![]() ![]() Simply saying that the assumption is logical does not transform it from an assumption into an observed fact from which inferences and generalizations may properly be drawn. ![]() However, regardless of how logical this assumption may be, when one first assumes the manifestation of tongues to be present in Acts 8, then infers from Acts 8 and other scriptures that tongues are always present when Spirit baptism occurs, one uses an invalid circular argument. Yes, it may be logical to assume that what Simon observed was tongues. When this incident is compared with the three experiences where details are given, it is only logical to assume that what Simon saw and heard was people speaking with other tongues. Had the experience been only by faith without any accompanying sign, Simon would not have known whether the Samaritan believers actually received the Holy Spirit. The Assemblies of God position paper entitled "The initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit"(1) explains that the following "circumstances seem to indicate" the use of tongues as evidence that the Samaritans were baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 8: At Samaria, Simon, a former sorcerer, saw something to indicate that the Holy Ghost was given to believers (Acts 8:18, 19). Not mentioned? Did Simon the sorcerer want to buy the power to induce glossolalia or to do miracles? Evidence of the Holy Spirit was unknown tongues in Samaria, why was this ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |