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 Stephen Hoover (Post 648766)

When Paul says one should not speak in tongues in the public assembly unless it is followed by interpretation, does he really mean all tongues... or is there a caveat somewhere?

After Paul's' instruction, did they continue speaking in tongues publicly without interpretation?

I don't think Paul was referring to ALL tongues. I stated yesterday that, IMO, there are at least 3 different types of tongues. "Other tongues"- commonly called the initial evidence, "Unknown tongues" -prayer language, and "Prophetic tongues" - to be interpreted.

When Paul wrote this: 1Cr 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those that are] unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? he was referring to "prophetic utterances or tongues". These are messages directed to the assembly. If one or more stands (and I've seen maybe a dozen speaking "prophetic utternances" at the same time- completely out of order) to speak in tongues to an assembly without an interpreter it would cause confusion. Paul said they should only do so, praying that they may interprete. He added that if no interpreter (a separate spiritual gift) is present, then there should be no "prophetic tongues". This doesn't impede the estatic utterances of "other tongues" or praying in "unknown tongues".

Now, another point. If, in fact, "other tongues" (Acts 2:4) is the supernatural ability to speak in other "earthly languages" then, my question is, Why the need for the spiritual gift of interpretation? I do believe the foriegn visitors in Jerusalem heard the disciples speaking in their own langugage, but I believe this to be the gift of "divers kinds of tongues" in operation. The disciples were "prophesying" - just as Joel had said- in "prophetic utterances". They were "interpreting" into the language of the hearers.

On a side note: We had a deaf girl attending our church. She had never been saved because no one knew how to "speak" to her. A man was saved in our church I'll call Harold. When Harold would "get in the spirit", his hands would do strange things. The girl began watching him, and began to write something. A few minutes later, she went to the altar, repented and recieved the Holy Ghost and, yes, spoke in tongues. From then on, Harold interpreted as the preacher preached, using his hands to convey the words to the girl. The thing is, Harld did not know the American sign language. To my knowledge, Harold never "spoke" in tongues audibly. God used his hands rather than his tongue to interprete the Word of God. The girl woud write down what "Harold" would say and then we could compare what she had written to audible tapes of the sermon. It was almost always word for word.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Mizpeh,

Please understand that I'm on parole. The number of posts I can make in a 24 hour span in a given forum is limited. I also worked yesterday.

You like EP, the Bishop, TR, and EP, and maybe even Dave are missing the forest from the trees in this thread I believe. First, the thread title speaks of SOLELY using Acts to formulate doctrine while my initial thread also speaks of the pitfalls of making historical narrative pre-eminent over didactic teaching. Ironically, I see how all are using Paul's teaching in Corinthians to be the lead in the pneumatolical discussion that I knew would follow. Why doesn't this happen when we discuss other soterological discussions is what I can't understand? Often when epistles are discussed in a conversation about salvation it's dismissed w/ "The epistles were written to believers" yet we find lots of teaching in the Pauline, Petrine, Johanine writings on how we were saved. None matching what is proported by some here.

The common thread in this entire discussion is WHAT IS NORMATIVE.

TR thought he gave Mike that ever so elusive smack down he seeks in his cutesy retort that if repentance is not mentioned we can't assume it happened. First, as Mike pointed out that throughout Scripture, from the OT, Jesus and the Apostles it's described as necessary for repentance. Two, it's described as not just being a one stop, mucous-filled, cry-fest but rather a lifestyle where one turns from sin and believes, or turns to God in faith. We can see throughout scripture that there is fruit of repentance and being born of God ... and that includes baptism and obeying other commandments. No one can dispute Jesus when he says repent or likewise perish. It's irrefutable doctrine because it's normative ... it applies in all contexts and specific situations.

Now to the issue of tongues and whether it is: 1. always shown in the book of Acts as evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost: 2. A necessary sign for salvation

It is one of the reasons the extreme example of the rock to water illustration. As is EP's custom, he's wrong that it happened only once in scripture. Most, if not all scholars agree this happened on two separate episodes in Scripture in regards to Moses.

Quote:

The Biblical text mentions two very similar episodes that both occur at a place named Meribah. The episode recounted by the Book of Exodus features the Israelites quarreling with Moses about the lack of water, and Moses rebuking the Israelites for testing Yahweh [8]; the text states that it was on this account that the place gained the name Massah[9], meaning testing, and the name Meribah[10], meaning quarreling. The narrative in the Book of Exodus states that, on account of their thirst, the Israelites grumbled against Moses[11], so Moses, in fear for his life, appeals to Yahweh[12]; the narrative continues with Yahweh telling Moses to walk ahead of the others, and strike the rock at Horeb with his rod[13], and when Moses does this, it causes the rock to expel water[14].
The episode recounted by the Book of Numbers features the Israelites quarreling with Moses and Aaron about the lack of water and food crops[15]; the text states that Moses and Aaron responded by consulting Yahweh at the Tabernacle door, while prostrating themselves, and that Yahweh told them to take the rod, and speak to a particular rock while the people are gathered together in view of it[16]. The narrative continues with Moses following the instructions[17], which Yahweh had stated would result in water flowing from the rock[18], but Moses additionally strikes the rock, doing so twice, resulting in a strong flow of water[19].
Textual scholars regard the two accounts as different versions of the same events at Meribah, with the version in the Book of Exodus being from the JE source, and the version in the Book of Numbers being from the Priestly Source [20][21][22]; the latter account, like the Priestly Source in general, is considered to be an attempt to supplant the JE version of the narrative, which doesn't treat Aaron as being as important as the Aaronid writer of the Priestly Source would have liked[23].

