Did Cornelius receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized?

[PacMan]

Hick,

I

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Yes BookofMormonLuvr,

The Bible and Book of Mormon have similar teachings, each canon is an analog of the other.

God teaches the same thing no matter where He speaks. He's omniconsistent.

[Vance]

Vance,

So your answer is that you don't know if professing Christians had any responsibility in killing the apostles. Is that correct?

By the way, I don't have any trouble understanding "not sparing the flock," but I fail to see the relevance of this expression to our discussion if your position now is that you don't know if professing Christians had any responsibility in killing the apostles.

Rob,

You started this exchange with this statement.

If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth.

To which I responded,

Partially true. The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles. After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed.

God doesn't force people to accept Him. So He waited until the time was right to restore the fullness.

To which you asked,

What do you mean by "the people as a whole"? Do you mean people in general in the Hellenistic world of the late first century? Do you mean the people of the Christian movement of the late first century? You know, there is not a single recorded instance of anyone professing to be a Christian murdering any of the apostles.

To which I responded,

I mean that there may have been some who didn't reject the apostles and their message. But even these eventually died. But with the death/disappearance of the apostles, the authority was lost. The doctrines taught by the churches were corrupted. Without the rightful shepherds the flock was left to the mercy of the wolves. The wolves, as prophesied, did NOT spare the flock.

You responded,

So I asked you to which people you referred as "the people as a whole": Christian people, or non-Christian people, or both? You didn't answer this question. Please answer it now: who, in your opinion, murdered the apostles?

I responded,

Rob,

Nearly all of the epistles were written to address heresies that were creeping into the church. The New Testament records accounts of "Christian" individuals and groups that were hindering the work of the apostles within the Church. Paul describes these people as "wolves". I don't know if any of them were involved in the death/disappearance of the apostles.

Now, if you want to use circular reasoning and claim that any individual who would participate is such activity wasn't a real "Christian" and then claim that "Christian" people weren't involved in instigating the apostasy, then delude yourself.

Paul was very clear when he said,

Acts 20:28

[Hick Preacher]

PM in quotes--

<<<

I

[PacMan]

Hick,

It may have well caused a problem for these Samaritan to be baptized by Philip. Then John and Peter were called upon and settled the problem by coming down and laying hands on these new converts.

That

[Hick Preacher]

Pacman in quotes

<<<That

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

Hick had written:

Actually Laying on of Hands is associated with getting the Holy Ghost. But there is no pattern in the New Testament that supports the idea that it is the only way to get the Gift.

You replied:

Precisely my point to Rob which has gone completely unanswered (unless I missed a post).

If you had made precisely that point, then we would have been in agreement. Yet you do claim that there is a pattern and that deviations from that pattern are "exceptions." You are therefore trying to have your pattern and eat it too.

You wrote:

Whether baptism is done in water or by a hoard of people walking through the red sea, or the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands or on the day of Pentecost, the Lord is the giver. There exceptions to the form. Agreed. But it is the Lord that makes the exceptions, and the rule is the examples of his servants the Prophets and Apostles.

No, the rule is the teaching of the prophets and apostles, not their "examples," where there "examples" do not demonstrate any uniformity or necessity.

You wrote:

But let us be sure: There WAS pattern. You

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Your review of our exchange does nothing to clarify the issues. You wrote:

Well, Rob, what did Jesus say about the persecutors and murders of the Apostles?

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Could some that professed to being Christians have been in that category?

There is no reason to think so. Jesus is referring to Jewish leaders expelling Christians from the synagogues and to Jewish opponents of the gospel killing Christians (e.g., the stoning of Stephen and Saul's pre-Christian campaign of persecution of Christians).

You wrote:

And yes "not sparing the flock" very much has bearing on this topic.

You have so far failed to explain how so.

You wrote:

I find it very humorous that Rob, a Protestant, is claiming that no general apostasy occurred.

You have a strange sense of humor.

[Vance]

There is no reason to think so. Jesus is referring to Jewish leaders expelling Christians from the synagogues and to Jewish opponents of the gospel killing Christians (e.g., the stoning of Stephen and Saul's pre-Christian campaign of persecution of Christians).

