Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[SDG]

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:

Charles F. Parham bequeathed to the Pentecostal movement its definitive hermeneutics, and consequently, its definitive theology and apologetics. His contribution arose out of the problem of the interpretation of the second chapter of Acts and his conviction that Christian experience in the 20th century “should tally exactly with the Bible, [but] neither sanctification nor the anointing that abideth … tallied with the 2nd chapter of Acts.”3 Consequently he reports, “I set the students at work studying out diligently what was the Bible evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost that we might go before the world with something that was indisputable because it tallied absolutely with the Word.”4 He tells the results of their investigation in the following words: “Leaving the school for three days at this task, I went to Kansas City for three days services. I returned to the school on the morning preceding Watch Night service in the year 1900.
“At about 10:00 o’clock in the morning I rang the bell calling all the students into the Chapel to get their report on the matter in hand. To my astonishment they all had the same story, that while there were different things occurring when the Pentecostal blessing fell, the indisputable proof on each occasion was, that they spoke with other tongues.”5
In Parham’s report we find the essential distinctives of the Pentecostal movement, namely, (1) the conviction that contemporary experience should be identical to apostolic Christianity, (2) the separation of the baptism in the Holy Spirit from sanctification (as Holiness movements had earlier separated it from conversion/incorporation), and (3) that tongues speaking is the indisputable evidence or proof of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

He continues describing pragmatic hermeneutics as follows:

Thus, in the weeks which bridged the Christmas season of 1900 and the New Year 1901, tongues was identified as the biblical evidence of the baptism in the Spirit and was confirmed by contemporary (20th century) experience. This identification of biblical tongues and contemporary charismatic experience was a Pragmatic hermeneutic. This Pragmatic hermeneutic passed into the infant Pentecostal movement as “oral tradition.” This tradition was subsequently “received” by church councils and codified in doctrinal statements.
As a result of this codification of Parham’s hermeneutics and theology, Pentecostal hermeneutics has existed in an analytical vacuum for the majority of its brief history. In fact, Pentecostal hermeneutics has been exposition rather than investigation and analysis. Nevertheless, this Pragmatic hermeneutic became the bulwark of Pentecostal apologetics and the pillar of classical Pentecostalism which, though it might be articulated with greater clarity, finesse, and sophistication, remained inviolate until recently.

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.

Fee has established a reputation for acumen in the area of hermeneutics, and his sympathetic critique of the Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence focuses on shortcomings in this area. He notes that Pentecostals generally support their claim that Spirit-baptism is distinct from conversion by appealing to various episodes recorded in the book of Acts. This approach, in its most common form, appeals to the experience of the Samaritans (Acts 8), Paul (Acts 9), and the Ephesians (Acts 19) as a normative model for all Christians. But Fee, following the lead of many Evangelicals, maintains that this line of argumentation rests on a shaky hermeneutical foundation. The fundamental flaw in the Pentecostal approach is their failure to appreciate the genre of the book of Acts: Acts is a description of historical events. Unless we are prepared to choose church leaders by the casting of lots, or willing to encourage church members to sell all of their possessions, we cannot simply assume that a particular historical narrative provides a basis for normative theology.

Fee’s concern is a legitimate one: How do we distinguish between those aspects of Luke’s narrative that are normative and those that are not?

Fee’s answer is that historical precedent, if it is “to have normative value, must be related to intent.”5 That is to say, Pentecostals must demonstrate that Luke intended the various oft-cited episodes in Acts to establish a precedent for future Christians. Otherwise, Pentecostals may not legitimately speak of a Spirit-baptism distinct from conversion that is in any sense normative for the church. According to Fee, this is exactly where the Pentecostal position fails. Fee describes two kinds of arguments offered by Pentecostals: those from biblical analogy: and those from biblical precedent. Arguments from the former point to Jesus’ experience at the Jordan (subsequent to his miraculous birth by the Spirit) and the disciples experience at Pentecost (subsequent to John 20:22) as normative models of Christian experience. Yet these arguments, as all arguments from biblical analogy, are problematic because “it can seldom be demonstrated that our analogies are intentional in the biblical text itself.”6 These purported analogies are particularly problematic, for the experiences of Jesus and the apostles — coming as they do prior to “the great line of demarcation,” the day of Pentecost — “are of such a different kind from succeeding Christian experience that they can scarcely have normative value.”7

Arguments from biblical precedent seek to find a normative pattern of Christian experience in the experience of the Samaritans, Paul, and the Ephesians. Fee asserts that these arguments also fail to convince because it cannot be demonstrated that Luke intended to present in these narratives a normative model. The problem here is twofold. First, the evidence is not uniform: However we view the experience of the Samaritans and the Ephesians, Cornelius and his household (Acts 10) appear to receive the Spirit as they are converted. Second, even when subsequence can be demonstrated, as with the Samaritans in Acts 8, it is doubtful whether this can be linked to Luke’s intent. Fee suggests that Luke’s primary intent was to validate the experience of the Christians as the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem.8

This leads Fee to reject the traditional Pentecostal position. He concludes, a baptism in the Spirit distinct from conversion and intended for empowering is “neither clearly taught in the New Testament nor necessarily to be seen as a normative pattern (let alone the only pattern) for Christian experience.”9 Yet this rejection of subsequence is, according to Fee, really of little consequence. For the central truth, which marks Pentecostalism is its emphasis on the dynamic, powerful character of experience of the Spirit. Whether the Spirit’s powerful presence is experienced at conversion or after is ultimately irrelevant, and to insist that all must go “one route” is to say more than the New Testament allows.10 In short, Fee maintains that although Pentecostals need to reformulate their theology, their experience is valid.

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?

[Praxeas]

I would say we should consider all what the NT says on the subjects and reconcile them to each other

[OneAccord]

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

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

Don't encourage him

[mizpeh]

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.

Hi Dan!

[Praxeas]

Here is the question, Do we at least all agree Acts does teach theology?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I would say we should consider all what the NT says on the subjects and reconcile them to each other

It would be counterintuitive to think that what the apostles did in the book of Acts somehow is not what they taught as doctrine.

[SDG]

How about Fee's assertion that Pentecostals must demonstrate various oft-cited episodes in Acts to establish a precedent for future Christians ... do the 3 or 4 verses that speak of tongues as part of Holy Ghost infillings ... suffice in proving that it is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost or that tongues is necessary for salvation ... or as precedence for all instances?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

How about Fee's assertion that Pentecostals must demonstrate various oft-cited episodes in Acts to establish a precedent for future Christians ... do the 3 or 4 verses that speak of tongues as part of Holy Ghost infillings ... suffice in proving that it is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost or that tongues is necessary for salvation ... or as precedence for all instances?

Nope. But then not all Pentecostals, or even Oneness Pentecostals, make such definitive claims.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

How about Fee's assertion that Pentecostals must demonstrate various oft-cited episodes in Acts to establish a precedent for future Christians ... do the 3 or 4 verses that speak of tongues as part of Holy Ghost infillings ... suffice in proving that it is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost or that tongues is necessary for salvation ... or as precedence for all instances?

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