Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Steve Epley]

Dan is back with his same ole anti-Pentecostal junk. He never stops.
How is this The Church was born is Acts thus the history of the Original Church?

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan is back with his same ole anti-Pentecostal junk. He never stops.
How is this The Church was born is Acts thus the history of the Original Church?

Dan

Do you write stuff like you wrote to get a response like Bro. Epley's or are you sincerly trying to compart knowledge?

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

Dan

Do you write stuff like you wrote to get a response like Bro. Epley's or are you sincerly trying to compart knowledge?

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

David Reed makes much the same point that Fee makes in regards to Parham's reliance on an experiential hermeneutic and establishing this experiential hermeneutic in the New Issue camp. Obviously there are great problems with relying on 'experience' and 'feelings' as an interpretive tool as it leads to all sorts of variant interpretations and 'revelations'. Feelings and experience have their place, but they shouldn't be the litmus test for theologicial certitude. It's ironic that this idea of experiential theology seems to be at the heart of post-modernism as well.

Acts needs to be taken in the context of ALL scripture and should be interpreted in that light, not the other way around. Taken in context of the entire canon and the NT in particular it seems obvious that Acts is historical in nature was not meant to be primarily theological in nature, thus the doctrinal issues alluded to there should be explained in light of the rest of the Bible and the NT in particular. It should not be the focus of doctrinal formulation, imo.

We must always bear in mind that the New Birth is an experiential, life changing encounter with the Mighty God in Jesus Christ. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the reception of the Living God into our lives, in the form of the Spirit of Christ making us "new creations." It IS an experiential hermeneutic. Much of what passes for theology today is merely an attempt to academically sidestep the obvious. "All Scripture," means all scripture, whether it's KJV, NIV, Greek or Russian. Only when we return to New Testament patterns, principles and priorities, will we again experience New Testament power. it's time to quit turning to trinitarian scholars in our search for Apostolic understanding. All you will find there are excuses and dry wells. Acts IS an historical record. It is the history of the New Birth experience and it's effects on the followers of Christ. it is our only reliable record of apostolic belief and practice. Acts is the "Pattern Church." All else, we are warned against by Paul as philosophy and traditions of man (doctrines of devils).

[Pastor Keith]

I would recommend David Pawson's the Normal Christian Birth, he is a great scholar and makes a commendable case why Acts should be a text to show the Normative way to be born again. By the way he is not oneness or even leans this way. I wish I had his book with me so I can share his main points, but I think it to be notable.

[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?

In rereading this, this seems to give the reasons why the AOG is at a dry place regarding their membership receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I believe the last percentage was around 35% claim to be tongue talkers or have experience Tongues at all.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by keith4him

In rereading this, this seems to give the reasons why the AOG is at a dry place regarding their membership receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I believe the last percentage was around 35% claim to be tongue talkers or have experience Tongues at all.

I think that if you realistically polled most UPC churches that those who really speak in tongues are probably less than 50%. However, just the fact that the AOG doesn't teach that you must speak in tongues to be saved has a lot to do with this statistic.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

I think that if you realistically polled most UPC churches that those who really speak in tongues are probably less than 50%. However, just the fact that the AOG doesn't teach that you must speak in tongues to be saved has a lot to do with this statistic.

Delta,

Their own leadership is concerned about this, they realized they are leaning more and more towards mainstream Evangelicism. Read their blogs and websites of their leadership,they see the handwriting on the wall, they will in short time will stop being a Pentecostal Denomination.

Regarding Op's Vinson Synan, the leading Scholar who studies all Pentecostal Denominiations, Movements and Streams currently reports that Oneness Pentecostals have the highest percentage of people who claim the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the intial evidence doctrine. Upwards of 90%. So there is some credible scholarship and stats for this percentage.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by keith4him

Regarding Op's Vinson Synan, the leading Scholar who studies all Pentecostal Denominiations, Movements and Streams currently reports that Oneness Pentecostals have the highest percentage of people who claim the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the intial evidence doctrine. Upwards of 90%. So there is some credible scholarship and stats for this percentage.

That sounds about right.

I've been a member of 3 churches in my life, and there are several others I've visited quite often, to the point that I got a good feel for where they're at in terms of how the Holy Ghost moves there... and I'd put the number at about 90-95+ percent in each of those places.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by keith4him

Delta,

Their own leadership is concerned about this, they realized they are leaning more and more towards mainstream Evangelicism. Read their blogs and websites of their leadership,they see the handwriting on the wall, they will in short time will stop being a Pentecostal Denomination.

Regarding Op's Vinson Synan, the leading Scholar who studies all Pentecostal Denominiations, Movements and Streams currently reports that Oneness Pentecostals have the highest percentage of people who claim the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the intial evidence doctrine. Upwards of 90%. So there is some credible scholarship and stats for this percentage.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

That sounds about right.

I've been a member of 3 churches in my life, and there are several others I've visited quite often, to the point that I got a good feel for where they're at in terms of how the Holy Ghost moves there... and I'd put the number at about 90-95+ percent in each of those places.

I tend to disagree. Just because someone was told they spoke in tongues or got shook real hard doesn't mean they really spoke in tongues. In my old church they would have counted me in the tongue talking group because there was no way I was admitting I wasn't saved. It took me a long time to admit this.

I honestly don't think that I ever really spoke in tongues though I might have had stammering lips yet I along with another large number of "one-time" tongues talkers would be put in the tongue talker category.

I do agree that UPC churches probably have more of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost happening in their churches though. Lately I have been to the local Church of God and they are very similar to UPC in that they try to force the issue more. They do not want to lose their heritage of being Pentecostal.