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)

Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

Quote:

Charles F. Parham bequeathed to the Pentecostal movement its definitive hermeneutics, and consequently, its definitive theology and apologetics. His contribution arose out of the problem of the interpretation of the second chapter of Acts and his conviction that Christian experience in the 20th century “should tally exactly with the Bible, [but] neither sanctification nor the anointing that abideth … tallied with the 2nd chapter of Acts.”3 Consequently he reports, “I set the students at work studying out diligently what was the Bible evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost that we might go before the world with something that was indisputable because it tallied absolutely with the Word.”4 He tells the results of their investigation in the following words: “Leaving the school for three days at this task, I went to Kansas City for three days services. I returned to the school on the morning preceding Watch Night service in the year 1900.
“At about 10:00 o’clock in the morning I rang the bell calling all the students into the Chapel to get their report on the matter in hand. To my astonishment they all had the same story, that while there were different things occurring when the Pentecostal blessing fell, the indisputable proof on each occasion was, that they spoke with other tongues.”5
In Parham’s report we find the essential distinctives of the Pentecostal movement, namely, (1) the conviction that contemporary experience should be identical to apostolic Christianity, (2) the separation of the baptism in the Holy Spirit from sanctification (as Holiness movements had earlier separated it from conversion/incorporation), and (3) that tongues speaking is the indisputable evidence or proof of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

He continues describing pragmatic hermeneutics as follows:

Quote:

Thus, in the weeks which bridged the Christmas season of 1900 and the New Year 1901, tongues was identified as the biblical evidence of the baptism in the Spirit and was confirmed by contemporary (20th century) experience. This identification of biblical tongues and contemporary charismatic experience was a Pragmatic hermeneutic. This Pragmatic hermeneutic passed into the infant Pentecostal movement as “oral tradition.” This tradition was subsequently “received” by church councils and codified in doctrinal statements.
As a result of this codification of Parham’s hermeneutics and theology, Pentecostal hermeneutics has existed in an analytical vacuum for the majority of its brief history. In fact, Pentecostal hermeneutics has been exposition rather than investigation and analysis. Nevertheless, this Pragmatic hermeneutic became the bulwark of Pentecostal apologetics and the pillar of classical Pentecostalism which, though it might be articulated with greater clarity, finesse, and sophistication, remained inviolate until recently.

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.

Quote:

Fee has established a reputation for acumen in the area of hermeneutics, and his sympathetic critique of the Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence focuses on shortcomings in this area. He notes that Pentecostals generally support their claim that Spirit-baptism is distinct from conversion by appealing to various episodes recorded in the book of Acts. This approach, in its most common form, appeals to the experience of the Samaritans (Acts 8), Paul (Acts 9), and the Ephesians (Acts 19) as a normative model for all Christians. But Fee, following the lead of many Evangelicals, maintains that this line of argumentation rests on a shaky hermeneutical foundation. The fundamental flaw in the Pentecostal approach is their failure to appreciate the genre of the book of Acts: Acts is a description of historical events. Unless we are prepared to choose church leaders by the casting of lots, or willing to encourage church members to sell all of their possessions, we cannot simply assume that a particular historical narrative provides a basis for normative theology.

Fee’s concern is a legitimate one: How do we distinguish between those aspects of Luke’s narrative that are normative and those that are not?

Fee’s answer is that historical precedent, if it is “to have normative value, must be related to intent.”5 That is to say, Pentecostals must demonstrate that Luke intended the various oft-cited episodes in Acts to establish a precedent for future Christians. Otherwise, Pentecostals may not legitimately speak of a Spirit-baptism distinct from conversion that is in any sense normative for the church. According to Fee, this is exactly where the Pentecostal position fails. Fee describes two kinds of arguments offered by Pentecostals: those from biblical analogy: and those from biblical precedent. Arguments from the former point to Jesus’ experience at the Jordan (subsequent to his miraculous birth by the Spirit) and the disciples experience at Pentecost (subsequent to John 20:22) as normative models of Christian experience. Yet these arguments, as all arguments from biblical analogy, are problematic because “it can seldom be demonstrated that our analogies are intentional in the biblical text itself.”6 These purported analogies are particularly problematic, for the experiences of Jesus and the apostles — coming as they do prior to “the great line of demarcation,” the day of Pentecost — “are of such a different kind from succeeding Christian experience that they can scarcely have normative value.”7

