Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Saul Stephen]

The book of Acts, must be taken as written, the power of its unfolding message has remained unchanged, even when challenged by those who seemed honest but were not convinced by its doctrine. were they self imposed decenters, yes, sometimes. sometimes unable to grasp the reality of its truth, and in every attempt failed miserably the book of Acts lives and breathes the true plan of salvation. to think otherwise is a death by choice decision.

[larrylyates]

This argument surfaces anytime Apostolics mix with Evangelicals for the purpose of "understanding scripture." We muddy the waters, rather than find clarity. The real question is this: Is there an identifiable apostolic Hermeneutic?
A truly Apostolic Approach to Scripture?
What sets the Apostolic Church apart from the rest of Christendom is not merely its emphasis on Acts 2:38 salvation and worship of the One True and Living God in Jesus Christ but also a unique approach to scripture. Our actual goal as Christians is merely to BE Apostolic. We strive to "weed out" traditions and doctrines of men which were added later. Basically, we try to take what Luther started to its logical conclusion, true biblical reformation. We see many doctrines and beliefs not as Apostolic, but as a later development. Even my learned seminary professors would agree with this, but they put much authority in church history, creeds and councils. They see the goal of the Bible scholar/theologian to develop the seed left by the writers of the New Testament. They think it arrogant to even question the wisdom of the church fathers. We on the other hand see our job description as one of recovery of truth which has been lost or distorted, to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). We are at heart, restorationists, trying to help restore the Church to her original belief and power. Of course we don't want to ignore what others have written or said about the Bible, but we understand this merely to be the thinking of fallible men. We believe that the church has gotten away from what the apostles taught in many respects and that we need to get it back. We need to stop seeing the church in Acts as in an “infant stage,” and start seeing it as the model upon which to base our belief and practice. Only when we return to New Testament patterns, principles and practice, will we experience true New Testament power.

The Hermeneutical Spiral
Our method of interpreting the Bible is defined by David K. Bernard, in his book: Understanding God’s Word: An Apostolic Approach to Interpreting the Bible, and as such, is quoted here: “… to identify and examine their presuppositions and to approach the Bible with an attitude of learning.” This is the way we will be approaching our Bible study. In scholarly circles, this method is known as the hermeneutical spiral. It boils down to this: 1. Start with an assumption. 2. Read the text. 3. Adjust our assumptions. 4. Re-read the text. 5. Adjust our assumptions. We continue in this fashion until it is no longer possible to adjust our assumptions (theology) without going outside of the spiralling inward towards the truth that we’ve already done. In this manner, we zero-in on the true meaning of the Scriptures, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
We must always be cautious when turning to evangelicals for understanding. Much confusion often results.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

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.

We must always bear in mind that the New Birth is an experiential, life changing encounter with the Mighty God in Jesus Christ. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the reception of the Living God into our lives, in the form of the Spirit of Christ making us "new creations." It IS an experiential hermeneutic. Much of what passes for theology today is merely an attempt to academically sidestep the obvious. "All Scripture," means all scripture, whether it's KJV, NIV, Greek or Russian. Only when we return to New Testament patterns, principles and priorities, will we again experience New Testament power. it's time to quit turning to trinitarian scholars in our search for Apostolic understanding. All you will find there are excuses and dry wells. Acts IS an historical record. It is the history of the New Birth experience and it's effects on the followers of Christ. it is our only reliable record of apostolic belief and practice. Acts is the "Pattern Church." All else, we are warned against by Paul as philosophy and traditions of man (doctrines of devils).

[Jay]

One might be able to borrow insights on other portions of Scripture from Evangelicals, however, they must be carefully scrutinized. Further, one must never rely on them for anything related to doctrine. Their approach to doctrine is tainted by their reliance on the creeds and foundational doctrines of the Catholic Church, namely the doctrine of the Trinity which was codified as church doctrine in the 300s, and which can be seen to be opposed throughout history.

[Nitehawk013]

Meh. Acts, complete with it's "experiencial hermeneutic" still seems IMO to be a better source of doctrine to me than the Epistles which are mostly Paul explaining to the infant church what happened to them in Acts and how to respond to it/what it signified. The Epistles are wholly meaningless in theological terms to anyone who had not experienced what happened in Acts. Without Acts, there is no need of any Epistles.