Critiquing: #065 — Acts Q&A Pt 2 – Tongues, doctrine and evangelism

May 13, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Tongues and Maturity — Doctrinal Guidance — Paul’s Comparison — Spreading the Gospel — Speaking in Tongues

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C	The content generally aligns with biblical references but lacks specific citations to validate claims. Specific scriptural references and historical context are missing.
Degree of Coherence	B-	The arguments are logically structured, though some points could be more clearly articulated and connected. The transitions between topics could be smoother.
Absence of Fallacies	C+	Some generalizations and potential for hasty conclusions are present. Statements sometimes rely on assumptions without sufficient justification.
Degree of Evidence	C	Limited explicit evidence provided to substantiate the doctrinal claims made throughout the discussion. More direct quotes from scripture and historical examples would enhance the argument.
Degree of Testability	D+	Many statements are based on theological interpretation, making them difficult to empirically test. Objective criteria for evaluating these interpretations are lacking.
Rational Confidence	C-	Confidence is placed more in interpretative understanding than in verifiable evidence. Assertions often rely on doctrinal beliefs without addressing alternative viewpoints.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence

“People tend to go to Paul and Hebrews particularly and then perhaps to the gospels.”

This statement lacks detailed evidence to support the claim that these are the primary sources for doctrinal discussions. More concrete examples or references to specific denominations or historical trends would strengthen this point. Including specific instances where doctrinal councils or prominent theologians have predominantly referenced these texts over Acts would provide stronger support.

2. Degree of Testability

“Sometimes people write whole books about the resurrection taking 1 Corinthians 15 which is obviously important and central but forgetting that in passages like Acts 2…”

The claim here is interpretative and does not offer a testable hypothesis. It assumes a certain reading of scripture without presenting a method for empirical validation. To improve testability, the discussion could incorporate comparative analysis of doctrinal interpretations across different denominations or historical periods, examining how each text has been used in theological arguments.

3. Rational Confidence

“The ascension doesn’t mean Jesus just going away and leaving us to our own devices.”

While this interpretation is doctrinally significant, it hinges on a particular theological understanding that may not be universally accepted. The confidence in this interpretation should be tempered with acknowledgment of differing views. A more nuanced discussion could explore various theological perspectives on the ascension, including differing interpretations within Christian traditions and their implications for understanding Jesus’ ongoing presence and lordship.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: The Role of Acts in Doctrinal Discussions

1. Major Premise: Doctrinal discussions in Christianity typically reference key biblical texts.
2. Minor Premise: Acts is often overlooked in favor of Paul’s letters and Hebrews.
3. Conclusion: Acts should be more prominently considered in doctrinal discussions due to its insights on the resurrection and the meaning of the cross.

Counter-Argument:

Acts, while significant, does not necessarily offer a comprehensive doctrinal framework compared to the extensive theological expositions found in Paul’s letters and Hebrews. The brevity and narrative style of Acts might limit its applicability in forming detailed doctrinal positions. Additionally, the doctrinal content in Acts is often embedded within historical narratives, making it less explicit and more interpretive than the didactic passages found in the epistles. This narrative form can lead to diverse interpretations, reducing the consistency needed for establishing core doctrines.

---

Argument 2: Speaking in Tongues and Christian Maturity

1. Major Premise: Christian maturity is sometimes judged by specific spiritual experiences.
2. Minor Premise: Speaking in tongues is one such experience mentioned in Acts and Corinthians.
3. Conclusion: Speaking in tongues is important but not the sole indicator of Christian maturity.

Counter-Argument:

Christian maturity encompasses a broader spectrum of spiritual fruits and practices beyond speaking in tongues. Focusing too narrowly on this experience may neglect other critical aspects of spiritual growth such as love, humility, and service, which are also emphasized in the New Testament. Furthermore, emphasizing speaking in tongues can create a divisive environment within the Christian community, where those who do not experience this gift may feel marginalized or spiritually inadequate. A balanced approach would consider the variety of spiritual gifts and the holistic development of a believer’s character and faith.

---

Argument 3: The Paul of Acts vs. The Paul of the Letters

1. Major Premise: There is a perceived difference between Paul’s portrayal in Acts and his epistles.
2. Minor Premise: Acts shows Paul engaging in Jewish practices, while his letters emphasize faith apart from the Law.
3. Conclusion: Understanding the context and audience of each text reveals a consistent Paul across both sources.

Counter-Argument:

The apparent differences between Paul’s actions in Acts and his teachings in the letters can be seen as context-dependent rather than contradictory. However, the diversity in his approach might also reflect a pragmatic adaptation to different audiences, which could suggest a more complex and less uniform theological stance. Paul’s adherence to Jewish customs in Acts could be interpreted as a strategic effort to bridge cultural gaps and facilitate his mission, rather than a strict adherence to the Law. This adaptability underscores the dynamic and situational nature of his ministry, which might challenge the perception of a single, cohesive Pauline theology.

◉ Addressing Argument #: The Book of Acts and Doctrinal Clarity

The Lack of Doctrinal Foundations in Acts

The book of Acts, written by Luke, is a fascinating narrative that chronicles the early church’s history, the spread of the Gospel, and the works of the apostles. Yet, as N.T. Wright acknowledges, it does not provide a clear doctrinal foundation from which to extract concrete doctrines. This observation raises a significant point of discussion: if Acts, a crucial part of the New Testament, lacks explicit doctrinal clarity, what does this say about the nature of biblical doctrine as a whole?

One might expect a divine text, especially one that believers claim is inspired by an omniscient God, to include clear and explicit statements of doctrine. However, the Bible is a compilation of various literary genres, including narrative, poetry, prophecy, and epistles, none of which straightforwardly list out doctrinal points as seen in many statements of faith created by religious organizations. This diversity in form and function of the biblical texts results in a scripture that requires significant interpretation and theological reflection to discern doctrines.

Throughout Christian history, various denominations have formulated their own statements of faith, often based on their interpretation of the biblical canon. These statements attempt to distill the essence of Christian doctrine into concise, understandable points. However, the fact that these statements can vary significantly among different denominations suggests a level of ambiguity and interpretive flexibility inherent in the scriptures themselves.

The Gospel accounts and the epistles of Paul, for instance, provide more direct theological teaching than Acts. Yet, even these texts do not systematically lay out doctrines in the manner of a modern creed or catechism. Instead, they address specific issues facing the early church communities, offering guidance and theological insights that were pertinent to their unique contexts.

This lack of systematic doctrinal statements in the Bible raises an intriguing theological question: why does the Bible not have the appearance of a book written by a God who wants His attributes and will clearly known? One possible answer is that the nature of divine revelation and human understanding is inherently relational and dynamic. Instead of dictating a rigid set of beliefs, the Bible invites readers into a process of discovery and engagement with the alleged divine. I find this dubious and not what we would expect from an actual God.

This approach to understanding the Bible challenges the expectation of absolute clarity and encourages a more humble and open-ended engagement with scripture.

---

Thank you for reading. I warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Let’s explore these profound questions together!