Apostolic Friends Forum - Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- The D.A.'s Office (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65)

- - Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine? (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=20706)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 648000)

Please note that in the KJV, Acts 2:37 does not say what must we do to be saved? Actually it says, "Men and bretren, what shall we do?"

There is only one place in the KJV where the question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" was asked. That is in Acts 16:30. The question was asked by a jailer in the Roman colony of Philippi. He asked that question to the Apostles Paul and Silas. The Apostolic answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).

So, for the record, the only time in the Bible that an Apostle is asked
what must I do to be saved
is answered by an Apostle
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

This is not meant to minimize the ritual of water baptism. We read that the Apostles spoke the Word of the Lord to the jailer and his family and that they all were subsequently baptized in water. The record goes on to say that the jailer and his family believed in God. There is no mention as to whether or not some or all received the Holy Ghost Baptism.

Sam, what exactly were the men in Acts 2 asking?

What must we do.........? to avoid the wrath of Christ?

What must we do........? to rectify our grave error?

What must we do........? We murdered our Savior!!!

Or, Peter, now that you have told us who we murdered, is there anything we can do to avoid judgement from the King of kings and Lord of lords?

IOW, why did they ask, What shall we do?

Are you serious in thinking and believing that they were not asking how to be saved, delivered, etc?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 648045)

The question in Acts 2 and Acts 16 may not be worded the same, but the intent is exactly the same.

Paul and Peter taught the same message to Jews and Gentiles alike.

I agree that they preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ and never taught that sins are washed/remitted at baptism to Jews and Gentiles ALIKE.

Both taught, even in the historical narrative (Acts), that faith in Christ (turning to God )/repentance (turning from sin) - different side of the same coin .... results in forgiveness/remission AND ULTIMATELY SALVATION IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.

Paul summarizing his APOSTOLIC message of salvation to the elders in Ephesus as he leaves the work to them:

Acts 20:

17From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. 18When they arrived, he said to them: "You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. 19I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. 20You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter to Jews:

Acts 3::
17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ[a] would suffer. 19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.

Acts 11: (Peter states repentance results in life - this before baptism of Gentiles)

15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

(why not the 3 stepper emphasis in the sermons by APOSTLES IN ACTS? Why DIDN'T PETER say they spoke in tongues and therefore were almost saved, until we dunked them IN A PROPERLY ADMINISTERED BAPTISM in his recap of the message he preached to Cornelius?)

All narrative from the ANSWER KEY OF COURSE!!!!

Never once in Acts a sermon to the lost saying come to the altar and you'll have to speak in tongues to prove your salvation ... OR infilling?

Their message is clear even in the book that seems to take pre-eminence in the minds of some.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2020Vision (Post 647916)

When things are common knowledge and written to Christians who've already had the experience, there's no point. There was no disagreement about tongues being evidence of God's Spirit. In some ways, Paul's letters only responded to PROBLEMS in the church.

Paul definitely wasn't writing a systematic theology book! And neither was Luke.

The initial pouring out of the Spirit in Acts 2 set the norm for what every believer would experience when they receive the Holy Spirit.

Those against tongues as the initial evidence always require a necessary redundancy in all the conversions listed in the book of Acts. Meaning that for them it is necessary that EVERY conversion say something to the effect...and they or he/she was filled with the Spirit and spoke in other tongues.

I think "this is that" is enough. God pours His Spirit out on you and you speak in tongues!

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Predicador (Post 647934)

It was not a quote, hence the lack of quotation marks, but it was of course the essence of what was asked.

Paul's response was not inclusive by any means since the next verse speaks of him explaining scriptures to the jailer and his family.

Acts 2:38 in total isolation of course means almost nothing, however you will not find a single verse more inclusive and better suited to stating the response to hearing the gospel.

And it is also of note Paul's response about salvation was also in the Book of Acts further dismantling the argument that Acts is a mere narrative and unworthy or rather incapable of theological statement.

BUMP

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Dan, I haven't spoken in tongues since I was filled with the Spirit. How do you explain that?

I explain it by going to Corinthians and saying that, in context, Paul is speaking specifically about the gifts of the Spirit and especially the gift of tongues and not what happens when a believer receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit. God gives the manifestation of His Spirit through the gifts to each born again believer, severally as He sees fit. That is why Paul can ask with the expected answer to be in the negative...do all speak with tongues? I spoke with tongues but I haven't for years. If you believe those who speak in tongues have the gift of tongues then I have to ask, Did God take the gift of tongues away from me?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 648086)

Is there any scripture that separates the "initial evidence" of tongues from either prayer language, or the gift of tongues?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps (Post 648093)

Is there any scripture that separates the "initial evidence" of tongues from either prayer language, or the gift of tongues?

No scripture but Context.

Did God take the gift of tongues away from me?

(I know that this is not a question you want to answer, Michael. You will feel like you are judging my spirituality. Sorry to put you in a difficult spot.)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 648103)

Context.

Did God take the gift of tongues away from me?

Lol, I won't discuss that.

My question is a sidebar, I won't hijack the thread.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps (Post 648093)

Is there any scripture that separates the "initial evidence" of tongues from either prayer language, or the gift of tongues?

While I would not use personal experience as definite proof of a doctrine I DO agree with Sister Mizpeh as far as the answer of CONTEXT

The incidents chronicled in Acts were response to hearing and acting on the gospel.

Epistles were written to saints from their pastor, in Corinthians to instruct on gifts on the spirit and how they are to be used to edify the church.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Predicador (Post 648107)

But, once again, we're making assumptions that there are different types of tongues.

BUt, as I said, I won't discuss that here, it's a thread hijacker. I'll start another thread, maybe!