Arguments from biblical precedent seek to find a normative pattern of Christian experience in the experience of the Samaritans, Paul, and the Ephesians. Fee asserts that these arguments also fail to convince because it cannot be demonstrated that Luke intended to present in these narratives a normative model. The problem here is twofold. First, the evidence is not uniform: However we view the experience of the Samaritans and the Ephesians, Cornelius and his household (Acts 10) appear to receive the Spirit as they are converted. Second, even when subsequence can be demonstrated, as with the Samaritans in Acts 8, it is doubtful whether this can be linked to Luke’s intent. Fee suggests that Luke’s primary intent was to validate the experience of the Christians as the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem.8

This leads Fee to reject the traditional Pentecostal position. He concludes, a baptism in the Spirit distinct from conversion and intended for empowering is “neither clearly taught in the New Testament nor necessarily to be seen as a normative pattern (let alone the only pattern) for Christian experience.”9 Yet this rejection of subsequence is, according to Fee, really of little consequence. For the central truth, which marks Pentecostalism is its emphasis on the dynamic, powerful character of experience of the Spirit. Whether the Spirit’s powerful presence is experienced at conversion or after is ultimately irrelevant, and to insist that all must go “one route” is to say more than the New Testament allows.10 In short, Fee maintains that although Pentecostals need to reformulate their theology, their experience is valid.

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?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

I would say we should consider all what the NT says on the subjects and reconcile them to each other

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Hey. Bro Dan. How ya been? Good to see you with us.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneAccord (Post 645425)

Hey. Bro Dan. How ya been? Good to see you with us.

Don't encourage him :christmoose

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16

ALL scripture not just the scripture written in the epistles and gospels.

Hi Dan!

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Here is the question, Do we at least all agree Acts does teach theology?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 645423)

I would say we should consider all what the NT says on the subjects and reconcile them to each other

It would be counterintuitive to think that what the apostles did in the book of Acts somehow is not what they taught as doctrine.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

How about Fee's assertion that Pentecostals must demonstrate various oft-cited episodes in Acts to establish a precedent for future Christians ... do the 3 or 4 verses that speak of tongues as part of Holy Ghost infillings ... suffice in proving that it is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost or that tongues is necessary for salvation ... or as precedence for all instances?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 645436)

How about Fee's assertion that Pentecostals must demonstrate various oft-cited episodes in Acts to establish a precedent for future Christians ... do the 3 or 4 verses that speak of tongues as part of Holy Ghost infillings ... suffice in proving that it is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost or that tongues is necessary for salvation ... or as precedence for all instances?

Nope. But then not all Pentecostals, or even Oneness Pentecostals, make such definitive claims.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 645436)

It's not the fact that tongues is mentioned 3-4 times. It's the context in where they appear and what was said.

For example Peter, speaking of the baptism of the Spirit (Joel's Prophecy) "This is what you now see and hear"

And In Cornelius's case they KNEW they received the Spirit when they were heard to have spoken in tongues and then Peter compared that to when they received the Spirit at the beginning. Acts seems to make tongues, upon receiving the Spirit for the first time, the normative experience

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 645462)

bingo!

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneAccord (Post 645425)

Hey. Bro Dan. How ya been? Good to see you with us.

I second this motion.:santathumb

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Dan

I would say that the main problem with your original post is that its too long. You get past two paragraphs here and most people just move on.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

[QUOTE=mizpeh;645428]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16

ALL scripture not just the scripture written in the epistles and gospels.

