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

[PacMan]

Hick

God knowing all things withheld the Gift until Peter and John arrived.

I don

[PacMan]

Rob,

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.

Not any more than Paul or Jesus did.

For example, baptism (or immersion) by water is necessary for salvation. The practice is rather clear and I doubt we disagree on this point. Yet Paul in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 tells of how the children of Moses were baptized while walking on dry ground. And Jesus? Ox and the mire should suffice. What is certain is that there are rules. And insomuch as Jesus followed the Mosaic law

[zerinus]

The LDS system claims unconditional salvation with out any of these sacraments.

False.

[PacMan]

False.

And Hick knew about the Church's practices? I seem to remember Brigham saying responding to the question of whether non-mormons are going to hell. "Yes, and many members of the church if they don't humble themselves and repent." I don't know where Hick is getting his info, but his source is lacking.

PacMan

[LeSellers]

The point is that it does not appear to be evidence enough to verify that there is only one process of ritual by which people have gotten the Holy Ghost.

"Gotten the Holy Ghost" is confusing because, as others have already noted, there is a distinct difference between "the Holy Ghost" and "the Gift of the Holy Ghost".

But that's not the only ambiguity. "The gift of the Holy Ghost" may or may not mean the same thing every time it's used. Others have pointed that out, as well.

But the Gift of the Holy Ghost is received in but one way: by the laying on of hands by one who is in authority to administer this ordinance.

There are people before 1830 who were inspired, why would anyone doubt that?

We certainly do not because we know of at least one at least a decade earlier who did.

It is also doctrine that many others were inspired of the Holy Ghost, not least of whom were the Founding Fathers of this nation (USmerica), the Reformers, Columbus (among other discovers), and most of the first twenty or so Presidents of the united States of America. These "wise men", we believe, were "raised up" especially to fill the offices they did.

While all of this is absolutely true, it is important to note that they received inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but not the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This they (and anyone else who desires it) will receive by proxy in the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (most have already done so).

Lehi

[Hick Preacher]

PacMan in quotes-

<<<I don

[Hick Preacher]

"Gotten the Holy Ghost" is confusing because, as others have already noted, there is a distinct difference between "the Holy Ghost" and "the Gift of the Holy Ghost".

But that's not the only ambiguity. "The gift of the Holy Ghost" may or may not mean the same thing every time it's used. Others have pointed that out, as well.

But the Gift of the Holy Ghost is received in but one way: by the laying on of hands by one who is in authority to administer this ordinance.

We certainly do not because we know of at least one at least a decade earlier who did.

It is also doctrine that many others were inspired of the Holy Ghost, not least of whom were the Founding Fathers of this nation (USmerica), the Reformers, Columbus (among other discovers), and most of the first twenty or so Presidents of the united States of America. These "wise men", we believe, were "raised up" especially to fill the offices they did.

While all of this is absolutely true, it is important to note that they received inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but not the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This they (and anyone else who desires it) will receive by proxy in the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (most have already done so).

Lehi

Thanks Lehi, it is fine with me that you state the LDS view on this matter.

We are just going around a bit on the idea of weather or not the Gift as a constant companion can only imparted using the LDS Priesthood Processes.

[ELF1024]

Thanks Lehi, it is fine with me that you state the LDS view on this matter.

We are just going around a bit on the idea of weather or not the Gift as a constant companion can only imparted using the LDS Priesthood Processes.

It would seem to me, Hick, that the only people going around on it are you and Mr. Bowman (and perhaps BookLuvr). The rest of us are clear on the subject.

Just as Korihor recanted his teachings at the end, I believe that you and Mr. Bowman know the truth of all things, and you choose to actively rebel against them.

52 And Korihor put forth his hand and wrote, saying: I know that I am dumb, for I cannot speak; and I know that nothing save it were the power of God could bring this upon me; yea, and I always knew that there was a God.

53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I 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."

You replied:

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

Acts says it was "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (KJV). Isn't that a sufficient basis for saying that it was the gift of the Holy Ghost?

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

You wrote:

Mr. Bowman, with respect. You're living up to my expectation that you, and most Christians, would accept any explanation; with the exception that the LDS Church or Joseph Smith was correct.

This sounds like a clever retort, but it misses the mark. I think Joseph Smith was right about a lot of things. I also think he was wrong about a lot of things. This means that I approach Joseph Smith's pronouncements with the attitude that they might be right or they might not be. You, on the other hand, assume that he must have been right, even when the evidence is clearly against it.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I had written:

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?

You replied:

Of course there is. The "pattern" is the laying on of hands. Although the Holy Ghost can be received in many different ways and in various capacities and categories, something is obtained by the ritual of the laying on of hands that cannot be obtained in any other way; and that is the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. That is the "pattern".

Can you demonstrate this pattern in the Bible? That is the question.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Don't need no stinking proof. A bald assertion is sufficient.

Now that's ironic!

[ELF1024]

This sounds like a clever retort, but it misses the mark. I think Joseph Smith was right about a lot of things. I also think he was wrong about a lot of things. This means that I approach Joseph Smith's pronouncements with the attitude that they might be right or they might not be. You, on the other hand, assume that he must have been right, even when the evidence is clearly against it.

I do not agree that the evidence is clearly against it.

For one thing, it isn't only Joseph Smith Jr. who has sustained the idea of how the how the Holy Ghost is passed on. In practice it has been confirmed by every Latter-Day Prophet since Joseph Smith Jr.

The Bible is as best, neutral on the subject as it contridicts itself all over the place.

