In my more than 36 years as a believer, I have encountered several serious problems with viewpoints about the book of Acts that other believers have held that I believe show that they have not handled the book properly. I have had many intense discussions with people about them and have sought in various ways to address these problems, including through preaching, teaching, and writing articles about them.
Many of these problems concern viewpoints about what the apostles did or did not preach when they evangelized people. Most recently, the problem concerned to what extent authentic demonic activity extends into the book of Acts.
Without exception, all of these problematic handlings of the book of Acts have had at least one thing in common---faulty claims made from comparing and contrasting what is actually recorded in the various accounts in the book. How such differences in the accounts should be correctly handled is certainly an important hermeneutical matter for a right understanding of NT interpretation.
Discussion
NewRoland Allen's wrong assessment of Paul's preaching in Athens
In his book, "Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Our's?", Roland Allen asserts the following concerning Paul's preaching at Athens:
By drawing wrong conclusions from his faulty comparisons of the records in certain passages in Acts to other passages in Acts and the Epistles, Allen, in effect, wrongly asserts that Paul did not preach the gospel in Athens.
He claims that Paul did not preach about the Cross at Athens and did not speak about Jesus as the King because those truths are not mentioned in Luke's summary of Paul's preaching in Athens.
I have repeatedly observed similarly faulty handling of many accounts in Acts through people's arguing that what is not mentioned by Luke in various accounts shows that testimony to certain facts or truths was in fact not given in the messages in those accounts. Asserting that Luke's not mentioning something in a given account in Acts shows that testimony to that thing was not given in that account is faulty hermeneutics.
NewPartly agree
Agree that when we see a sermon in narrative, we are not necessarily seeing the whole thing.
My conclusion on the Athens sermon is that we do not know if Paul included the gospel or not. Because Luke, as inspired, chose not to include it, we can at least conclude that the gospel was not Paul’s emphasis there. By omission, Luke does not emphasize it.
I’m not sure the results at Athens were “meagre” though. What I mean is that everywhere isn’t the same. We don’t do the same things necessarily, but even if we did, people do not have the same starting point everywhere. Every individual is unique. Every group of individuals is unique.
So there is a comparison we are not able to make with the information we have:
We do not get to see it playing out two different ways to compare the results.
We also don’t know long-term results vs. short-term results of the strategy Paul chose there.
To me, the apostle’s approach in Athens absolutely makes sense and the results do as well—not because it was poor strategy but because it was that kind of audience.
A takeaway: We should always talk to the people in front of us, not talk “at” them using some canned, pre-chosen, one-size-fits all approach.
Consider Jesus’ ministry. He does not talk to Nicodemus the same way He talks to the Samaritan woman. Other examples exist.
Have a real conversation. Even it’s a ‘pulpit’ style talk, have a real conversation.
(Edit to add this argument: God is not so weak that He needs us to spell things out in every single conversation/sermon. In other words, He is going to do just fine in His process of drawing those He will redeem—and He is more than able to use a pre-evangelistic/pre-gospel interaction as part of that process. We are not limiting Him if we don’t get the whole gospel story out every time. There is planting. There is watering. God gives the increase.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.