Where in Romans does it say ' the book of Romans ' ? Acts IS the Acts of the apostles .
"If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his..."
- Thread starter KelbyofGod
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The problem with using Acts as doctrine is, as others have mentioned, is that its a transitional time where the Jewish program was being phased out, to be replaced by the program that is now open to both Jews and Gentiles.
So when you use Acts 19, in this case, Paul met some disciples who told him they were baptised by John's baptism. That gives you a clue that they were under the Jewish program, since John preached the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 3:2).
Under that program, the Holy Spirit does not come to them immediately after they believed (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16).
But we are not under that program now, so if you find that Ephesians 1 passage contradict what you read in Acts 19, you should be taking that Ephesians passage as the correct salvation doctrine for all of us today.
P
pottersclay
Guest
Im just wondering if we are getting the spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit confused in this thread?
Basically it's a paraphrasing of what I hear when you say it's dangerous to derive doctrine from the word of God.
It's not dangerous to trust the word of God... Including Acts
Acts is a record of what it's really like.
We can test our suppositions against the events recorded in Acts. Then we're supposed to doubt our suppositions if they don't line up. Not start doubting the relevance of the recorded word.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
For one thing, a lot of the things being done in Acts were happening through lay people. Another thing is that the acts performed were done by the Holy Ghost through the individuals, not limited to the apostles, which makes them available to all who receive the Holy Ghost.
If your supposition was correct then you would have to claim that the miracles done through Phillip in Samaria (Acts 8) were done by an apostle. Was Phillip an Apostle?
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Except that people still start speaking in tongues when they receive the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost still is often received at the laying on of hands, and... etc, etc.
Those in Ephesus (Acts 19) received the Holy Ghost AFTER they believed... Which is what Ephesians 1:13 is saying. It doesn't say they received the Holy Ghost the moment they believed.
There isn't a contradiction between the two accounts.
But there is a contradiction between both accounts and the doctrine that supposes that the Holy Ghost comes at the instant of belief. It's just undeniably obvious in the Acts 19 account. So the supporters of that doctrine choose to discount the relevance of the book of Acts rather than their own supposition. THAT is dangerous.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Well don't do that . Just actually quote what people actually say . I clearly did not say ' don't trust the word of God . We need to understand it .Basically it's a paraphrasing of what I hear when you say it's dangerous to derive doctrine from the word of God.
It's not dangerous to trust the word of God... Including Acts
Acts is a record of what it's really like.
We can test our suppositions against the events recorded in Acts. Then we're supposed to doubt our suppositions if they don't line up. Not start doubting the relevance of the recorded word.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
you said ////Basically it's a paraphrasing of what I hear when you say it's dangerous to derive doctrine from the word of God.
It's not dangerous to trust the word of God... Including Acts
Acts is a record of what it's really like.
We can test our suppositions against the events recorded in Acts. Then we're supposed to doubt our suppositions if they don't line up. Not start doubting the relevance of the recorded word.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Basically it's a paraphrasing of what I hear when you say it's dangerous to derive doctrine from the word of God.//_/ But I never said " it's dangerous to derive doctrine from the word of God" Thats misrepresentation.
There s 29 conversion accounts in the book of Acts , transitioning from the OT to the new , from jew to Gentile ,to the ' body ' the church from Paul's conversion in Acts 9. Then we have an apostle to the gentiles. Only 3 accounts mention tongues.
T
All of Paul's epistles were written to believers who had already experienced the NT rebirth. The letters provided detailed information regarding what life style was expected of the newly born again believers.
Paul actually instructed disciples of the need to repent, be water baptized in Jesus' name, and need to receive the Holy Ghost 20 years after Peter preached the message at Jerusalem. (Acts 19:1-6)
Peter's interaction with both the Samaritans and Gentiles confirmed that obedience to all of the same instructions given at Pentecost pertained to them as well as the Jews.
All of Paul's epistles were written to believers who had already experienced the NT rebirth. The letters provided detailed information regarding what life style was expected of the newly born again believers.
Paul actually instructed disciples of the need to repent, be water baptized in Jesus' name, and need to receive the Holy Ghost 20 years after Peter preached the message at Jerusalem. (Acts 19:1-6)
When Peter realized God planned to make salvation available to the Gentiles is irrelevant. The fact is the biblical record shows that all people; Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles received and obeyed the instructions given beginning in Jerusalem. Everyone living today is a descendant of one of those groups of people. This makes it clear God intended all to comply with the new birth experience He put into place. Jesus told the disciples that repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name beginning in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47)
I discovered and admit that I misattributed some statements made by Guojing to yourself, but it was the above quotes that led me to believe you were saying Acts is less than applicable for today.
Showing how God will work for those who serve him through difficult and changing situations seems to be what the book of Acts is about. Although I'm not sure what you mean by normative, the situations in the book of Acts and God's deliverance throughout seem pertinent to my life. And I've found his performance in answering prayers and keeping his word completely in line with what is written in Acts as faithfully as the rest of the written word. So I'm a bit defensive when I hear someone suggest less of the book of Acts than what it deserves.
Sorry for the delayed response.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Some people do receive the Holy Ghost at laying on of hands. I've seen that happen numerous times.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
If these things were Essential to be saved then we would expect to see this instruction given in the epistles, which give the very details how we are saved and the components of salvation . The book of Acts is the book that tells us the transitions.
The new birth experience is a requirement which includes the need to be indwelt with the Holy Ghost. Without being reborn a person remains spiritually dead. As seen in scripture receiving the infilling of the Holy Ghost can occur spontaneously, (Acts 2, 10) or be imparted through the laying on of hands. (Acts 8, 19) Jesus said anyone who wishes to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost need only to ask the Father. (Luke 11:13)
I guess you also think we should preach the message the diciples were preaching before mathew 27 also ?
The holy Spirit was not given until after the resurrection and ascension. So no one had the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit until Acts 2 .
There is no ' new birth ' without the the Holy Spirit . We don't go to the book of Acts with its 29 different conversion accounts . We go to the Epistles which instruct the Church on how we are saved and what to tell others on how to be saved .
Eph 1 .13 -14
13¶In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14Which is the EARNEST of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.