That some Jews were in the group Christ spoke of is not in question. However you are ignoring Jesus' actual words.

So, let's look at it again.

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

Notice that the "whosoever" in the second phrase is not limited to the "they" in the first phrase.

So again, the question, could some that professed to being Christians have been in that category?

You have so far failed to explain how so.

Oh, please Rob, can you pretend to be more obtuse?

Are you saying that you don't know what "the flock" represents?

Are you saying that you don't know what "not sparing" means?

"The flock"

Matt. 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

1 Pet. 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God

[zerinus]

If you had made precisely that point, then we would have been in agreement. Yet you do claim that there is a pattern and that deviations from that pattern are "exceptions." You are therefore trying to have your pattern and eat it too.

You wrote:

No, the rule is the teaching of the prophets and apostles, not their "examples," where there "examples" do not demonstrate any uniformity or necessity.

You wrote:

I have yet to see this demonstrated. There are six instances in the book of Acts of people receiving the Holy Spirit. Please show me this pattern.

The scriptures inform us that we can receive the Holy Ghost in different capacities, measures, and states of being. In John 7:39 we read: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." This scripture tells us that the Holy Ghost was not given until Jesus had been glorified; but we find that the Holy Ghost in mentioned well before Jesus was glorified. Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and John the Baptist is said to have been filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. Peter tells us that all the ancient prophets spake by the power of the Holy Ghost; and even virtuous people among the unbelieving Gentiles are said to have acted under the influence of the Holy Ghost. So how can that be? How can the Holy Ghost have been so pervasive in times past operating before Jesus was glorified, while John tells us that the Holy Ghost was not given until He was glorified? The answer is that we can receive the Holy Ghost in different capacities and with different conditions attached. There is one of those conditions that it can only be received by the sacrament of the laying on of hands, and not in any other way. That is the theological explanation, if you can detach yourself from too strict an adherence to the verbal expressions used in the scriptures in which that doctrine is semantically expressed.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

That some Jews were in the group Christ spoke of is not in question. However you are ignoring Jesus' actual words.

So, let's look at it again.

This is tiresome, but okay.

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

Notice that the "whosoever" in the second phrase is not limited to the "they" in the first phrase.

So again, the question, could some that professed to being Christians have been in that category?

What is the point of asking, if you profess not to know if any professed Christians were actually in that category???

All sorts of things are hypothetically possible in the abstract. John 16:2 may allow for the possibility that professing Christians might kill apostles, but it isn't evidence that this happened. The verse doesn't say who the "whosoever" would be. It doesn't preclude the abstract hypothetical possibility that the apostles were killed by time-traveling Romulans, but I doubt it.

As a simple matter of fact, we have absolutely no record of any professing Christians killing any of the apostles. James the son of Zebedee was executed by order of Herod Agrippa I, who made no pretense of being a Christian. James the Lord's brother was thrown down from the temple and beaten to death by Jewish, non-Christian opponents. Peter and Paul were executed by order of Nero; I'm pretty sure he didn't claim to be a Christian, either. Fairly reliable traditions indicate that Andrew and Simon the Zealot were also crucified. We have little or no reliable information about the deaths of the other apostles, but the traditions about their deaths say nothing about other Christians, real or professed, murdering them. For a judicious and brief review of the deaths of the apostles, see the following PDF document:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/DeathoftheApostles.pdf

With regard to the expression "not sparing the flock" in Acts 20:29, you asked a lot of rhetorical questions but didn't explain its relevance to the question about the deaths of the apostles. I understand that you interpret this expression to refer to a complete, total apostasy. I don't, but let that pass: the text does not indicate how the apostles would die, let alone who would kill them. It doesn't say anything about the apostles' death! So I still fail to see the relevance of that text to our discussion here.

Finally, you wrote:

So, you don't see the irony of a Protestant arguing against a general apostasy?

