"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)
While it is true that the book of Acts is a historical narrative, because it is "scripture given by inspiration of God", it is no less profitable for doctrine than other genres in the NT, including the epistles. All of it (the NT) should be considered as a whole.
Yes, but it's just the nature of hermeneutics to read each book as it was intended, through the intent of the author, not the intent of the reader. No one dismisses it as "not inspired" or "not profitable" -- and for the record, that Scripture you cite, was not even looking in view to Acts, but rather to the Torah! There was no NT.
No one is dismissing Acts, we are just seeking to read/understand it according to the author's intent, not our own. Hope no one grabs a letter of mine in 1,000 years and forms doctrines over every idiomatic expression, every action I do, etc... A genre means something. Doesn't mean less profitable, but it guides us in how it should be understood and interpreted. Because people were healed in Peter's shadows doesn't mean one should start Shadow Healing ministry. That's silliness and wasn't the intent of the author.
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."
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
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
It's not spin to read writings according to the intent of their author, and ancient writings according to what it meant for its original audience. That's called hermeneutics, not spin. Try again.
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.
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
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Everyone knows the purpose of Acts is so you can speak in an unknown tounge come on guys thought you all knew this....lol.....TGIF
It bugs me that all you seem to do is mock, Brother.
i am a three stepper who has learned to be tolerant and accepting of one steppers here. I don't agree, but I never mock. I really wish you would extend me the same courtesy and stop making fun of what I, and others here believe. Please.
Anyway you slice it, sarcasm is meant to cut, cause pain and just plain hurt someone else. We all need to stop that.
give us a break .. ok?
appreciate it
__________________
Last edited by John Atkinson; 03-12-2010 at 10:14 PM.
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.
Yes, but it's just the nature of hermeneutics to read each book as it was intended, through the intent of the author, not the intent of the reader.
Hello Jeffrey,
Your statement implies that the author (Luke) did not intend for his "treatise" (both his gospel and Acts) to be profitable for doctrine. And yet he begins his gospel by disclosing his intent to his audience (Theophilus): he writes in order to confirm that in which Theophilus had already been "instructed" (vs.4)- this word being translated from the Greek root katecheo: to teach, instruct- and by implication- "indoctrinate."
Quote:
No one dismisses it as "not inspired" or "not profitable" -- and for the record, that Scripture you cite, was not even looking in view to Acts, but rather to the Torah! There was no NT.
And this statement implies that Paul's declaration cannot be understood in a general sense to include the NT. The NT is Scripture- including Acts. We receive it as Scripture, and Paul said all Scripture is profitable for doctrine.
Quote:
No one is dismissing Acts, we are just seeking to read/understand it according to the author's intent, not our own.
My friend, based on your statements, it sounds like you are dismissing Acts as being profitable for doctrine. Luke's intent was to confirm to Theophilus things in which he had already been indoctrinated.
Quote:
Hope no one grabs a letter of mine in 1,000 years and forms doctrines over every idiomatic expression, every action I do, etc...
Depends if they will regard your writings as Scripture. Should they?
Quote:
A genre means something. Doesn't mean less profitable, but it guides us in how it should be understood and interpreted. Because people were healed in Peter's shadows doesn't mean one should start Shadow Healing ministry. That's silliness and wasn't the intent of the author.
How do you know it wasn't the intent of the author? Jesus told his disciples "these things you shall do and greater". Was this promise only for those disciples, or for all Jesus' disciples? Why would we want to limit God in how he moves? Luke's account of Peter's "shadow healing ministry" was simply an example of the "these things you shall do and greater". I certainly hope God would be free to move as he chooses, including re-enacting in others what took place with Peter and all the apostles.
Linear Mode
