Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey
Again, my position is not that Acts is less-inspired, less-helpful and less of a book. It's understanding Luke's message and not connecting dots where Luke wasn't intending. He's showing the literal BIRTH of the Church. Some very unique things happened in that writing. Wherever the Apostles went, great miracles and signs followed! The Spirit went with them, helping affirm their authority and thus opening doors for establishing churches.
Too many make the error of Acts being the answer key for all doctrinal statements, as if Luke and John, for example, have to say the exact same things. As a result, they go through intellectual gymnastics to make it all fit. It's quite a mess.
|
Quote:
|
However, we must understand that Luke's primary purpose in writing Acts is simply to show the movement of the church as orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, not in setting forth a specific model of Christian experience, church life or a pattern of church leadership. When Luke describes what happened in the time of the early church, it does not always translate into what must happen in the ongoing church. Nonetheless, we can glean various principles for our experience and practice today.
|
Great thoughts here Jeffrey. I think you are quite correct in your bolded portion.
This exact line of reasoning prompted me to take a closer look at the "Initial Evidence" doctrine and the history behind it. This unsound teaching is one example of connecting the dots incorrectly imo.
Threaded Mode
