My point is that the Apostles did not have control over who received the Holy Spirit. Neither does Rome.
I don't understand this question.
What standard do we use to say "Jesus was Jesus"? How does anyone know that He was Jesus? What did the One Holy Apostolic Church of the day want to do to Jesus?
How did anyone know that John the Baptist was inspired? How about Elijah, Isaiah, or Daniel? None of these men were Levites, were they? Were these men proven to be men of God by a church, or did was their divinely inspired nature on display for all to plainly see by their actions and words? If a prophet were to arise today, how would someone know him to be a true or a false prophet?
Whose interpretation? That's the question Protestants conveniently sweep under the rug.
I don't take the Protestant label, but I know that scripture is plain on the big issues. I approach the Bible much the way I approach Judicial activism. If you are talking about penumbras and emanations, you are wrong. If the scriptures were so hierarchal, why did Paul tell his converts this:
Phi 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
'Control' is an ambiguous term. You are correct that God can act apart from the Apostles. God is not limited. The Apostles and the Catholic Church have always taught this. But, God has appointed certain means through which to build His Church. Even in the passage to which you referred (Acts 10), the Holy Spirit came on the people as Peter was preaching to them. The very words of Peter (as he preached the Gospel) were in this case sacramental. Why doesn't Philip baptize the Samarians in the Holy Spirit (in Acts 8)? Why must the Church send Peter and John? (Acts 8:14) Philip was not an Apostle; he was a deacon. (Acts 6)
The same is true today. Yes, God could send His Holy Spirit to someone. But the appointed means is through the bishops in succession from the Apostles.
-A8