Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Cindy]

Bless his heart.

[deltaguitar]

I tend to agree with Fee in that while the experience is valid the theology needs to be examined. I find no scripture in Acts that says that speaking in tongues is THE evidence of Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Also, I am finding more and more Pentecostals outside of the Oneness movement that are interested in what the scriptures say and not necessarily validating doctrine with an experience.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

I tend to agree with Fee in that while the experience is valid the theology needs to be examined. I find no scripture in Acts that says that speaking in tongues is THE evidence of Baptism of the Holy Ghost.
...

Let's just say that:

1) there are experiences in the Spirit subsequent to conversion/regeneration. These experiences can be called:
being filled with the Spirit, Acts 2:4; 9:17; Ephesians 5:18
the Promise of the Father, Luke 24:39; Acts 1:4; 2:33, 39
being baptized in the Spirit, Acts 1:5; 11:16
the Spirit coming upon, Acts 1:8; 19:6
the Spirit falling upon, Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15
receiving the Spirit, Acts 8:15, 17, 19; 19:2
the Spirit being poured out, Acts 2:33
the Spirit being given as a gift, Acts 2:38; 8:18; 10:47; 11:17

2) these experiences occur:
while praying or praising or worshiping the Lord, Luke 24:53; Acts 1:14
by the laying on of hands, Acts 8:17; 9:17; 19:6
just suddenly happening, Acts 2:2; 10:44; 11:15

3) As a result of these experiences in the Spirit certain things are observed:
speaking with tongues, Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6
prophesying, Acts 2:17, 18; 19:6
psalms, hymns, praise, singing, Acts 2:11; Ephesians 5:19-20

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by Sam

Let's just say that:

1) there are experiences in the Spirit subsequent to conversion/regeneration. These experiences can be called:
being filled with the Spirit, Acts 2:4; 9:17; Ephesians 5:18
the Promise of the Father, Luke 24:39; Acts 1:4; 2:33, 39
being baptized in the Spirit, Acts 1:5; 11:16
the Spirit coming upon, Acts 1:8; 19:6
the Spirit falling upon, Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15
receiving the Spirit, Acts 8:15, 17, 19; 19:2
the Spirit being poured out, Acts 2:33
the Spirit being given as a gift, Acts 2:38; 8:18; 10:47; 11:17

2) these experiences occur:
while praying or praising or worshiping the Lord, Luke 24:53; Acts 1:14
by the laying on of hands, Acts 8:17; 9:17; 19:6
just suddenly happening, Acts 2:2; 10:44; 11:15

3) As a result of these experiences in the Spirit certain things are observed:
speaking with tongues, Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6
prophesying, Acts 2:17, 18; 19:6
psalms, hymns, praise, singing, Acts 2:11; Ephesians 5:19-20

I like this explanation. Surely we can experience times of refreshing, being overjoyed, empowered, and being full of the Holy Spirit more so than other times. We should encourage folks to pray and yearn for the gifts and learn how to operate in the gifts.

I am just not sure that speaking in tongues is THE initial evidence though I am not completely solid on this and could change my mind.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Sam

Let's just say that:

1) there are experiences in the Spirit subsequent to conversion/regeneration. These experiences can be called:
being filled with the Spirit, Acts 2:4; 9:17; Ephesians 5:18
the Promise of the Father, Luke 24:39; Acts 1:4; 2:33, 39
being baptized in the Spirit, Acts 1:5; 11:16
the Spirit coming upon, Acts 1:8; 19:6
the Spirit falling upon, Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15
receiving the Spirit, Acts 8:15, 17, 19; 19:2
the Spirit being poured out, Acts 2:33
the Spirit being given as a gift, Acts 2:38; 8:18; 10:47; 11:17

2) these experiences occur:
while praying or praising or worshiping the Lord, Luke 24:53; Acts 1:14
by the laying on of hands, Acts 8:17; 9:17; 19:6
just suddenly happening, Acts 2:2; 10:44; 11:15

3) As a result of these experiences in the Spirit certain things are observed:
speaking with tongues, Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6
prophesying, Acts 2:17, 18; 19:6
psalms, hymns, praise, singing, Acts 2:11; Ephesians 5:19-20

I agree with this nice summary, but it seems the common one is tongue speaking, but I won't put God in a box if he chooses some other form of ejaculation (term coined by David Pawson where referring to the phenomenon by which the Spirit expresses itself in a notable way)

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by keith4him

I agree with this nice summary, but it seems the common one is tongue speaking, but I won't put God in a box if he chooses some other form of ejaculation (term coined by David Pawson where referring to the phenomenon by which the Spirit expresses itself in a notable way)

David Pawson needs to un-coin that term.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

David Pawson needs to un-coin that term.

And here we go....


The primary def of that word is: an abrupt, exclamatory utterance.

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

David Pawson needs to un-coin that term.

ROFL

[Sam]

Originally Posted by keith4him

I agree with this nice summary, but it seems the common one is tongue speaking, but I won't put God in a box if he chooses some other form of ejaculation (term coined by David Pawson where referring to the phenomenon by which the Spirit expresses itself in a notable way)

I agree.
Speaking with tongues is mentioned in Acts 2, 10, and 19.
And it is implied in Acts 8.
I was not denying that.
We seem to have witnesses that there is a post conversion experience in the Spirit that we may give different names (baptism, receiving, filling, falling upon, promise, coming upon, gift) that is usually received through the laying on of hands, and that experience is often accompanied or followed by speaking with other tongues/languages. I think most of us can agree with that.

Can we draw the conclusion that a person has not received that experience if they have not spoken with tongues? Or, can we say that everyone who receives that experience will speak with tongues? Or can we say that a person has not received that experience until he/she has spoken with tongues? We probably have differences of opinion here.

The "initial physical evidence" doctrine is based on three witnesses where Jews and Gentiles spoke with tongues when receiving that experience. To some that is sufficient "proof." For others it is not.

I'm not arguing for or against here.

I speak/pray with tongues just about every day.
I do not judge someone who does not.

P.S. I do not recognize or categorize my "prayer language." I don't know if it is a currently known human language, a language from somewhere in the past, an earthly language, a heavenly language, or what. It is a special, privileged communication between my spirit and my Lord and it builds me up.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

A very common argument among some Oneness Pentecostals is that Acts should be the pre-eminent source for doctrine on how to be saved ... and in examining topics such as pneumatology.


Some often discount the epistles as being sources of doctrine that deal with the unbeliever because they were only addressed to saved.
This hermeneutical tradition, some call pragmatic hermeneutics, dates back to the early 20th century with men like Charles Parham.

One writer states Parham's role as follows:He continues describing pragmatic hermeneutics as follows:
In recent decades, other Pentecostal/Charismatic have challenged this approach to bible interpretation .... somewhat echoing the thoughts and approaches of other Evangelical groups.

One these scholars is Gordon Fee who wrote the ground-breaking book Gospel and Spirit.

Fee finds that relying on historic narrative for doctrine may be problematic in some ways.



What say ye? Should we re-examine the notion that historical narrative is our best source for teaching our Apostolic doctrine? Thoughts on Fee's points? Are there pitfalls in relying solely on a historical narrative like Acts as the focal point to our doctrines?

as the late John Wimber states, the happening of theology came before the writing of theology. In Acts it happened, in the Epistles they wrote about what happened to them and what to do about it.