CHAPTER XXI
RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD

Dr. Boyd advances several arguments against the initial evidence doctrine, most of which have been around for awhile and are quite shopworn, having been tried on and returned to the rack many times.  Others are so farfetched as to appear even silly.  However we will answer him according to his folly.  And in addition there is the usual set of self contradictory statements which we will point out for our readers.  The argument in which he invests the most energy is the one concerning the Book of Acts.

Seeing the evidence for tongues as the sign of Spirit baptism is so overwhelmingly shown in the Book of Acts, the first thing that must be done by our opponents is to discredit that book.  This must be subtly, for one dare not come out and say it is "uninspired".  No, it must be shown to be unreliable in some fashion.  Sneaky tactics are definitely the order of the day here.  It is dirty work, but somebody must do it!

Modernists and liberals have consistently avoiding living up to Apostolic standards by asserting we cannot extract "doctrine from the Book of Acts."  It is "historic narrative" we are told and was not designed to teach doctrine.  We must go to the epistles they insist.  If it is not taught or confirmed there, then it is highly suspect and should be shelved.  Dr. Boyd follows dutifully in this pattern.  He says it is "precarious at best to base any doctrine on the historical record of Acts unless this doctrine is confirmed in some didactic portion of scripture" (Boyd, p.201).  And he will let you know what "portions" those are!  He contends that to use Acts in this fashion "is really misguided" (Boyd, p.206), and "we cannot derive a doctrinal or behavioral prescription from historical description" (Boyd, p.206).  Even though Acts is a behavioral record!  We are cautioned to remember that Luke "is writing as a historian, not a systematic theologian."  So of course, don't look for theology!  Dr. Boyd just can't seem to control himself in this "ax the Acts" polemic.  Throwing all care to the wind he shifts into high gear:
 

"Therefore, if we look to Acts to be taught the Gospel -- how we should get saved -- we are bound to go astray, for this work was never written for this purpose" (p. 207).

Strange indeed is the fact that even though Dr. Boyd does not believe Acts teaches salvation, he quotes it frequently enough on that very subject -- and in a "didactic" fashion!  On page 136 he says:
 

"The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and faith alone, that saves a person is itself enough to prove this" (p. 136).

He quotes Acts 20:28 to prove that "in Trinitarian theology," the suffering of Jesus on the cross is the suffering of God (p. 187), in spite of the fact he has declared that Luke is "not a systematic theologian" (p. 207).  Apparently his "non-systematic" theology is good enough when Dr. Boyd needs it.  On page 137 he would have us "learn from Acts" that the Holy Spirit "is sometimes given in dramatic fashion before individuals are baptized in water" (Acts 10:44-48).  Now he is deriving a "doctrinal or behavioral prescription" directly from historical description!  This is the very thing he condemns Oneness believers for doing, declaring our "attempt to use the Acts in this fashion is really misguided" (p. 206).  Misguided of course, unless he needs a "prescription" -- then it is quite all right (for him that is!)  You'd almost think he had copyrighted the Book of Acts!  He appropriates it for his own purposes, (theological, prescriptive, salvation, and otherwise), while denying Oneness believers any right to cite it for doctrinal support!  Such an endeavor on our part he says can lead to nothing but "harm and heresy" (p. 209).  "O Consistency thou art a rare jewel."
 

Dr. Boyd, now dug in so deep he has no where to go but down, burrows on:
 

"To set this work up as a norm for all church experience is thus to set up a very rich -- and very unhealthy -- diet for oneself indeed -- nothing but harm and heresy can come from such an endeavor" (p. 209).

Even as a history, Dr. Boyd finds Acts less than desirable.  In fact it becomes almost worthless to hear him describe it.  For example:
 

"Indeed so uniterpreted is Luke's objective reporting that he leaves it up to us to infer why he even placed just these four accounts in his work rather than some other occurrences of the Spirit's initial outpouring" (p. 208).

"...it seems that the best guess is that Luke included just these four occurrences of the Spirit's outpouring because they were not normative!"

"Left open are the questions of why Peter and John had to come, why the Holy Spirit had not yet come, why the laying on of hands was significant, how they all knew the Spirit had come when He finally did come" (p. 208).

"Luke was not trying to teach Theophilus that the answer to any of these questions -- whatever it might turn out to be -- was normative and necessary for all time."

