However, just the fact that the AOG doesn't teach that you must speak in tongues to be saved has a lot to do with this statistic.

Delta,

Their own leadership is concerned about this, they realized they are leaning more and more towards mainstream Evangelicism. Read their blogs and websites of their leadership,they see the handwriting on the wall, they will in short time will stop being a Pentecostal Denomination.

Regarding Op's Vinson Synan, the leading Scholar who studies all Pentecostal Denominiations, Movements and Streams currently reports that Oneness Pentecostals have the highest percentage of people who claim the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the intial evidence doctrine. Upwards of 90%. So there is some credible scholarship and stats for this percentage.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by keith4him

In rereading this, this seems to give the reasons why the AOG is at a dry place regarding their membership receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I believe the last percentage was around 35% claim to be tongue talkers or have experience Tongues at all.

If it were indeed 35%, that would be considered a massive improvement, brother.

The Last published statistic I saw put the number at 20% of their new converts have had the experience .

"In a recent news article on the A/G website, culled from a message he preached in the headquarters chapel, he notes that only 25% of new converts follow through to water baptism, and only 20% experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Further, only about 4% actually make it to the Sunday morning worship service."

http://blogrodent.wordpress.com/2006...ng-disciplers/
http://rss.ag.org/articles/detail.cf..._Source=search
http://ag.org/top/about/Statistical_Report_2004.pdf

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by keith4him

Regarding Op's Vinson Synan, the leading Scholar who studies all Pentecostal Denominiations, Movements and Streams currently reports that Oneness Pentecostals have the highest percentage of people who claim the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the intial evidence doctrine. Upwards of 90%. So there is some credible scholarship and stats for this percentage.

That sounds about right.

I've been a member of 3 churches in my life, and there are several others I've visited quite often, to the point that I got a good feel for where they're at in terms of how the Holy Ghost moves there... and I'd put the number at about 90-95+ percent in each of those places.

[DaveC519]

Hello A PoMo,

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.

Question: what then, in your opinion, is the purpose of the biblical historical narrative?

Thanks