[ELF1024]

This sounds like a clever retort, but it misses the mark. I think Joseph Smith was right about a lot of things. I also think he was wrong about a lot of things. This means that I approach Joseph Smith's pronouncements with the attitude that they might be right or they might not be. You, on the other hand, assume that he must have been right, even when the evidence is clearly against it.

You might as well ask:

If this indeed is that pattern by which men are supposed to recieve the Holy Ghost. How was Joseph Smith Jr. able to translate the plates for a time before he recieved Baptism. Why is it that he didn't follow the pattern? How were Joseph Smith and Oliver able to recieve the Priesthood of Aaron before being Baptized?

I think those are far more relevant questions than one based on one scripture in Acts.

[Vance]

Acts says it was "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (KJV). Isn't that a sufficient basis for saying that it was the gift of the Holy Ghost?

This has been explained to you numerous times. It was the temporary indwelling gift, not the permanent right to indwelling gift.

But hey, just keep ignoring the distinction between the two.

[Vance]

Rob,

It is like this;

But that's not the only ambiguity. "The gift of the Holy Ghost" may or may not mean the same thing every time it's used. Others have pointed that out, as well.

Just as the word "saved" doesn't mean the same thing every time it is used, the phrase "the gift of the Holy Ghost" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing ever time it is used.

Get it now?

[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?

I think you are engaging in a disingenuous act of obfuscation. In your OP you raised this objection to Mormonism:

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]

Vance,

You wrote:

This has been explained to you numerous times. It was the temporary indwelling gift, not the permanent right to indwelling gift.

But hey, just keep ignoring the distinction between the two.

What basis, if any, do you have in the text of the book of Acts for this distinction? That is, what in the book of Acts supports your claim that the "gift of the Holy Ghost" that Cornelius and his household received was "the temporary indwelling gift, not the permanent right to indwelling gift"

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

I think you are engaging in a disingenuous act of obfuscation.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you have no basis in fact for making this accusation. In fact, you haven't even offered any argument or evidence to support it.

You wrote:

The answer is that if you disengage for the semantics, there is a gift that is bestowed by the laying on of hands that does not come in any other way, which has already been explained.

I didn't and still don't need this explanation. I need and have requested evidence to support this explanation and its relevance to Acts 10:44-48.

I had asked if you could demonstrate a "pattern" in the Bible of how one must receive this special gift that you say comes only by the laying on of hands. You replied:

Of course I can, and I believe it has already been done.

Sorry, I haven't seen any such attempt. To do this, you would need several instances in the Bible of people receiving this gift by the laying on of hands and no examples of people receiving this gift without the laying on of hands. No one here has even tried to mount an argument for such a pattern.

There are six occasions in the book of Acts of people receiving the Holy Spirit. You need to decide which of these are instances of people receiving the gift you say requires the laying on of hands and then show a pattern based on those instances. You also need to show evidence that the other occurrences of people receiving the Holy Spirit are actually instances of a different gift.

Lots of luck.

[PacMan]

Hick,

You are all over the place without giving any decent explanation, but have rather completely stripped the Bible from its meaning. Be it authority or anointing or laying on of hands, I am stunned that you can chalk it up to cultural or corporate symbolism. I mean, in one breath you mention the importance of apostles coming from Jerusalem, while then agreeing that Paul was authoritative whom wasn

[Vance]

What basis, if any, do you have in the text of the book of Acts for this distinction? That is, what in the book of Acts supports your claim that the "gift of the Holy Ghost" that Cornelius and his household received was "the temporary indwelling gift, not the permanent right to indwelling gift"

Why artificially limit the doctrinal understanding of this issue to what information is available in Acts?

[ELF1024]

As far as I'm concerned this shows how inept the Bible is at clarifying basic doctrine. It's no wonder that strictly Bible based Churches have no clue what on Earth they are talking about. The Bible so incomplete and confusing that you can't prove anything with it.

3 And because my words shall hiss forth

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You asked:

Why artificially limit the doctrinal understanding of this issue to what information is available in Acts?

Do you have any other part of the Bible that refers to the permanent "gift of the Holy Ghost" that you think I am artificially excluding?

[Vance]

Vance,

You asked:

Do you have any other part of the Bible that refers to the permanent "gift of the Holy Ghost" that you think I am artificially excluding?

Why limit the discussion to the Bible? Clearly the Bible is insufficient to determine the truth of the topic.

[zerinus]

I had asked if you could demonstrate a "pattern" in the Bible of how one must receive this special gift that you say comes only by the laying on of hands. You replied:

Sorry, I haven't seen any such attempt. To do this, you would need several instances in the Bible of people receiving this gift by the laying on of hands and no examples of people receiving this gift without the laying on of hands.

Well, there is a pattern, and there is a theological explanation that fixes the pattern as a necessary requirement. Here they are:

Acts 8

:

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Acts 19

:

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

Hebrews 6

:

1 Therefore leaving the

principles of the doctrine of Christ,

let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the

foundation

of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of

baptisms, and of laying on of hands,

and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

The theological explanation that fixes the pattern is provided by the last quote from Hebrews. It affirms that the laying on of hands is a necessary sacrament, just as baptism is. It is not "optional," any more than baptism is optional. Paul lists the laying on of hands as one of the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and a foundational requirement like repentance and baptism. It can't make it clearer than that. That is the answer to your question. And the examples confirm the theory. Cornelius still had to undergo that necessary and required sacrament, just as he still had to be baptized, even though he had already experienced the outpouring of the Holy Ghost prior to his baptism. Peter doesn't say, "Cornelius has already received the Holy Ghost, therefore what need has he of baptism?" He orders him to be bapized! Likewise, Cornelius still had to undergo the sacrament of the laying on of hands, even though he had already received the outpouring of the Holy Ghost.