I think it's important to remember that there was no KJV when paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16.

Therefore Paul could not have been including KJV as "all scripture".

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

I tend to agree with Fee in that while the experience is valid the theology needs to be examined. I find no scripture in Acts that says that speaking in tongues is THE evidence of Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Also, I am finding more and more Pentecostals outside of the Oneness movement that are interested in what the scriptures say and not necessarily validating doctrine with an experience.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 645420)

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?

as the late John Wimber states, the happening of theology came before the writing of theology. In Acts it happened, in the Epistles they wrote about what happened to them and what to do about it.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

So, who here really believes that speaking in tongues is "indisputable evidence or proof of the baptism in the Holy Spirit"?

Why did God decide to remove the flames from the list of things that happen when the Spirit shows up? And the windy noise? These would be much harder to fake.

Yes, they were things that seemed to be tongues of fire, not necessarily actual fire, but so? It was something visible. That's how it was described. They separated and landed on their heads! I haven't seen anything like that happen lately. If anyone else has, that's great, but that would open up a whole set of questions: why is it so rare? Are there literally just a few dozen or so true believers in the world?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy (Post 645559)

WOW Timmy great Question! All I know is that I expeirenced a Change in my life after Speaking in Tounges.For me I did not Know what speaking in tounges was it just happened to me while I was Praying before I was even introduced to Pentecostalism.I know You can't make a doctrine of expeirence,However I saw in Scripture where this is a Biblical expierence.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 645420)

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.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy (Post 645559)

Timmy

Concerning the fire and wind: If you look in the OT there was also similar demonstrations at the begining or giving of the Law. Pentecost was the beginning of the NT covenant.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

I would recommend David Pawson's the Normal Christian Birth, he is a great scholar and makes a commendable case why Acts should be a text to show the Normative way to be born again. By the way he is not oneness or even leans this way. I wish I had his book with me so I can share his main points, but I think it to be notable.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkstokes (Post 645600)

Timmy

Concerning the fire and wind: If you look in the OT there was also similar demonstrations at the begining or giving of the Law. Pentecost was the beginning of the NT covenant.

Bingo, you win the prize! Good thoughts.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 645462)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkstokes (Post 645600)

Timmy

Concerning the fire and wind: If you look in the OT there was also similar demonstrations at the begining or giving of the Law. Pentecost was the beginning of the NT covenant.

Amen!!!

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 645420)

In rereading this, this seems to give the reasons why the AOG is at a dry place regarding their membership receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I believe the last percentage was around 35% claim to be tongue talkers or have experience Tongues at all.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith4him (Post 645703)

I think that if you realistically polled most UPC churches that those who really speak in tongues are probably less than 50%. However, just the fact that the AOG doesn't teach that you must speak in tongues to be saved has a lot to do with this statistic.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltaguitar (Post 645738)

Delta,

Their own leadership is concerned about this, they realized they are leaning more and more towards mainstream Evangelicism. Read their blogs and websites of their leadership,they see the handwriting on the wall, they will in short time will stop being a Pentecostal Denomination.

Regarding Op's Vinson Synan, the leading Scholar who studies all Pentecostal Denominiations, Movements and Streams currently reports that Oneness Pentecostals have the highest percentage of people who claim the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the intial evidence doctrine. Upwards of 90%. So there is some credible scholarship and stats for this percentage.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith4him (Post 645703)

In rereading this, this seems to give the reasons why the AOG is at a dry place regarding their membership receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I believe the last percentage was around 35% claim to be tongue talkers or have experience Tongues at all.

If it were indeed 35%, that would be considered a massive improvement, brother.

The Last published statistic I saw put the number at 20% of their new converts have had the experience .

