For those that left the UPC...

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by seekerman

No, it's not circumstantial evidence at all. You've presented Holy Ghost infilling accompanied by tongues in Acts 10. I presented Holy Ghost infilling without tongues in Acts 8.

Your argument seems to be from the position of silence. In other words, your argument is because it didn't say specifically that they did NOT speak in tongues in Acts 8, then they must have spoken in tongues. That's bad exegesis, brother. The fact of the matter is this, we have the account of the initial receiving of the Holy Ghost by individuals, through the laying on of hands of the Apostles with no tongues accompanying.

If we are going to argue from the position of silence, I could take Acts 8, interpret that as meaning that the Holy Ghost only comes with the laying on of hands and then conclude that the Apostles also gave the Holy Ghost with the laying on of hands in Acts 10 because Acts 10 doesn't say that they DID NOT lay on hands.

I submit that Acts 8:18 indicates that's the way individuals receive the Holy Ghost....by the laying on of hands by the Apostles. Therefore the laying on of hands was required in Acts 10, as it was in Acts 8, and it doesn't say it wasn't present in Acts 10. Therefore, without the laying on of hands the required tongues, as evidence to the person 'seeking' the Holy Ghost, cannot come forth.

Do you see where arguing from a position of silence in these scriptures will lead? Why not just let the scripture be scripture and neither of us add to them?

We also have in every account that the Holy Ghost was given, an apostle was present. You could also argue that the Holy Ghost can't be given without an apostle being present.

Acts 8 even gives circumstancial evidence for this doctrine. (They did not receive the Holy Ghost until the apostles were present).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

We always have in every account that the Holy Ghost was given, an apostle was present. You could also argue that the Holy Ghost can't be given without apostles being present.

No you cannot. That would violate the entire ethic of God, since people will not always have an apostle around, (though they still exist today).

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No you cannot. That would violate the entire ethic of God, since people will not always have an apostle around, (though they still exist today).

How would that violate anything to do with God? It would only mean that if God wanted to give you the Holy Ghost he would send you an apostle.

EDIT: (This is no different than what you are saying: "If God wants to give you the Holy Ghost then he will see to it that you speak in tongues.")

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

How would that violate anything to do with God? It would only mean that if God wanted to give you the Holy Ghost he would send you an apostle.

EDIT: (This is no different than what you are saying: "If God wants to give you the Holy Ghost then he will see to it that you speak in tongues.")

big difference. Having an apostle to get the Holy Ghost is not the same at all with tongues as initial evidence of the Holy Ghost. You're smarter than that, j. Come on. The answer is so obvious you only need think about it a second.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

big difference. Having an apostle to get the Holy Ghost is not the same at all with tongues as initial evidence of the Holy Ghost. You're smarter than that, j. Come on. The answer is so obvious you only need think about it a second.

It's not the same? Why is it not the same? The way I see it is if God can make people speak in languages never learned just as part of receiving the Holy Ghost, then surely he can also get an apostle to be there when he wants to give the Holy Ghost to you. And if no apostles are left or will come then God can raise one up from stones. That shouldn't be any more difficult than getting you to speak in tongues... So what's the problem?

[mfblume]

If you cannot get it on your own, then leave it at that.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If you cannot get it on your own, then leave it at that.

No one in acts got it outside the presence of an Apostle. I'm just saying, if you can't do it the biblical way then why even worry about it?

[mfblume]

Scholarly witness of Acts 8 and tongues:

GILL:

Act 8:18 And when Simon saw,.... Whence it appears, that the Holy Ghost, or his gifts, which were received by imposition of hands, were something visible and discernible; and so something external, and not internal; otherwise they would have been out of Simon's reach, and would not have fallen under his notice; but he saw,

that through laying on of the apostles' hands, the Holy Ghost was given: he saw, that upon this men began to prophesy, and to speak with divers tongues they had never learned, and to work miracles, cure men of their diseases, and the like: and when he observed this,


CLARKE:

Act 8:18
When Simon saw, etc. - By hearing these speak with different tongues and work miracles.


BARNES:

Act 8:18
Simon saw ... - That is, he witnessed the extraordinary effects, the power of speaking in a miraculous manner, etc. See the notes on Act_8:15.

Concerning receiving the Spirit: (3) it was something that was discernible by “external effects”; for Simon saw Act_8:18 that this was done by the laying on of hands.


ROBERTSON:

Act 8:18
When Simon saw (Idōn de ho Simōn). This participle (second aorist active of horaō) shows plainly that those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit spoke with tongues. Simon now saw power transferred to others. Hence he was determined to get this new power.

None of these guys were UPC. Hmmm....