No, I don't. Protestantism does not teach that the church ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, it teaches that the church was corrupted and needed to be reformed. What I do find ironic is that you don't seem to know this.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Some of your fellow Mormons assert that there is a "pattern" of how one must receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I simply asked for a demonstration of this pattern. What you are saying, in effect, is that there is no pattern because the Holy Ghost can be received in all sorts of different ways, but there still is some obligation of undergoing the laying on of hands in order to obtain the Holy Ghost in one specific capacity. So, I conclude that you have conceded that this obligation cannot be supported by reference to any "pattern" in the Bible. Is that correct?

The scriptures inform us that we can receive the Holy Ghost in different capacities, measures, and states of being. In John 7:39 we read: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." This scripture tells us that the Holy Ghost was not given until Jesus had been glorified; but we find that the Holy Ghost in mentioned well before Jesus was glorified. Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and John the Baptist is said to have been filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. Peter tells us that all the ancient prophets spake by the power of the Holy Ghost; and even virtuous people among the unbelieving Gentiles are said to have acted under the influence of the Holy Ghost. So how can that be? How can the Holy Ghost have been so pervasive in times past operating before Jesus was glorified, while John tells us that the Holy Ghost was not given until He was glorified? The answer is that we can receive the Holy Ghost in different capacities and with different conditions attached. There is one of those conditions that it can only be received by the sacrament of the laying on of hands, and not in any other way. That is the theological explanation, if you can detach yourself from too strict an adherence to the verbal expressions used in the scriptures in which that doctrine is semantically expressed.

[Vance]

Protestantism does not teach that the church ceased to exist on the earth.

Of course, you HAVE to believe that regardless of the evidence.

Rather, it teaches that the church was corrupted and needed to be reformed.

"corrupted"? But not apostate in doctrine and practice? Right.

What I do find ironic is that you don't seem to know this.

Indeed.

[Vance]

I understand that you interpret this expression to refer to a complete, total apostasy. I don't, but let that pass:

Ah, yes, "let that pass". Why? Because it would be counter productive to your agenda?

It doesn't mean what is says? Or you don't believe that it means what it says?

Ah, yes, "let that pass".

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I have no problem discussing anything. My point was that the question of whether Acts 20:29 refers to a total apostasy has no bearing on the question of who killed the apostles.

Is it possible you are trying to divert attention from your inability to offer a coherent position on that question?

Ah, yes, "let that pass". Why? Because it would be counter productive to your agenda?

It doesn't mean what is says? Or you don't believe that it means what it says?

Ah, yes, "let that pass".

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Of course, you HAVE to believe that regardless of the evidence.

You seem very confused. If as a Protestant evangelical I "HAVE to believe" that the church did not cease to exist, then what is the "irony" in me as a Protestant evangelical denying the idea that the church ceased to exist???

[Hick Preacher]

A side note-

Most Evangelicals are actually more in line with being Restorationists, than Protestants.

And also Evangelicalism encompasses a much broader set of ideas broader than those found with in the ideas than found alone in the Reformation and Restorationist movements. There are even Roman Catholics that are very Evangelical in orientation.

Evangelicalism holds that the preached word of God can invoke the power of the Holy Ghost toward the salvation of souls who hear and accept its gospel message.

Evangelicals believe that the Heavens are Open to Believers for Direct and Personal Revelation by the power of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).

This indwelling belief is the origin of the popular saying in Evangelical culture concerning having a

[Vance]

Rob,

This offshoot topic got started by you with this statement.

"If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth."

To which I responded.

"Partially true. The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles. After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed."

The current topic is the apostasy. You are artificially trying to limit it to "who killed the apostles". The "who" has far less relevance to the "what" (murder of the apostles) was done.

History is clear. There was severe presecution of the church from out side and internal apostasy and descension.

Corruption indeed.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Putting some words in bold and not others won't hide the issue. You had stated that the apostasy occurred "because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles." So I asked you who "murdered the apostles." That is directly relevant to your statement.