One instance but if it happened twice or even 3 times can I prove a pattern on how we should extract water from a rock? Or even formulate doctrine? Would I be missing what is really happening here? Isn't this what's being said w/ 3 examples of tongues in Acts manifesting as evidence of the the infilling of the Spirit? Is this the how?

I find three times where manifestations of a person filled w/ the Holy Ghost are speaking in tongues (one more episdode than the rocks to water episodes in Scripture)

... yet in two of the tongues episodes recorded I find prophesying and praising God as also evidence.

The "implied" example of Acts 8 is where the "smoking gun" theory falls apart for the initial evidence crowd. Mike pointed out that often a Pentecostal hermeneutic has always been that if Scripture is silent on a topic we can't assume it happened. Yet we compelled to do so in this instance.

Quote:

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money 19and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."

First, Scripture is silent here about tongues. Second, he saw, NOT HEARD, that the Spirit was given at the laying of hands. We don't know what manifestation was seen - AT ALL. How can we be consistent and assume it's tongues. Maybe they prophesied, danced? Prophesying was a common manifestation of the Spirit in the OT and Paul calls it a gift of the Spirit. May it was dancing ... today's Pentecostal says that it's a manifestation of the Spirit.

We are not consistent. Nor do we find any Apostle, who time after time discuss the necessity of repentance ... and yes even baptism (we differ in whether for salvation or obedience), say that tongues is a necessary sign of being filled with Spirit. Not one.

No concrete examples to prove it's normative ... no persuasive authority to show this in the didactic teachings of the epistles. Nothing.

How can we make it (tongues) on the par with repentance?

Again I believe it is evidence. I believe it's real. I believe that a believer should seek this experience. I even believe it's part of some's prayer language ... IT'S PART OF MINE. Paul speaks of it's benefits as well as the benifits other gifts of the Spirit.

But I will not base this on experiential hermeneutic which seems to be the foundation of your belief on the topic of tongues and pneumatology (what you personally experienced) ... nor can I state through Scripture that it is normative ... nor can I teach ... definitely that it is necessary for salvation. Doctrine is important ... it must be supported in all contexts ... and simply stating I feel ... or because it happened to me ... does not make it so.

Truth be told there are even water and Spirit OP's in Mexico, the Phillippines and other places that do not believe in tongues or hell doctrine.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Micheal also brings a very important point that the initial tongues/"initial evidence" in Acts 2 were human tongues and were intelligible ... a point that brought the notorious Dr. Vaughn some serious flak on this forum. It's very legitimate in the light that many do not speak intelligibly.

Even if I accept it as normative ... the onus that is salvational brings a interesting conondrum to the 3 step crowd.

First, Jesus (who I believe holds the trump card in all things doctrinal) said it is a sign that woud FOLLOW A BELIEVER ...

Quote:

17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Are all of these signs that FOLLOW A BELIEVER now salvational? Essential? If I don't cast out a demon do I get to punch my ticket?

Or are they all accessible? available? to be done IN HIS NAME?

Also if what we hear from 3 step theology and doctrine is true it leads to another dilemma in Acts 10.

I've posted this before:

Some believe we must imitate, emulate, re-enact the death, burial, resurretion of Jesus Christ by obeying the Gospel as stated by Peter in Acts 2:38 to be fully saved and born again.

They also believe that John 3:3 teaches the that being born of the water and spirit ... being born again is fully complete by a properly administered water baptism and speaking in other tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

Water baptism is perceived as being part of a recipe ... part of the BORN AGAIN MIX. Furthermore, water baptism is compared by them to only being buried w/ Christ.

The issue I'd like to address is whether or not this "burial" indeed partially regenerates us ... and is efficacious in quickening us by His Spirit into new birth, albeit partial.

It is my belief that Acts 10 still is the smoking gun ... against 3 step theology. If baptism is a burial of the dead man ... necessary to rid the man of the body of sin and wipe his sin stain ... then how could the Spirit of God quicken unto righteousness and life that which is still dead?

Does the indwelling of the Holy Ghost ["resurrrection"} represent the final piece of the 3 step puzzle that must be re-enacted that raises us into new life? ... does His Spirit do this while not setting us free of the law of sin and death or putting to death the deeds/sins of the body? (Romans 8:13)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please read Acts 8: 1-14 for this discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In Acts 10, we find those in the house of Cornelius showing evidence of being indwelt w/ the Holy Spirit yet had not, as some teach, been buried their body of sin ... or carnal man. Some would even say because they had not been baptized they are not yet declared righteous/justified and/or their slate not wiped clean through a properly administered baptism that would effectuate sin remission.