It becomes quite apparent when one reads Dr. Boyd's entire book that he does use Acts, and uses it repeatedly to teach doctrine, especially salvation.  He quotes it authoritatively and often.  It is only when Acts teaches Pentecostal doctrine ,with which he does not agree, that it suddenly becomes non-didactic, unhealthy, too rich, not germane, apt to lead astray, etc.  This is certainly begging the question!
 

A prime example of Dr. Boyd's "Pentecostal Obsession" is his two mutually contradictory statements on the signs and wonders.  On page 204, he says:
 

"Hence the supernatural phenomena (e.g. prophecy, visions, healings) that have always been associated with the Spirit will, after Pentecost, be available not just to one or two great men of God, but to the entire people of God" (p. 204).

"Indeed, given the time span that Luke seeks to cover with his Acts volume, it is not surprising if he tends to lift out of the ordinary mundane history of the early church those rare things that are most spectacular and unusual.... To set this work up as a norm for all church experience is thus to set up a very rich -- and very unhealthy -- diet for oneself indeed."

The same contradictory reasoning is repeated.  On page 202 the Church is described as having an anointing which "supernaturally empowers people to carry out God's will dynamically."  But on p. 207 when tongues are under consideration, we find they are "rare things" lifted out of the ":ordinary mundane history of the early church."  A dynamic, supernaturally anointed and empowered people producing  an ordinary and mundane history!  How did they manage to do it?  Think for a moment dear reader, the Apostolic Church is "ordinary and mundane" he says.  Do you remember that "mundane" incident when Peter and John healed the cripple at the Temple Gate?  Or their "ordinary" prayer meeting that shook the whole house?  How about that "mundane and ordinary" resurrection of Dorcas?  To say nothing of the utterly boring earthquake that freed Paul and Silas from jail!  Would to God we were "making such ordinary and mundane" history today!
 

Dr. Boyd, and others, when they posture that the Book of Acts is not to be used for doctrinal purposes, are found not contending with Oneness believers, but with the Holy Spirit Himself.  For they contradict plainly what the Spirit has said concerning Acts.
 

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Tim. 3:16).

Dr. Boyd, unfortunately puts himself in the same category as modernists and religious liberals when he says that it is "precarious to base any doctrine in the historical record of Acts unless this doctrine is confirmed in some didactic portion of Scripture" (p. 201).  He thus divides Scripture between those "portions" which can be taken for doctrine, and those which cannot.  In liberal circles the gospels and Acts, being historic narratives, are not considered reliable for doctrine.  Only the epistles are used for this.  Indeed, Dr. Boyd rejects our initial evidence teaching because he feels it has "no corroborating evidence in the Epistles..." (p. 209).  But the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is only found in the so-called "narrative portions", in this case, the Gospels.  It's not mentioned, confirmed or corroborated even once in the Epistles.  Are we to class this doctrine as "precarious"?  It's because of such heretical reasoning as this, which divides the Bible into doctrinal and non doctrinal "portions," that so many liberals outrightly reject the Virgin Birth.  It's not "corroborated" you see!  Neo-trinitarians lean in this direction, also.  Shirley Guthrie feels one can still be saved while rejecting the Virgin Birth doctrine!  Some suggest Paul and the early Church may not have known about it!  And these are authors Dr. Boyd recommends to us in his footnotes!  The Bible tells us about rightly dividing the Word, but contains a fearful warning about subtracting from it (Rev. 22:19)!
 

Dr. Boyd's opposition to the Book of Acts is understandable, given his theological position.  Every religious group feels uncomfortable in this book, except Oneness Pentecostals.  The reason is that the Book of Acts is the measuring rod, a divine plumbline, by which all preaching and "plans" of salvation are to be tested.  It is only in the Book of Acts tat we read the actual sermons that were preached by the New Testament preachers in order to convict sinners.  And it is only in the Book of Acts that we observe what sinners actually did to get saved.  The true pattern is found exclusively in the book of Acts -- for it is "on the spot" reporting.

