Purpose of Acts

[Praxeas]

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]

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]

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

[noeticknight]

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.

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.