Furthermore, those w/ this sacramental mindset [a rite that mediates grace] are the first to say that unless one does not have the Spirit of Christ they are not His as it applies to speaking in tongues ... yet we see Cornelius being declared His, prior to water baptism.
(Romans 8:9)

We see the the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus setting him free from the law of sin and of death prior to re-enacting a burial of the body of sin???? (Romans 8:2)

2. Also we see that he is declared righteous before God and he is alive because of Christ's imputed righteousness ... by the Spirit indwelling. ....

Romans 8:10 - If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

3. Finally, if re-enactment theology is God-ordained ... repentance is death, baptism is burial and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the resurrection ...

Then how can Cornelius through his being filled w/ the Holy Ghost have circumvented this process?
It is the initial indwelling of the Spirit of God that puts to DEATH THE DEEDS OF THE BODY SO THAT WE MAY BE QUICKENED TO LIFE, or Destroys the body of sin (Romans 6:6) ...

Romans 13 .... for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
These gaping holes in their theology show that one, namely Cornelius and those in his house, can be declared righteous, quickened unto life, put to death the deeds of the body, be declared His, set free from the law of sin and death .... not condemened in Christ Jesus ... PRIOR TO BEING FULLY SAVED ... REGENERATED ...OR COMPLETING THE NEW BIRTH PROCESS.

Cornelius was declared a son of God ... born of God ... prior to baptism. With all the priveleges ... full access to our Father and the inheritance of new life.

Romans 8
14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

All this before being BURIED INTO CHRIST and having the blood applied in his life???

Please reconcile Romans 8 and other scripture pointing to being born again/born of God BY HIS SPIRIT before completing the proported Born Again recipe.

To answer Matt's question w/ another question ... How can Cornelius been quickened to life while still dead in sin?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 649995)

TR thought he gave Mike that ever so elusive smack down he seeks in his cutesy retort that if repentance is not mentioned we can't assume it happened.

(huh? )Allow me to clarify something here.

I'm not sure if that was a typo, or if you just simply misunderstood my meaning, but.... My point was NOT that if repentance is not mentioned we can't assume it happened. (To me, its a given that repentance happened. That kinda goes without saying.)

My point there was quite the opposite....Just because repentance is not mentioned does NOT mean we should assume it didn't happen. (Just as on the other hand, just because a passage doesn't say they spoke in tongues doesn't mean we should conclude that it DIDN'T happen). THAT is what I was saying. I think Mike understood that, and I thought that my meaning would have been pretty clear from the beginning... but I just want to make myself clear on that again here for anybody who missed my meaning.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 649995)

Mizpeh,

...You like EP, the Bishop, TR, and EP, and maybe even Dave are missing the forest from the trees in this thread I believe. First, the thread title speaks of SOLELY using Acts to formulate doctrine while my initial thread also speaks of the pitfalls of making historical narrative pre-eminent over didactic teaching. Ironically, I see how all are using Paul's teaching in Corinthians to be the lead in the pneumatolical discussion that I knew would follow.

I basically pick and choose how, when, and where to chime in on these discussions, since they've become mostly tiresome to me. This has been discussed, and rediscussed ad nauseam, so I dont see how much more (that's new)can be added to this discussion here. This has been beaten to death for the most part, and there may be some who want to beat it to death even more....

It's an interesting discussion at times, but it's not a mission for me to try to convince people here to change from whatever position they choose to have. So I'm done here for now.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 649995)

Truth be told there are even water and Spirit OP's in Mexico, the Phillippines and other places that do not believe in tongues or hell doctrine.

I am not sure why you select these countries. It is my belief that the majority of Oneness Pentecostals believe salvation is or can be experienced apart from the traditional Oneness Baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit with tongues.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneAccord (Post 649986)

I hear what you are saying but I question whether the distictions are that clear. Paul seems to be saying tongues themselves (if they are not understood or interpreted) are not for the public assembly.

Ecstatic utterances of "other tongues", if heard by the assembly (including unbelievers) are in essence the very same as what you are calling "Prophetic tongues". One might argue the difference is a question of addressing the assembly or not. Were this the case, it would become a matter of volume and perhaps discernment on the part of church leadership. Neither of which changes how an unbeliever would perceive the event.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Y'all forgive me but I have had these arguments and have grown weary. But I might revive and take another lick.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley (Post 650130)

Y'all forgive me but I have had these arguments and have grown weary. But I might revive and take another lick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRFrance (Post 650093)

I have noticed this so often in conversations with 3 step pentecostals.

After finding their doctrine crumbles as a house of cards, they "grow tired" of the conversation and become "weary" in their defense.

Next will be the cry to ban Dan. :snowing

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast (Post 650148)

I won't be so quick to credit these responses as anything other than a lack of commitment to deal with the "BOOKS" Dan has just written.

TR and SE have both shown they can grapple with these arguments in the past.