Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The D.A.'s Office
Facebook

Notices

The D.A.'s Office The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of AFF or the Admin of AFF.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:16 PM
mizpeh mizpeh is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,740
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Predicador View Post
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
Isn't the gospel the good news that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, brought peace between man and God? We were separated from God because of our sins and now have been reconciled to Him because of cross of Christ.

Sorry to be so persnickety but I find that saying the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be an insufficient answer to the question, "What is the gospel?", especially if asked by an unbeliever.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:57 PM
Hoovie's Avatar
Hoovie Hoovie is offline
Supercalifragilisticexpiali...


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 19,197
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizpeh View Post
Isn't the gospel the good news that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, brought peace between man and God? We were separated from God because of our sins and now have been reconciled to Him because of cross of Christ.

Sorry to be so persnickety but I find that saying the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be an insufficient answer to the question, "What is the gospel?", especially if asked by an unbeliever.
Very good. I like that.
__________________
"It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005

I am a firm believer in the Old Paths

Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945

"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:43 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2020Vision View Post
The New Testament is the theory, we ask the questions which create the test, Acts is the answer key - that is, theory put to work, or put to ACTions.
The NT is theory? Acts the answer key? OMG!!!!
The death and resurrection of Christ ... a big hypothetical until it's acted upon by us?
YOU GOTTA BE ABSOLUTELY KIDDING ME!!!
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-04-2008, 07:11 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Some thoughts by others on interpreting using historical narratives and formulating doctrine:

Proper biblical hermeneutics

(1) always plays a major part in biblical interpretation. One primary hermeneutical principle that is especially germane to this discussion is historical narrative versus didactic (teaching) portions of Scripture.
(2) Since there are different genres of literature in Scripture, each must be seen in its own context and interpreted in light of its own literary principles. To be sure, there is a difference between historical narrative and didactic genres, and it is important to know which is which and to know how to interpret them accordingly. But, an oversimplified view is that doctrines can only be derived from didactic portions of Scripture while historical narratives serve only to show us what transpired for others in those historical events. Perhaps the best way to clarify this is to give examples of each.

Historical Narrative Example- When the historical narrative in Exodus tells us that Moses struck a rock with his staff and water came out, are we then to assume that all believers can strike a rock to have water? God is speaking to Moses, and he says:“I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exodus 17:6).

However, one narrative does not a doctrine make. Something must be repeated to establish a norm (a “have-to pattern”). Furthermore, this “thing” must be consistent each time it is repeated. It is interesting that this “water from a rock” did not happen only once. It happened again.

In the book of Numbers, it says:Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank (Numbers 20:11).(3)However, even with two separate accounts of Moses striking a rock to retrieve water, this narrative description of what happened should not be treated as though it were a prescription for “the way to get water.” And, as far as I know, no thoughtful Christian believes that we can simply take a stick and hit a rock for our water needs.Though this is an extreme example of how not to build doctrines on narratives, the point should be clear.

Narrative passages of Scripture are often only descriptive, i.e., describing how some people did something and not prescriptive, i.e., prescribing how all people must do something.

Didactic Example- Now, let’s review a didactic portion of Scripture. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God (1 Corinthians 14:27-28).In this didactic (teaching) portion of Scripture, Paul is addressing the Corinthians, and he is explaining to them how they should conduct their worship service. Since this is a direct teaching, we can see and accept its universal application for all Christians for all times. When something is for all Christians for all times, then we call that a “norm” (or “normative”). It is something that should (must) be done by all Christians, and when they do not do it, they are out of line.

However, in our narrative passage of Moses and the rock, we would not see that as a norm. The water-from-the-rock situation was unique to Moses. Nowhere is there a didactic portion of Scripture that commands all Christians to strike rocks for water. Therefore, it is not a “norm.” It is simply a record (narrative) of how God dealt with Moses in particular times at particular places.

Two More Examples - It appears that Peter had a particular ministry that was unique to him. The historical narrative of the book of Acts gives us this account:As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by (Acts 5:15).Peter had a “Shadow Ministry,”(4) and no one assumes that this is a norm. This passage is not prescribing how Christians are to heal the sick; it is simply recounting this unique experience in Peter’s life.

Speaking of Peter, he himself, however, writes didactically to all Christians when he says,Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good (1 Pet. 2:1-3).In this passage Peter gives instructions that are normative for all Christians for all time. Unlike Moses’ rock-and-water experience, which is only descriptive, Peter’s instructions are prescriptive. Here is a simple table that may help clarify the two.

NARRATIVE ------------------ and ------------------ DIDACTIC
A story ------------------------------------------------- A teaching
Descriptive -------------------------------------------Prescriptive
Normal for some ----------------------------------- A norm for all

The Twist - However, it is not as simple as saying, “Doctrines can only be derived from didactic portions of Scripture and never narrative portions of Scripture.” If the discussion were that simple, we would be able to simply state that the book of Acts is a historical narrative, and, thus, no doctrines can be built from it. That then, would end the debate. But, the church has legitimately established some of its doctrines and practices via historical narrative.

