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
  #71  
Old 12-03-2008, 06:52 PM
dizzyde's Avatar
dizzyde dizzyde is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,408
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkstokes View Post
Dan

Do you write stuff like you wrote to get a response like Bro. Epley's or are you sincerly trying to compart knowledge?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-03-2008, 07:03 PM
TRFrance's Avatar
TRFrance TRFrance is offline
Matthew 7:6


 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,768
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover View Post
Yes. Perhaps I am misunderstanding iceniez? I thought he was saying they all spoke in known languages...
ok.

It seems apparent that you misunderstood him.

He was responding to Sam's post regarding speaking in an actual language vs gibberish or "nonsense syllables". So ICE was saying when he and his family do it, he knows its an actual language, as opposed to gibberish.
__________________
http://endtimeobserver.blogspot.com
Daniel 12:3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever.

I'm T France, and I approved this message.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-03-2008, 07:11 PM
TRFrance's Avatar
TRFrance TRFrance is offline
Matthew 7:6


 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,768
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkeley View Post
And here we go....


The primary def of that word is: an abrupt, exclamatory utterance.
It is a definition of the word; but it's not a primary definition of the word.
If you ask 100 random people to define that word, I hardly think even one of them would give that as the primary definition of the word.

See also:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...aculate%5B1%5D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover View Post
David Pawson needs to un-coin that term.
I agree.
There are so many other words he could have used. He really could have avoided that term.
__________________
http://endtimeobserver.blogspot.com
Daniel 12:3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever.

I'm T France, and I approved this message.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-03-2008, 07:21 PM
ronharvey's Avatar
ronharvey ronharvey is offline
Study Advocate


 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sellersburg, IN
Posts: 670
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas View Post
Here is the question, Do we at least all agree Acts does teach theology?
I like the Chronological Bible. It places the Epistles in Historic Perspective as they relate to the Book of Acts.
__________________
Ron Harvey
http://www.rccs.info

Remember, your day is only as good as the strength of the table you're dancing on!

::
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-03-2008, 07:32 PM
Sam's Avatar
Sam Sam is offline
Jesus' Name Pentecostal


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: near Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 17,805
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by keith4him View Post
I agree with this nice summary, but it seems the common one is tongue speaking, but I won't put God in a box if he chooses some other form of ejaculation (term coined by David Pawson where referring to the phenomenon by which the Spirit expresses itself in a notable way)
I agree.
Speaking with tongues is mentioned in Acts 2, 10, and 19.
And it is implied in Acts 8.
I was not denying that.
We seem to have witnesses that there is a post conversion experience in the Spirit that we may give different names (baptism, receiving, filling, falling upon, promise, coming upon, gift) that is usually received through the laying on of hands, and that experience is often accompanied or followed by speaking with other tongues/languages. I think most of us can agree with that.

Can we draw the conclusion that a person has not received that experience if they have not spoken with tongues? Or, can we say that everyone who receives that experience will speak with tongues? Or can we say that a person has not received that experience until he/she has spoken with tongues? We probably have differences of opinion here.

The "initial physical evidence" doctrine is based on three witnesses where Jews and Gentiles spoke with tongues when receiving that experience. To some that is sufficient "proof." For others it is not.

I'm not arguing for or against here.

I speak/pray with tongues just about every day.
I do not judge someone who does not.

P.S. I do not recognize or categorize my "prayer language." I don't know if it is a currently known human language, a language from somewhere in the past, an earthly language, a heavenly language, or what. It is a special, privileged communication between my spirit and my Lord and it builds me up.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-03-2008, 09:53 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

The book of the Acts of the Apostles carries such weight because it is the chronicle of the culmination of all the OT looked unto.

The gospel would be a hollow victory if it had not been acted upon.

The Epistles would be useless if there were no blood bought, Jesus' Name Baptisted, Holy Ghost filled believers to pastor.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-03-2008, 10:31 PM
mizpeh mizpeh is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,690
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
Any thoughts on Gordon Fee ... Elder Epley?
Who were you quoting in the opening post?
__________________
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
  #78  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:45 AM
deltaguitar's Avatar
deltaguitar deltaguitar is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Flower Mound, Tx
Posts: 2,791
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by keith4him View Post
Dr. Daniel Segraves was in the particular class where Synan addressed the question.

He was talking about Pentecostals and the initial evidence doctrine and how many in differing Pentecostal groups claim to receive it.

He mentioned all the various groups then had Dr. Daniel Segraves stand up and said to him before the entire class of PhD Scholars, the decline in the experience and teaching is not so with you Oneness Pentecostals and quoted a # to Dr. Segraves, Dr. Segraves said that the number somewhere above 90% was accurate.
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.

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%?

Dr. Seagraves should have informed all those PhDs that you aren't considered even born again until you speak in tongues in the Oneness organizations. This would directly explain the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:51 AM
deltaguitar's Avatar
deltaguitar deltaguitar is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Flower Mound, Tx
Posts: 2,791
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Predicador View Post
The book of the Acts of the Apostles carries such weight because it is the chronicle of the culmination of all the OT looked unto.

The gospel would be a hollow victory if it had not been acted upon.

The Epistles would be useless if there were no blood bought, Jesus' Name Baptisted, Holy Ghost filled believers to pastor.
OK, that just flat out scares me. Yes Acts is important but you still have to interpret Acts from other scripture and not the other way around. How is the gospel acted upon? Maybe this would be a good topic for another thread?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-04-2008, 09:31 AM
2020Vision 2020Vision is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 689
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

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.
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 houston
- by aegsm76

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.