In the Book of Acts we never read the Apostles instructing anyone to "read the Watchtower": or "prepare for Armageddon" in order to be saved.  That eliminates the Jehovah's Witnesses.  "But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:9).  They preach another gospel , and they are cursed.  Neither do we read in Acts that the Apostles instructed anyone to be "baptized for the dead," or "contract celestial marriages for time and eternity."  This eliminates the Mormons.  They preach another Gospel.  They too are cursed!  No converts were ever instructed to "keep the Seventh Day Sabbath," as the Adventists insist.  Another Gospel, another curse.  And what is equally significant, no one was ever told to accept Jesus as their "very own personal Savior: or "allow Jesus to come into their hearts" in order to be saved.  Neither do we read of the Apostles passing out "decision cards" or asking people to "slip up a hand."  The Apostles knew nothing of this simplified ABC method (accept, believe, confess), and never preached it.  None of these man-made "easy believe" schemes are attested to in the Book of Acts.  They are modern day inventions being hauled on Philistine carts designed to circumvent the truth.  No wonder these preachers of "other gospels" so demean the Book of Acts.  Now we see why they instruct their people to not use it "for salvation" lest they "go astray!"  How much blood is on their hands?

Oneness Pentecostals are the only ones who line up with the divine measuring rod of the Book of Acts!  We conform to the "ancient landmarks" rather than trying to rearrange or eliminate them.  We feel very comfortable with the Book of Acts.  The New Testament preaching in Acts consistently instructs  sinners to repent of their sins, be baptized in water in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins, and to receive the promised Baptism of the Holy Ghost.  The exact message Oneness Pentecostals preach (Acts 2:38; Acts 2:4; Acts 8:36-39; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 11:14-18, Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16:32-33; Acts 19:1-6; Acts 9:17-18; Acts 22:16).

Though details are not given in every account, and some emphasize one aspect more than another, the "big picture" that emerges by considering them all is a gospel of repentance that was always accompanied by water baptism, and a supernatural  endowment of spiritual power, which is characterized by a charismatic utterance.  Far from being "unconditional" as Dr. Boyd contends (p. 23), the Apostles and other New testament preachers laid down very definite conditions:  repentance, accompanied by a change of in lifestyle (Acts 19:18-19), and water baptism in Jesus Name.  Yes the book of Acts is quite an embarrassment to those who preach "another gospel."  Ands this is the real spirit behind such remarks as "this work was never written for this purpose" (Boyd, p. 207).

The work was specifically written for that purpose.  Acts is in fact the only book in the New testament where we can learn what we must do to be saved (Acts 2:37; Acts 16:30).  Dr. Boyd says we should not look to Acts to be taught "how we should be saved," yet we find people crying out "what must I do to be saved," throughout the book!  Are we to ignore the answers they were given, as having nothing to do with salvation?  How utterly insulting to the intelligence of his readers is such a groundless supposition!  It must have been a very late and weary night at the typewriter that produced such a doctrinal freak!  It should have been suffocated at birth!
 

The Apostle Paul instructs us to "rightly divide the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15).  And the New Testament has four main divisions:
 

Matthew, Mark , Luke and John are the four gospels.  They record the life and ministry of Christ.  They include his birth, his preaching, and his death, burial and resurrection.  Christ shed His blood "which taketh away the sin of the world" in the last chapters of the Gospels.  The Gospels do not contain the requirements for obtaining New Testament Salvation because:
 

1. Christ said that "repentance and remission of sins" would be preached in his name beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47).  This occurred in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38).  Salvation preaching therefore begins in Acts, not the Gospels.
2. The Spirit would not be given to believers until Christ was glorified (John 7:38-39).  This also occurred in Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost.
3. There could be no forgiveness of sins until Christ's blood was shed and sprinkled on the mercy seat in Heaven (Hebrews 9:12; 24-26).  This occurred after the ascension of Christ.
4. The one who made the "New testament" had to die first and be resurrected before it could come into force (Hebrews 9:17).  While he was living on earth it was not in force, for "it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."  Christ died and was resurrected at the close of the gospels.  The New Testament (Covenant) went into effect in the Book of Acts Period, after Christ's Resurrection.

Now some will ask, "Did not people have their sins 'forgiven in the Gospels'?"  Yes, of course they did.  But in the same way that those in the Old Testament Dispensation had their's "forgiven."  They were actually "covered" and "rolled forward" to the cross.  Forgiven with a view towards Christ's atoning sacrifice.  When Jesus shed his blood and applied in heaven, then these sins were actually canceled off the record books.  These people were forgiven, in other words, by "credit" or faith that the Messiah would die and pay the price.
 