"In a recent news article on the A/G website, culled from a message he preached in the headquarters chapel, he notes that only 25% of new converts follow through to water baptism, and only 20% experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Further, only about 4% actually make it to the Sunday morning worship service."

http://blogrodent.wordpress.com/2006...ng-disciplers/
http://rss.ag.org/articles/detail.cf..._Source=search
http://ag.org/top/about/Statistical_Report_2004.pdf

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith4him (Post 645797)

Regarding Op's Vinson Synan, the leading Scholar who studies all Pentecostal Denominiations, Movements and Streams currently reports that Oneness Pentecostals have the highest percentage of people who claim the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the intial evidence doctrine. Upwards of 90%. So there is some credible scholarship and stats for this percentage.

That sounds about right.

I've been a member of 3 churches in my life, and there are several others I've visited quite often, to the point that I got a good feel for where they're at in terms of how the Holy Ghost moves there... and I'd put the number at about 90-95+ percent in each of those places.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Hello A PoMo,

Quote:

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.

Question: what then, in your opinion, is the purpose of the biblical historical narrative?

Thanks :)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Hello Dan,

Quote:

But Fee, following the lead of many Evangelicals, maintains that this line of argumentation rests on a shaky hermeneutical foundation.

This statement intimates the author brought to the table his predilections instead of developing an objective hermeneutic, if indeed he was merely "following the lead of many Evangelicals". ;)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRFrance (Post 645801)

If it were indeed 35%, that would be considered a massive improvement, brother.

The Last published statistic I saw put the number at 20% of their new converts have had the experience .

"In a recent news article on the A/G website, culled from a message he preached in the headquarters chapel, he notes that only 25% of new converts follow through to water baptism, and only 20% experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Further, only about 4% actually make it to the Sunday morning worship service."

http://blogrodent.wordpress.com/2006...ng-disciplers/
http://rss.ag.org/articles/detail.cf..._Source=search
http://ag.org/top/about/Statistical_Report_2004.pdf

I wanted to tend toward a liberal accounting, I couldn't remember the exact # but surely is not good.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith4him (Post 645797)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRFrance (Post 645802)

I tend to disagree. Just because someone was told they spoke in tongues or got shook real hard doesn't mean they really spoke in tongues. In my old church they would have counted me in the tongue talking group because there was no way I was admitting I wasn't saved. It took me a long time to admit this.

I honestly don't think that I ever really spoke in tongues though I might have had stammering lips yet I along with another large number of "one-time" tongues talkers would be put in the tongue talker category.

I do agree that UPC churches probably have more of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost happening in their churches though. Lately I have been to the local Church of God and they are very similar to UPC in that they try to force the issue more. They do not want to lose their heritage of being Pentecostal.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltaguitar (Post 645830)

I tend to disagree. Just because someone was told they spoke in tongues or got shook real hard doesn't mean they really spoke in tongues. In my old church they would have counted me in the tongue talking group because there was no way I was admitting I wasn't saved. It took me a long time to admit this.

I honestly don't think that I ever really spoke in tongues though I might have had stammering lips yet I along with another large number of "one-time" tongues talkers would be put in the tongue talker category.

I do agree that UPC churches probably have more of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost happening in their churches though. Lately I have been to the local Church of God and they are very similar to UPC in that they try to force the issue more. They do not want to lose their heritage of being Pentecostal.

You tend to disagree on that? No surprise really. But disagree with what though?

....That Vinson Synan's studies lead him to conclude that 90% of Oneness folks profess the Baptism of the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues?
...Or you disagree with the fact that in the churches I've been in, from my observation 90-95% had the Holy Ghost?

Either way...ok. So you think the number is closer to 50%. Fine. But that's an opinion, which you're entitled to, just like anyone else's opinions here.

However, it's clear to me that your opinion on this is shaped by:
1/ your own personal observation and experience , and/or
2/ Your own negativity toward mainline Oneness/UPC churches (which you've expressed quite often).

