I was reading through the Westminster's "Form of Presbyterial Church Government" the other day and reading through the Scripture references. In supporting a lot of details defending Presbyterian church government as being the only Scriptural form of church government, the Westminster divines turn to what the apostles did in Acts for Scriptural support (amongst other Scripture passages).
I've heard some Christian teachers who don't give too much weight to the book of Acts to support doctrines since it is a historical narrative (they say, "Well, since it's historical narrative, that makes it hard to know which aspects we are to follow and which we aren't"). I even heard one teacher say that he thought Paul was just having an angry outburst in Acts 17 since it says in verse 16 "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry."
So my real question is on what basis can we interpret Acts, though historical narrative, as an example that we can follow...and use it for Scriptural support for various doctrines we believe?
I've heard some Christian teachers who don't give too much weight to the book of Acts to support doctrines since it is a historical narrative (they say, "Well, since it's historical narrative, that makes it hard to know which aspects we are to follow and which we aren't"). I even heard one teacher say that he thought Paul was just having an angry outburst in Acts 17 since it says in verse 16 "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry."
So my real question is on what basis can we interpret Acts, though historical narrative, as an example that we can follow...and use it for Scriptural support for various doctrines we believe?