This is the right book to find the true New Testament plan of Salvation.  It was written, and contains events, that took place after Jesus died, poured out his blood and returned to Heaven to dispense His Spirit to believers.  Salvation preaching was to "begin" at Jerusalem, and that's precisely where Acts opens up.  There we have the first Christian sermon on the gospel preached (Acts 2:14-39).  Here we have the first Christian converts saved (Acts 2:41).  And here we have the first Christian Church formed (Acts 2:42-47).  This is where Salvation begins, is preached, takes effect.  It is on-site reporting of how people in the 1st century church "got saved."
 

Acts is also where Jesus' Prophecy and Commission to the Apostles, that "whosoever sins ye remit; they are remitted unto them"  (John 20:23), was fulfilled and exercised.  For the Apostles commanded the people to be Baptized in Jesus Name for the "remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).  It is also in the Book of Acts that Jesus' prophecy concerning Peter and the future church is also fulfilled:  "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church... and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:18-19).  It was in Acts, on the Day of Pentecost that Peter "standing up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14), began the building of the church with the first full gospel sermon ever preached.  It is also in Acts that Peter began using the "keys of the kingdom" by "binding" the command of repentance and baptism on the crowd in order to "loose" them from their sins.  Peter used these keys in Acts, and Acts alone, to open the door of Salvation to Jews (Acts 2:38-39), Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17), and Gentiles (Acts 10:34-48).
 

The book of Acts is therefore the book of "Repent ye and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out..."  (Acts 3:19).  It is the book that informs us "neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name  under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).  It is the book in which people ask "what musty I do to be saved" (Acts 2:37; 16:30).  Yet,, Dr. Boyd says of this book:
 

"Therefore if we look to Acts to be taught the Gospel -- how we should get saved -- we are bound to go astray..."  (Boyd, p. 207).

The epistles are letters written by the Apostles, primarily Paul, to people that were already saved.  The record of how they were saved is in the book of Acts.  For example, Paul wrote to the Ephesians and described them as already saved believers:
 

"To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus... with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:1-3).

Dr. Boyd says doctrine should be "confirmed in some didactic portion of Scripture."  (p. 201).  By which we assume he means primarily the epistles, for he says our doctrine of tongues has "no corroborating evidence in the Epistles" (p. 209).  So the epistles are where he wants us to get out doctrine.  Fine.  But when Oneness writers teach the doctrine of women having long hair, a teaching found in the Epistle of I Corinthians chapter 11, a didactic portion of scripture, Dr. Boyd wastes no time dismissing the whole thing as a "cultural" requirement, no longer binding on Christian.  "To the contrary," he writes, "whether Paul is speaking in this passage about women wearing veils, or about a particular hair style, or even about women having long hair, there is no good reason to assume that this is anything  more than a cultural issue" (p. 226).  "No good reason to assume" -- even though it's in the inspire word of God, found in an epistle written to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ," and authored by an Apostle who said, "the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37).  Just a "cultural issue!"  Set it aside and disobey it if you like, is Dr. Boyd's advice.  We can dismiss a lot of things like that!  The homosexuals dismiss Paul's condemnation of their life-style on the same basis -- "just a cultural issue."  Radical feminists and abortionists apply the same "cultural" interpretation to the Bible and proceed with their baby killings.  I think we can tell by his "cultural issue" argument the real confidence Dr. Boyd places in the epistles, his so-called "didactic portions" of scripture.  They are only "didactic" when convenient!  They are only used to "corroborate" what he wants "corroborated!"

We Apostolic Pentecostals on the other hand, get our Oneness from the Gospels, our salvation from the Acts, and our Holiness from the Epistles.  That's why we're "full gospel."  And we enjoy our rich diet too!
 

The last book in the New Testament division is the prophetic book of Revelation.  This is a book, written in "apocalyptic code" and addressed to the "seven churches of Asia."  In it is unfolded, not only additional manifestations of Christ's deity, but the whole course of this age culminating in the Great White Throne Judgment at the End of the Age.  It  contains no instructions on how to get saved, being written to already saved people.  But it does show the rewards the saved shall receive.  We should not look for the "plan of salvation" in the horns and the heads of beasts coming out of the sea and land.  That's not the book's purpose.