So if I had to go with either your number or Vinson Synan's, I'd think Mr Synan's number is probably closer to the correct figure.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltaguitar (Post 645534)

Let's just say that:

1) there are experiences in the Spirit subsequent to conversion/regeneration. These experiences can be called:
being filled with the Spirit, Acts 2:4; 9:17; Ephesians 5:18
the Promise of the Father, Luke 24:39; Acts 1:4; 2:33, 39
being baptized in the Spirit, Acts 1:5; 11:16
the Spirit coming upon, Acts 1:8; 19:6
the Spirit falling upon, Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15
receiving the Spirit, Acts 8:15, 17, 19; 19:2
the Spirit being poured out, Acts 2:33
the Spirit being given as a gift, Acts 2:38; 8:18; 10:47; 11:17

2) these experiences occur:
while praying or praising or worshiping the Lord, Luke 24:53; Acts 1:14
by the laying on of hands, Acts 8:17; 9:17; 19:6
just suddenly happening, Acts 2:2; 10:44; 11:15

3) As a result of these experiences in the Spirit certain things are observed:
speaking with tongues, Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6
prophesying, Acts 2:17, 18; 19:6
psalms, hymns, praise, singing, Acts 2:11; Ephesians 5:19-20

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

TR France

In Synan's study, did he talk about the rate of people receiving the Holy Ghost? Has it increased, stayed the same, or decreased say for example in this last decade?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRFrance (Post 645836)

You tend to disagree on that? No surprise really. But disagree with what though?

....That Vinson Synan's studies lead him to conclude that 90% of Oneness folks profess the Baptism of the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues?
...Or you disagree with the fact that in the churches I've been in, from my observation 90-95% had the Holy Ghost?

Either way...ok. So you think the number is closer to 50%. Fine. But that's an opinion, which you're entitled to, just like anyone else's opinions here.

However, it's clear to me that your opinion on this is shaped by:
1/ your own personal observation and experience , and/or
2/ Your own negativity toward mainline Oneness/UPC churches (which you've expressed quite often).

So if I had to go with either your number or Vinson Synan's, I'd think Mr Synan's number is probably closer to the correct figure.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Just typing fast. I disagree that 90% of UPC members speak in tongues on a regular basis. Maybe they have spoken in tongues at one time but cease to do so on a regular basis now.

While there may be many who "profess" speaking in tongues, this could be caused by the fact that it is taught that speaking in tongues is necessary to be saved. I think I would profess it too! :christmoose

Also, I am sure there are many who wept and cried but didn't speak in tongues but because they showed enough emotion that they were told they got the Holy Ghost. I think there are many here that would agree that this happens at times when the minister proclaims someone "got it" and everyone around knows that person didn't speak in tongues. We have to be honest about this.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkstokes (Post 645853)

TR France

In Synan's study, did he talk about the rate of people receiving the Holy Ghost? Has it increased, stayed the same, or decreased say for example in this last decade?

I haven't seen this actual study. Keith4him is the one who referenced Synan's study and the 90% figure. You might want to check with Keith for more info on that.

The point I was making on that was that I would consider that number believable, based on my own experiences and observations in Pentecost over the years... and also based on the fact that I consider Synan to be generally impartial and credible in matters like this.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 645851)

I like this explanation. Surely we can experience times of refreshing, being overjoyed, empowered, and being full of the Holy Spirit more so than other times. We should encourage folks to pray and yearn for the gifts and learn how to operate in the gifts.

I am just not sure that speaking in tongues is THE initial evidence though I am not completely solid on this and could change my mind. :santathumb

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith4him (Post 645703)

That percentage may be the same as the early church.

Over 500 people believed that Jesus rose from the dead and these folks were called "brethren" by Paul when he wrote about it 35 years later in 1 Corinthians 15:6. So, it looks like after Jesus' resurrection, the early church had over 500 members. However, only about 120 of these received the Holy Ghost Baptism at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. So that equals 24 percent or less.