 |  |
B.--Yes, it may, but the question for us is, Did they alter their doctrine, and announce
teaching concerning the church?
A.--Yes, I believe they did, for it is universally accepted that the church began at
Pentecost.
B.--I will not quarrel with your word "universally", but would rather direct you to the
attitude of Paul when opposed by sheer numbers (II Tim. 1: 12-15). As to the change of
doctrine which takes place in Acts 2:, that I believe is a tradition foisted upon an
undiscerning people. Let us "search and see".
In Acts 2: Peter declares that "Pentecost" is the fulfillment of that which was spoken
by the prophet Joel, and he has no reason, by any supposed change of doctrine, to hesitate
in quoting the words:--
"I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire,
and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
before the great and notable day of the Lord come" (Acts 2: 19, 20).
A.--Perhaps Peter felt that he ought not to break off in the middle of a quotation.
B.--Not so. The same Spirit who had just endued Peter anointed also the Lord, and at the
opening of His ministry He did stop half-way through a quotation because of
dispensational reasons. See Isa. 61: 1-4, and note Luke 4: 18-20. Peter expected the
restoration of the kingdom, and Joel was rightly interpreted. The kingdom is connected
with the great and notable day of the Lord, but the church is not. Here again is another
item of the apostles' doctrine which I believe, but which your friends do not.
Yet further, Peter declares the resurrection of Christ to be with the object that He
should sit upon the throne of His father David (Acts 2: 30-33), whereas tradition would
once more substitute the church.
A.--This one feature however is not all that the apostles taught.
B.--No, but it is the foundation of all that follows. For example, Is it "church truth" to
teach baptism for the remission of sins? Yet this is a part of the apostles' doctrine. Your
friends, who are so zealous for the truth, do they possess the Holy Spirit as did these
believers in Acts 2:? Do they, further, sell their possessions and have all things
common? Would they, if it were still possible, continue stedfastly not only in the
apostles' doctrine, but also in the temple (Acts 2: 46)? even though the epistle to the
Hebrews has since been given?
Tell me wherein do these friends of yours agree with the doctrine of the apostles? Is it
too harsh to say that they hold a creed of what they imagine the apostles taught, or what
they think they ought to have taught. Dear friend, "prove all things", "search and see",
say in the language of the Psalmist