[A_PoMo]

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?

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.