Purpose of Acts

Jeffrey · #1 03-11-2010, 01:16 PM

So many controversies occur because of interpretations of the Acts of the Apostles. Some would almost believe that Acts is a doctrine book, or filled with propositional statements about what the church should/should not do.

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.

Also, we must note that the Bible is an historical revelation. In the New Testament we find an account (often just glimpses) of how the first churches were led, operated and functioned at that time. The danger for us today is to look at our modern day church and then look for various Scriptural "proof texts" to validate their authority and thereby declare them "Biblical."

This critical in how we reconcile the Doctrine of Christ, which is the true "doctrine of the Apostles."

Aquila · #2 03-11-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So many controversies occur because of interpretations of the Acts of the Apostles. Some would almost believe that Acts is a doctrine book, or filled with propositional statements about what the church should/should not do.

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.

Also, we must note that the Bible is an historical revelation. In the New Testament we find an account (often just glimpses) of how the first churches were led, operated and functioned at that time. The danger for us today is to look at our modern day church and then look for various Scriptural "proof texts" to validate their authority and thereby declare them "Biblical."

This critical in how we reconcile the Doctrine of Christ, which is the true "doctrine of the Apostles."

I believe that the book of Acts was to be the sequel to the Gospel of Luke per the request of Theophilus. I also believe that Luke didn't finished it due to his martyrdom, it stands as a work left in progress.

The Epistles tell us far more about doctrine and how to manage the church than the book of Acts.

Jeffrey · #3 03-11-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that the book of Acts was to be the sequel to the Gospel of Luke per the request of Theophilus. I also believe that Luke didn't finished it due to his martyrdom, it stands as a work left in progress.

The Epistles tell us far more about doctrine and how to manage the church than the book of Acts.

I'm not sure it was a "Gospel sequel" as much as "more of the story."

But I think we agree that we have more clues about how to manage the church in the Epistles and early church documents.

Sam · #4 03-11-2010, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that the book of Acts was to be the sequel to the Gospel of Luke per the request of Theophilus. I also believe that Luke didn't finished it due to his martyrdom, it stands as a work left in progress.

The Epistles tell us far more about doctrine and how to manage the church than the book of Acts.

Luke wrote the Gospel which is called by his name to give a good presentation of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Book of Acts is a sequel and tells how the Gospel went into all the known world (the Roman Empire). In what is our 28th chapter of Acts, we read about Paul spending two years in a house in Rome teaching. It is during that period that many think he wrote the books of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, and maybe the Book of Hebrews. Note that the author mentioned that Timothy had been released and that he hoped to soon join him. Also, he sent greetings from those in Italy with him. See Hebrews 13:23-25. Paul was a prisoner but was allowed to rent a house (Acts 28:30-31). Luke was there with him (Colossians 4:14). It is my understanding that period was AD 60 and 61 and that Paul was released at the end of AD 61. It is my understanding that Luke wrote the Book of Acts when he was there in Rome with Paul. About 8 years later, Paul was martyred. His last writing was 2 Timothy and he was again arrested but not released this time. Luke was there with him at that time (2 Timothy 4:11)

ManOfWord · #5 03-11-2010, 02:03 PM

There is a difference in scripture, even in Acts, between things which are RECORDED and things which are COMMANDED. Not everything RECORDED must be followed and that is where many make huge mistakes.

Praxeas · #6 03-11-2010, 02:44 PM

Acts is a historical book, however so are the gospels to a degree.

But it's a history of what the church did and what the church preached

Jeffrey · #7 03-11-2010, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Acts is a historical book, however so are the gospels to a degree.

But it's a history of what the church did and what the church preached

Please comment to what I suggested. Sort of disagrees with your statement. Yes, it's what the church (with the early Apostles) did, but I think it's a stretch for some to posit that there was nothing unique in Acts or that it's all normative. This was the catalyst of the whole thing. They turned the world upside down to where it's wide open now. Signs and wonders have never been at the level of Acts.

Praxeas · #8 03-12-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Please comment to what I suggested. Sort of disagrees with your statement. Yes, it's what the church (with the early Apostles) did, but I think it's a stretch for some to posit that there was nothing unique in Acts or that it's all normative. This was the catalyst of the whole thing. They turned the world upside down to where it's wide open now. Signs and wonders have never been at the level of Acts.

Signs and wonders have never been at the level in acts where?

What does that have to do with Acts being a historical book that records the acts and teachings of the NT church? Acts 15 helps us understand some of what Paul taught about the Gentiles and the law

And how normal was it in Acts? Acts is not THE history of the church. It's A history through the eyes of Luke, where he was at and what he experienced. Just how common were miracles in Acts? Someone today can write a book of the church in the last 100 years and include a lot of miracles and from that a neutral reading might conclude miracles are normative

Jeffrey · #9 03-12-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Signs and wonders have never been at the level in acts where?

What does that have to do with Acts being a historical book that records the acts and teachings of the NT church? Acts 15 helps us understand some of what Paul taught about the Gentiles and the law

And how normal was it in Acts? Acts is not THE history of the church. It's A history through the eyes of Luke, where he was at and what he experienced. Just how common were miracles in Acts? Someone today can write a book of the church in the last 100 years and include a lot of miracles and from that a neutral reading might conclude miracles are normative

Someone may certainly conclude that, though I'm not sure we can form conclusions without more -- fortunately, we do have more, as signs and wonders, healing and prophecy is all mentioned in the didactic materials in the Epistles.

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.

You and I agree that Acts is a history through the eyes of Luke, giving a report back to Theophilus of all the incredibly awesome things that were happening.

Prax, your sharp enough. It's not spin, or willy-nilly interpretation, it's a hermeneutic of reading writings in view of what genre of writing, what the author intended and what it meant to the original audience first and foremost. 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.

Praxeas · #10 03-12-2010, 09:34 PM

I think Acts is just one of many books of the NT and can't be taken as the answer key lol, however it should be reconciled.

One thing though, Acts really wasn't full of that many miracles. I mean other than someone speaking in tongues for the first time there was not that many recorded in Acts, at least not in my opinion