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).