|
Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
Meh. Acts, complete with it's "experiencial hermeneutic" still seems IMO to be a better source of doctrine to me than the Epistles which are mostly Paul explaining to the infant church what happened to them in Acts and how to respond to it/what it signified. The Epistles are wholly meaningless in theological terms to anyone who had not experienced what happened in Acts. Without Acts, there is no need of any Epistles.
|