Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[2020Vision]

I should clarify that by "new testament" I mean "rest of the new testament": gospels, epistles, etc... Some of you would crucify someone for such a simple oversight.

I love the "New Pentecostals" though that want to so bad imitate what AOG did, and now it's not even a private thought that they don't really agree that Acts 2:38 is the Truth. Too much conversation with commentaries, fluff preachers and misty-eyed moments with their CDs and less time on your knees. Good intentions never replaces what is right. Ask the guy that tried to catch the AOC from falling. I'm all for being progressive and advanced in our methods, but some our masking their desire for Obama-type "Change" as a way to strip away the fundamentals of the Apostolic church.

[Pastor Keith]

I thought this was interesting:

Luke (Acts) vs Paul (Epistles)

Arguments for a “second blessing” tend to centre on the book of Acts. It seems that everyone who was baptised in or received the Spirit certainly knew about it. Many spoke in tongues or prophesied. It often occurred close to the time of conversion but apparently not always (e.g. the Samaritans in Acts 8, and of course the disciples themselves).

Acts 19:2 is crucial in the argument. Paul’s question “did you receive the Spirit when you believed?” is addressed to some “disciples” from Ephesus and seems to imply that first you can believe without receiving, and second that you would know if you had received.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Before we can make a doctrine out of something we must study what the bible says in all verses on a subject before we can make conclusions,we must examine the cultural background of a text,we must look at a text in reference to other verses,and we must see what a text says in it's immediate context.

But if Acts is where the NT. church began then that would it be the origin of the church,and that would be most important for being on the right foundation.
And the epistles are equally important is that aspect as well.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by keith4him

I thought this was interesting:

Luke (Acts) vs Paul (Epistles)

Arguments for a “second blessing” tend to centre on the book of Acts. It seems that everyone who was baptised in or received the Spirit certainly knew about it. Many spoke in tongues or prophesied. It often occurred close to the time of conversion but apparently not always (e.g. the Samaritans in Acts 8, and of course the disciples themselves).

Acts 19:2 is crucial in the argument. Paul’s question “did you receive the Spirit when you believed?” is addressed to some “disciples” from Ephesus and seems to imply that first you can believe without receiving, and second that you would know if you had received.

The question in ACTS.19 is what did these people and where they just believing only in the message of John The Baptist.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

The question in ACTS.19 is what did these people and where they just believing only in the message of John The Baptist.

And very young disciples, they were! "7 And all the men were about twelve. " LOL!

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

The question in ACTS.19 is what did these people and where they just believing only in the message of John The Baptist.

I would consider them pre-Pentecost disciples. Yet having only the baptism of John which many if not all of them had. Either way the experience had deficits and the Apostle made sure to test what they did have. And when discovered that there was a deficit he made sure they got more.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

I should clarify that by "new testament" I mean "rest of the new testament": gospels, epistles, etc... Some of you would crucify someone for such a simple oversight.

I love the "New Pentecostals" though that want to so bad imitate what AOG did, and now it's not even a private thought that they don't really agree that Acts 2:38 is the Truth. Too much conversation with commentaries, fluff preachers and misty-eyed moments with their CDs and less time on your knees. Good intentions never replaces what is right. Ask the guy that tried to catch the AOC from falling. I'm all for being progressive and advanced in our methods, but some [are] masking their desire for Obama-type "Change" as a way to strip away the fundamentals of the Apostolic church.

Well said.

And to me, this is a reflection of some other underlying spiritual issues that are at work.

There is an attitude and spirit of compromise trying to make inroads in the Apostolic Church. Hopefully, more of God's peoples will recognize it for what it is, and stand against it, rather than allow themselves to be swept away by it.

[Rhoni]

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?

Oh Danny boy...9 more days! Try not to get banned before you get married. You will calm down considerably under good lovin'.

Blessings, Rhoni

[DaveC519]

Hello deltaguitar,

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Obviously this is because the Oneness groups teach that speaking in tongues is part of the new birth. If you teach hell or tongues then I can guarantee you will have folks speaking in tongues just as rapidly as the denominational world has folks being "born again" by saying the sinner's prayer.

I think that the same would be true with Oneness groups stressing baptism more than other groups. You can't even be saved in most Oneness churches unless you speak in tongues and are baptized.

Don't Oneness groups teach that being "Spirit-filled" is the actual part of the New Birth vs. the action of "speaking in tongues"? Speaking in tongues happens to be the recurring initial sign that someone has been filled, but it's the Spirit-filling that is part of the New Birth.

Look at the number of spirit baptisms versus water baptism and the relation to conversions. See page 2.

You have an average of 47 conversions per church.
Of these 47 only 12 speak with tongues which is 25% of converts.
Of these 47 only 14 were water baptized which is 29% of converts.

http://www.ag.org/top/About/Statisti...rt_Summary.pdf

The way I see it the figures aren't comparable at all. Oneness churches don't even count someone as saved until they have been baptized and have spoke in tongues. So naturally, the only people in the church who would be considered not tongue talkers would be those seeking to be saved and maybe small children.

Now, the question I have is how many of those really speak in tongues? We have all seen people who we know didn't speak in tongues and then were proclaimed as having received the Holy Ghost.

Also, if you were to visit one of the "one-stepper" churches that didn't preach tongues or hell then I think it is very possible that the stats would be much lower than 90%?

I think the numbers are higher in OP churches because they actually hold altar services and encourage ppl to seek for the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

And if there are individuals who are pronounced "filled" without really speaking in tongues, then it becomes evident to the Church (and the individual) after a short time that these are not bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and still need to be filled.

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

How is the gospel acted upon?

The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

The response to the gospel is Acts 2:38

Which answered the question in Acts 2:37