The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The Epistles SHOULDN'T take you "back" to Acts, since they were first written. They should all point you to Jesus.

Acts points to Jesus just like every other book. It doesn't matter where you start, you will still end up at the basis of the church. There is no Theologian that will dispute that Acts is the beginning of the church. Moot point when any of it was written down. It still happened. Those involved, at the time, didn't need it written down in some order. They were smack dab in the middle of it. All of the books deal with the death, burial, resurrection, the promise that the Gentiles are allowed in the New Covenant, the promise of His Spirit, Christian example and instruction to some degree and in some way.

You are incorrect when you say the canon was "chosen for its intertwining truths and message." The canon was selected on a multiple-point inspection test of validity, authenticity, etc. When I say they "stand on their own," I don't mean they are their own witness. Luke doesn't need Paul to explain what he means. They are each their own witness.

Same thing. You just said it in a different way. If they didn't have truth and an intertwining message, they wouldn't be valid.

I don't think ANYONE on this forum believes the function of the Spirit is empowerment only.

Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.

On the contrary, most see the Spirit active in even the "drawing men unto Christ." At the very beginning. It's what you see as the "Spirit" that begins controversy. When "Spirit" always means "glossolalia" and a crisis experience, emotional frenzy, etc... Luke's function of the Spirit is no less true than Paul's or John's. But in each testimony, the Spirit is unique. The Johannine perspective, for example, shows us that the believer is drawn to Christ, and indwelled by Christ by faith and believing, the theme of his Gospel. Luke is not intent on showing the role of the Spirit in salvation, or in any way does he even show it as a regenerative process. They are "on their own" here as a witness to the function of the Spirit. It both saves and empowers. But the experiences are not identical.

I don't agree with you here and there is no sense in arguing about it. It's funny how some teach that you don't have to speak in tongues, but then they testify that they speak or have spoken in tongues. That is why that makes no sense to me.