Purpose of Acts

Jeffrey · #1 03-11-2010, 01:16 PM

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."

Aquila · #2 03-11-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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."

I believe that the book of Acts was to be the sequel to the Gospel of Luke per the request of Theophilus. I also believe that Luke didn't finished it due to his martyrdom, it stands as a work left in progress.

The Epistles tell us far more about doctrine and how to manage the church than the book of Acts.

Jeffrey · #3 03-11-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that the book of Acts was to be the sequel to the Gospel of Luke per the request of Theophilus. I also believe that Luke didn't finished it due to his martyrdom, it stands as a work left in progress.

The Epistles tell us far more about doctrine and how to manage the church than the book of Acts.

I'm not sure it was a "Gospel sequel" as much as "more of the story."

But I think we agree that we have more clues about how to manage the church in the Epistles and early church documents.

ManOfWord · #4 03-11-2010, 02:03 PM

There is a difference in scripture, even in Acts, between things which are RECORDED and things which are COMMANDED. Not everything RECORDED must be followed and that is where many make huge mistakes.

Praxeas · #5 03-11-2010, 02:44 PM

Acts is a historical book, however so are the gospels to a degree.

But it's a history of what the church did and what the church preached

Michael The Disciple · #6 03-11-2010, 03:19 PM

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.

Sam · #7 03-11-2010, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that the book of Acts was to be the sequel to the Gospel of Luke per the request of Theophilus. I also believe that Luke didn't finished it due to his martyrdom, it stands as a work left in progress.

The Epistles tell us far more about doctrine and how to manage the church than the book of Acts.

Luke wrote the Gospel which is called by his name to give a good presentation of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Book of Acts is a sequel and tells how the Gospel went into all the known world (the Roman Empire). In what is our 28th chapter of Acts, we read about Paul spending two years in a house in Rome teaching. It is during that period that many think he wrote the books of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, and maybe the Book of Hebrews. Note that the author mentioned that Timothy had been released and that he hoped to soon join him. Also, he sent greetings from those in Italy with him. See Hebrews 13:23-25. Paul was a prisoner but was allowed to rent a house (Acts 28:30-31). Luke was there with him (Colossians 4:14). It is my understanding that period was AD 60 and 61 and that Paul was released at the end of AD 61. It is my understanding that Luke wrote the Book of Acts when he was there in Rome with Paul. About 8 years later, Paul was martyred. His last writing was 2 Timothy and he was again arrested but not released this time. Luke was there with him at that time (2 Timothy 4:11)

Jeffrey · #8 03-11-2010, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Acts is a historical book, however so are the gospels to a degree.

But it's a history of what the church did and what the church preached

Please comment to what I suggested. Sort of disagrees with your statement. Yes, it's what the church (with the early Apostles) did, but I think it's a stretch for some to posit that there was nothing unique in Acts or that it's all normative. This was the catalyst of the whole thing. They turned the world upside down to where it's wide open now. Signs and wonders have never been at the level of Acts.

DaveC519 · #9 03-11-2010, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

Sam · #10 03-11-2010, 08:51 PM

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.