according to erasmus, what should be the chief concerns of the christian church

1. Acts is a book of the bible that tends to affect a few things not otherwise taught in the rest of scripture.... for example people are baptized in Jesus' proper noun only and the Holy Spirit is manifested in means not taught anywhere else.

   The book of Acts itself is more than liken to a history volume than information technology is a book of teaching or pedagogy but yet it still teaches and instructs. What is unique about Acts is that it spans such a big period of fourth dimension from the very ancestry of the church to a much more mature body. During the time span that Acts covers 14 of the 26 books of the NT (not including Acts) were written. Which includes doctrinal ability houses like Romans and I & Ii Corinthians and even ii of the gospels.

   It seems to be a very important book especially in terms of the Holy Spirit merely how do we approach it in terms of doctrine? Tin we pull out unique doctrine that appears to be implied in Acts simply non specifically confirmed past other books? I example that comes to mind is tongues.... At that place is the tongues equally taught in 1 Corinthians 12-fourteen and there is the tongues every bit shown in Acts which violates what is taught in i Corinthians and looks a whole lot unlike. Or is 1 Corinthians 14 a response to the unbridled tongues that seem and then common identify in Acts?

   Tongues is simply an example but there are others and I welcome other examples on unique doctrine in Acts but the point is Acts show us things that is not taught anywhere else and where nosotros have no rule book for; does this then demand unique doctrine to come out of information technology or should nosotros effort and explain it away?

   

2. Hard to believe anyone can derive doctrines from Acts when the majority of the Christian world views it as a 'transitional' book from 'Police force' to 'Grace.'

3. Why is Acts even in the bible if it adds no weight to our Christian doctrines? All scripture has doctrine in information technology... otherwise why would it be scripture? Your statement in itself is a type of doctrine.

4. How most this for doctrine then:

5. Acts tells how it happened but information technology does not necessarily endorse all the behaviors and reactions of the early church. Still God still moved and Acts shows u.s.a. some very powerful displays of God. I practice non mean to say to extract the wisdom of the church building in its infancy where they didn't know improve but instead to extract doctrine developed by the reaction of God, non men, within Acts. Certainly Acts shows u.s.a. how the church fumbled around at grasping grace but it too shows us truth from God and it is in that truth where doctrine is developed if you can't come across that then you might besides rip the pages out of your bible.

6. 

   ImaginaryDay Nosotros Live Here

   +703

   Canada

   Protestant

   Separated

   CA-Conservatives

   Can you explain what yous mean by this? Sounds a chip cryptic to me.

7. According to the Christian globe generally, the apostles still hadn't managed to dissever their loyalty to the Law from the grace offered through Jesus Christ. Thus any doctrine derived from them is suspect, (except for Paul of form.)

8. 

   ImaginaryDay We Alive Here

   +703

   Canada

   Protestant

   Separated

   CA-Conservatives

   My personal stance is that the book of Acts is to be treated as a historical record of the ancestry of the church. Where some make a error is if nosotros try to read too much 'doctrine' into the book and go adamant that certain aspects of what happened so, must happen at present. For case, Oneness Pentecostals will tell y'all (because I was one for 10 years) you MUST be baptized in Jesus proper noun and y'all MUST speak in tongues in order to exist saved because that's how it was done in the Book of Acts. They volition point to Acts two:38 as the standard and any questionable manifestation of the Holy Spirit, or reference to someone being baptized 'in Jesus name' every bit further 'proof' to bolster their claim, never heed that the rest of the evangelical world has a different understanding. Btw, they have an answer for that, too, and not a very prissy one at that.

   When I left the denomination, and began to study the book for myself, it began to make more sense as a historical record, rather than volume that laid a doctrinal foundation. I don't disbelieve the manifestations of the Holy Spirit that are recorded or doctrinal issues that may be addressed in Acts, they are part of the tape after all, merely I don't believe that was the cardinal point of the book.

9. Oneness Pentecostals (not to exist confused with master stream Pentecostals) are an example of a denomination that seems to look at Acts equally their highest standard and everything else must concur with Acts. They have developed a doctrine near tongues and baptism and take blurred it together with salvation seeing them as the same thing. So if you are not baptized according to how they say you should be (based on Acts) and are not baptized with the Holy Spirit with evidence of tongues then you are non saved which is not but opposite to the gospel message but to the book of Acts itself. They have the extreme angle of this going to unorthodox levels however their misguided focus still does betrayal how most Christians simply ignore what is implied in Acts.

   For example the baptism of the Holy Spirit with bear witness of tongues is almost unsaid through out Acts merely the problem is there actually is no teaching on the subject not but on the show of tongues but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12-14 is the best instance but when you lot read it and and so read Acts they appear to be talking about dissimilar things since how the Holy Spirit comes upon people in Acts does not expect like how it is taught in ane Corinthians 12-14 especially with the example of tongues. Corinthians talks about the "gifts" (charisma) of the spirit which is inherently a discussion continued with grace (charis) where Acts talks nigh the gift (dorea) of the Spirit. Near Christians bluntly seem to ignore these differences and usually say Acts is the same as 1 Corinthians 12-fourteen but fail to reconcile their unlike focuses.

   I know exterior of chasmic denominations the baptism of the Holy Spirit equally displayed in Acts is written off as a showtime century phenomenon and explained away in 1 Corinthians 13:x. 1 verse says "when the perfect comes, the partial will exist done abroad" and this 1 verse is used to wipe away how the Holy Spirit works in Acts. The problem notwithstanding remains is that Paul in Corinthians withal doesn't address the tongues that is displayed in Acts but still virtually Christians ignore these differences and only say they are the same in Corinthians and then wipe them away by 1 poesy that has a controversial meaning. The whole thing seems very weak and missing a lot of biblical back up to me and but is non skillful enough. It seems to be Acts demands its differences to be addressed and reconciled with other scripture properly instead of ignored as some transitional period where no ane including God knew what they were doing.

• Close Carte
• Forums
  • Search Forums
  • Contempo Posts
• Media
• Bible
• Donate
• Support
• Blogs
• Search

parkgropen49.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.christianforums.com/threads/doctrine-according-to-the-book-of-acts.7710232/

Share this post