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.
Acts gives us an idea about the doctrine and practice of the Church. Without it we could never understand baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither could we understand the doctrine of the Holy Spirit baptism. Its just as important as the epistles.
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."
"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.
The Book of Acts shows how the early church went from a group of a little over 500 in a small area of the world into all the capital of the known world.
There are over 20 recorded instances in there of folks hearing the Gospel and being converted. In a few of them it is stated that they were baptized in water and in a few of them it is stated that they received a post salvation experience known as a baptism in the Spirit, or a filling of the Spirit, or the Spirit falling upon or coming upon them.
"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.
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.
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.
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
Good advice. Perhaps you can post this on a couple of the other threads too!
...
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.
...
I wish all of the three-steppers and one-steppers on here (including me) could say that.
That was the intent of the Fundamental Doctrine Statement when the UPC was formed.
Hybrid Mode