Here's the problem you face: The fact is that people outside the church murdered the apostles. Therefore, the murder of the apostles has no bearing on why there supposedly came to be a complete apostasy. If they were murdered by people outside the church, their murder is no reason for Christ not to appear to other believers and appoint them as apostles to replace those murdered, supposing for the sake of argument that the church needed living apostles on the earth. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians in the first century greatly respected the apostles, and those who didn't but professed to be Christians had nothing to do with their deaths. The only apostle criticized by many people within Christianity during the first century was Paul -- criticism that came mostly from Jewish Christians -- but they had nothing to do with his death. So there simply was no widespread disrespect, let alone rejection, of the apostles in first-century Christianity. Even heretical groups generally acknowledged the authority of the apostles while distorting their teachings (something that continues to happen today, by the way).

Thus, your statement, "The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles," makes no sense historically. Christians as a whole respected the apostles. Non-Christians didn't respect the apostles, but that doesn't explain why new apostles were not appointed as the original apostles died off gradually one or two at a time over a period of some fifty years.

Rob,

This offshoot topic got started by you with this statement.

"If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth."

To which I responded.

"Partially true. The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles. After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed."

The current topic is the apostasy. You are artificially trying to limit it to "who killed the apostles". The "who" has far less relevance to the "what" (murder of the apostles) was done.

History is clear. There was severe presecution of the church from out side and internal apostasy and descension.

Corruption indeed.

[Rob Bowman]

Hick,

Evangelicals are Protestants. More specifically, evangelicals are Protestants who maintain the faith articulated in all of the historic Protestant confessions of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Other groups may use the term "evangelical" as an adjective to describe their emphasis on the gospel (as they understand it), but Roman Catholics are not evangelicals; nor are non-Trinitarian groups evangelicals. For a definition of what evangelicals believe, see the following statement of the World Evangelical Alliance:

http://www.worldevangelicals.org/aboutwea/statementoffaith.htm

And see the following article for a history of the WEA and further references on evangelicalism:

http://www.worldevangelicals.org/aboutwea/history.htm

[ELF1024]

The LDS Church teaches that in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, you must first be baptized; then you must have hands laid on you by someone authorized to do so; and then, and only then, you may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. One serious problem with this claim is that the Bible reports that a whole household of people

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

You wrote:

There is absolutely a difference between having the Holy Ghost dwell within you for a short time, and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Anyone, and everyone is open to the occasional promptings of the Holy Ghost. Anyone may indeed recieve personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, how would a non-member who has not been baptized by authority know of the truthfulness of the Gospel?

That is different than the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Which is a much stronger bond with the Holy Ghost than just the occasional visit.

I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized.

[Vance]

You had stated that the apostasy occurred "because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles." So I asked you who "murdered the apostles." That is directly relevant to your statement.

The murder of the Apostles was part of the problem. Rejecting their teachings was the other part of the problem.

Here's the problem you face: The fact is that people outside the church murdered the apostles.

Like I said, the "who" is less important than the fact that the apostles were murdered. Taken from the church by violent death. This coupled with the apostasy WITHIN the church caused the total loss of authority and the loss of sound doctrine.

Therefore, the murder of the apostles has no bearing on why there supposedly came to be a complete apostasy.

It has bearing in that the apostles were the guardians of authority and sound doctrine.

If they were murdered by people outside the church, their murder is no reason for Christ not to appear to other believers and appoint them as apostles to replace those murdered, supposing for the sake of argument that the church needed living apostles on the earth.

Accept for the apostasy within the church, Christ could have done just that.

The fact is that the vast majority of Christians in the first century greatly respected the apostles, and those who didn't but professed to be Christians had nothing to do with their deaths.

Yea right.

That is why the Lord found only 7 churches worth mentioning in Rev. And of those 7

1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; . . . 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write;. . . behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; . . . 14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, . . . and to commit fornication.

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; . . . 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; . . . 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. . . .

4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write;

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; . . . because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Only two seemed to be functioning properly. And this at the end of the first century. Not good odds for avoiding a general apostasy.

Thus, your statement, "The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles," makes no sense historically.

See the above statements given to John.

[ELF1024]

ELF,

You wrote:

I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized.

I would say Acts is mistaken, or altered. Perhaps what we consider the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" is not to what they were reffering to at that time. I would say that the meaning they intended is not what we are reading.

[Vance]

I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized.

You have no basis for making that judgment. It very well could have been (and was) the short term indwelling.