Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
Jason, the book of Romans was NOT written to sinners....It was written to those that were already saved. Sinners must experience Acts before they can even think of applying the book of Romans or ANY of the epistles to their lives for that matter.
This premise that I have showed you right here is EXACTLY why and how folks have come up with an alternative plan of salvation....simply this happened....you ready.....THEY SKIPPED ACTS!!!
|
Sean I like you but this answer is so lame. I can't tell you how many times oneness people use it. The fact is that just because Paul was writing to saints doesn't mean they fully understood salvation and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost he wrote Romans which turns out to be the closest thing to a systematic theology we have in the Bible. And as Paul explained salvation (beginning in chapter 1 through 11). Note there is no mention of tongues in Paul's soteriology.
Also note Romans was written long before Acts. That Paul and Luke were fellow labourers and that Luke very likely had the same soteriology as Paul hearing Paul preach many times (probably being converted by Paul at Antioch) and unlimited private discussion. Luke never hints that he ever spoke in tongues, makes no mention of tongues in His gospel, and while recording the history if the church does note the supernatural phenomena of tongues in
Acts 2,8*,10, and 19). (*I'm granting
Acts 8 implies tongues).
Acts 2 isn't a conversion experience but is the coming if the Spirit on the Jews, 8 the Samaritans, 10 the Gentiles, 19 the followers of John the Baptist (distinct from Christ's disciples, see
Mark 2:18). Out of 21 conversions in Acts however tongues are only mention 2 or 3* timed. In the rest of the conversions tongues are not even hinted at or suggested including
Acts 2:41 which tells us 3,000 people were added to the church that day- how? Being baptized. There no suggestion at all the spoke in tongues, neither any suggestion that the 5,000 of Acts 4:4 spoke in tongues. And certainly if you study all of the sermons in Acts and all of the conversions you will note tongues are not emphasized, mentioned, or expected with the possible exceptions of
Acts 8 & 19.
Furthermore 1 Corinthians was written long before Acts and its quite likely Luke believed tongues to be a spiritual gift as described by Paul in
1 Corinthians 12, but not the universal initial evidence as no one believed this until the 20th century.
Even church history tells us this is not the normative conversion experience though the early church did have the gift if tongues and prophecy in operations. (I know people say we do too and maybe so but all I've ever seen is tongues with a very generic interpretation, or tongues then interpreted by the one who gave the message-which isn't biblical, but I suppose the sign gifts are yet another topic).
Its simply not an accurate conclusion to suggest people who use Romans to understand/explain soteriology skipped Acts. Not at all.
Threaded Mode