As Fee points out, the Baptists (and some others) insist on baptism by immersion. This practice, however, is not based on any clear didactic portion of Scripture, but rather upon a word study of the word baptize and upon historical narrative. Why does the church meet each Sunday for services? What didactic portion of Scripture establishes that routine for our church practice? Upon what New Testament didactic portion of Scripture does the church teach and support the practice of tithing?

Furthermore, New Testament writers did use Old Testament narratives for didactic instruction. In fact, Paul seems to imply as much when he says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Also, in Romans 15:4, Paul says, “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

So, historical narrative does have didactic value; the issue is how do we legitimately exegete doctrine and practice from historical narrative?If we conclude that doctrines may be derived from historical narrative (and I do), we cannot then simply say, “Well, there you go. Since we can use that hermeneutical principle, then speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

You see, even when we conclude that doctrines can be built from historical narratives, shall we then institute the “water-from-rocks ministry,” or the “shadow-healing ministry”? Obviously not.

In Paraclete, Roger Stronstad gives a weighty argument for “The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent”(5) (i.e., building doctrines from narratives). However, in the same issue of Paraclete, Gordon Fee supplies a strong rejoinder in which he offers several cautions concerning this hermeneutical principle.(6) In essence, if doctrines are to be built upon narrative portions of Scripture, many caveats come into play. After an ongoing discussion on this topic, Gordon Fee eloquently expresses my concern:At issue, as I perceive it, is whether historical precedent may serve in a normative way for the establishing of Christian doctrine. I have expressed concern on this issue; and as Roger [Stronstad] has indicated, “considerable criticism” has been levied against my articulation of things. But I must confess that in all of that criticism, I have failed to find a hermeneutical articulation that took me by the hand and showed me how one goes about doing this—that is, establishing something normative on the basis of historical precedent alone (emphasis added).(7)So, while there may be legitimacy in building doctrine from narrative passages alone, there is yet to be a definitive hermeneutical statement on how that is properly done.

http://www.columbiaseminary.org/coffeetalk/091.html
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-04-2008, 07:17 PM
freeatlast's Avatar
freeatlast freeatlast is offline
the ultracon


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: smack dab in da middle
Posts: 4,443
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
The NT is theory? Acts the answer key? OMG!!!!
The death and resurrection of Christ ... a big hypothetical until it's acted upon by us?
YOU GOTTA BE ABSOLUTELY KIDDING ME!!!
My thoughts eggzactly Dan-O

Good to "see" you back.
__________________
God has lavished his love upon me.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-04-2008, 07:32 PM
stmatthew's Avatar
stmatthew stmatthew is offline
Smiles everyone...Smiles!!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sparta, TN
Posts: 2,399
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizpeh View Post
Isn't the gospel the good news that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, brought peace between man and God? We were separated from God because of our sins and now have been reconciled to Him because of cross of Christ.

Sorry to be so persnickety but I find that saying the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be an insufficient answer to the question, "What is the gospel?", especially if asked by an unbeliever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover View Post
Very good. I like that.


Here is the Gospel according to Paul.......

1Cr 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1Cr 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:18 PM
mizpeh mizpeh is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,740
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
The NT is theory? Acts the answer key? OMG!!!!
The death and resurrection of Christ ... a big hypothetical until it's acted upon by us?
YOU GOTTA BE ABSOLUTELY KIDDING ME!!!
If the gospel is not BELIEVED then it profits us nothing! And our belief leads us to obey the commandments of the Lord which includes repentance and baptism.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:26 PM
mizpeh mizpeh is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,740
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by stmatthew View Post
Here is the Gospel according to Paul.......

1Cr 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1Cr 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Notice the verse 3... died for our sins according to the scriptures. The scriptures in Isa 53 teach a substitutionary death which reconciles us to God. I just like a little more explanation than saying the gospels is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Like why did Christ die? Tell me about God's love that gave His only begotten Son. There is more to teaching the gospel than simply Christ died, was buried, and rose from the dead. IMHO.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-04-2008, 10:38 PM
El Predicador El Predicador is offline
Silent No More


 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 473
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizpeh View Post
Isn't the gospel the good news that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, brought peace between man and God? We were separated from God because of our sins and now have been reconciled to Him because of cross of Christ.

Sorry to be so persnickety but I find that saying the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be an insufficient answer to the question, "What is the gospel?", especially if asked by an unbeliever.
Of course it is, forgive my shorthand.

Surely someone of your intellect would not suppose a discussion with "an unbeliever" would not be more inclusive dear sister.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-05-2008, 12:42 AM
mizpeh mizpeh is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,740
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Predicador View Post
Of course it is, forgive my shorthand.

Surely someone of your intellect would not suppose a discussion with "an unbeliever" would not be more inclusive dear sister.
My intellect?

Should we follow the actions of the apostles or not? Does a narrative allow that?

Is there anyone here with common sense?
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Acts 2:38 your god? SDG The D.A.'s Office 438 09-16-2010 06:00 PM
Long Term Health Care Insurance Pitfalls? StillStanding Fellowship Hall 15 02-27-2008 03:53 PM
Acts 2:38 in first several chapters of Acts mfblume Fellowship Hall 2 09-01-2007 10:25 AM
Acts 8:14 Kutless Deep Waters 122 05-01-2007 03:07 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.