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

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You're recasting the distinction so as to salvage it in the teeth of contrary evidence. The LDS sources I cited specifically contrast receiving the Holy Spirit with receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. They flatly deny that anyone can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism. They do NOT do what you are doing here, saying that someone can receive the "gift" as a temporary manifestation and later the "gift" as a permanent endowment. Feel free to try to improve on Joseph Smith's teaching, but if you don't mind I'm going to continue focusing on what Joseph and the LDS Church's official publications teach.

Your argument also makes no sense of Acts 10:44-48. If all that had happened to the Corinthians was that they had received a temporary manifestation, Peter would not have said (v. 47) that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them (the Jewish Christians).

I must also say that I found your comments, especially at the end, to be rude.

You're really grasping at straws on this one.

LDS do not deny that people can receive the "gift" of the Holy Ghost before baptism, in the sense of manifestations and inspiration. Heck, I'd even say YOU could have the Holy Ghost. We simply make a distinction between "gift" as a temporary manifestation, and "Gift" as a ritual endowment of the Holy Spirit after baptism as a "constant companion."

Surely you know that.

Please try to do better in your criticisms in the future. Come to think of it, don't you have something better to do?

[Rob Bowman]

There was a manifestation. What's your point?

And how do you tell if the Holy Ghost has fallen on someone without some manifestation?

[Bill Hamblin]

Ahab,

I stand by my analysis of the issues. You wrote:

I do understand what you mean. Unfortunately, you are in effect telling me to ignore what the Holy Spirit tells me in Acts (which he inspired) in favor of what you claim the Holy Spirit has told you. I'm sorry, but this isn't an option for me.

Of course I suspect that Rob knows that the Greek word dorea in Acts 10:45 could be translated as present, bounty, handout, donation, award, endowment, benefaction, freebee, etc. Would that make him happy?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

And there are contradictions between Acts and your dogma. What to do about that is another question.

Neither you nor anyone else so far has specified any such contradictions.

[stemelbow]

stem,

I certainly agree that the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" was not used by the ancient (NT) church in the same way as it is used in the LDS Church. That's part of my point.

I know. That's why I made my comments.

Reading the NT only in English may be obscuring something for you, which is that when the NT talks about spiritual gifts of the Spirit, it does not use the word dorea ("gift," Acts 2:38; 10:45) but either pneumatikos ("spiritual thing," 1 Cor. 12:1) or charisma ("gift of grace," 1 Cor. 12:4, etc.). In any case, as I have tried to explain, the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in both Acts 2:38 and 10:45 in context refers to receiving the Holy Spirit, having him fall on the person, and not to receiving some particular manifestation or spiritual gift.

Indeed. Thus my point. The Spirit falling on a person does not necessarily entail what LDS call The Gift of the Holy Ghost. My point remains, even if spiritual gifts, as I attempted as an example does not work. You see, the terminology, Gift of the Spirit as used by them of old can very well mean something different (even the Spirit coming to one, or falling on one) than what we mean by Gift of the Holy Ghost. And neither may be wrong. As another example many within the Church have often misused the terminology (gift of the Holy Ghost) in describing experiences much like witnesses from the Holy Ghost or the Holy Ghost falling on an individual, but such does not mean the terminology (Gift of the Holy Ghost) is all that wrong. Afterall it is a gift either way.

love,

stem

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You're recasting the distinction so as to salvage it in the teeth of contrary evidence. The LDS sources I cited specifically contrast receiving the Holy Spirit with receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. They flatly deny that anyone can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism. They do NOT do what you are doing here, saying that someone can receive the "gift" as a temporary manifestation and later the "gift" as a permanent endowment. Feel free to try to improve on Joseph Smith's teaching, but if you don't mind I'm going to continue focusing on what Joseph and the LDS Church's official publications teach.

Your argument also makes no sense of Acts 10:44-48. If all that had happened to the Corinthians was that they had received a temporary manifestation, Peter would not have said (v. 47) that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them (the Jewish Christians).

I must also say that I found your comments, especially at the end, to be rude.

This is nonsense. The Book of Mormon tells people that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth to readers. Missionaries ALWAYS tell contacts that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth to them BEFORE baptism. Get a grip!

I'll add a smiley face so I'm not rude.

[Vance]

Neither you nor anyone else so far has specified any such contradictions.

Humm, I wonder if that is really true or if you are so blind that even when pointed out you can not see them. You are, after all, totally biased and agenda driven.

[Vance]

. . . Peter would not have said (v. 47) that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them (the Jewish Christians).

And just how do you know what Peter would or would not have said? Taken up necromancy have you?

How do you know that Luke even got it recorded right? Was he infallible? Was Peter infallible too?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

"Nonsense"? Your reply didn't even address what I said!

Sigh....

This is nonsense. The Book of Mormon tells people that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth to readers. Missionaries ALWAYS tell contacts that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth to them BEFORE baptism. Get a grip!

I'll add a smiley face so I'm not rude.

[stemelbow]

If all that had happened to the Corinthians was that they had received a temporary manifestation, Peter would not have said (v. 47) that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them (the Jewish Christians).

Rob,

I see no reason to accept the idea that "Peter would not have said that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them" if the manifestation was "temporary". As has been suggested the witness of the Holy, to LDS, can be had by all, and in fact, should be had by nearly all.

As for the wording/terminology. I'm still insistent, that our particular terminology in describing an ordinance and our strict uses of that terminology, need not be applied to those of old.

love,

stem

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I see that you have quickly exhausted your efforts to reconcile LDS teaching with Acts and are now simply questioning the reliability of the text.

Game over.

[BCSpace]

"While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

By your reasoning, your religion can use biblical words, names, and expressions to mean anything and it doesn't matter if those meanings line up with the Bible or not. The words God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, gospel, salvation, gift, scripture, creation, angel, virgin, transgression, fall, heaven, hell, eternal, endless, apostle, priest, priesthood, teacher, deacon, patriarch -- these words and more can mean whatever your religious leaders decide they mean. What the Bible means by these things doesn't really matter.

Come to think of it, that pretty well sums up the actual situation.

Rob,

I see no reason to accept the idea that "Peter would not have said that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them" if the manifestation was "temporary". As has been suggested the witness of the Holy, to LDS, can be had by all, and in fact, should be had by nearly all.

As for the wording/terminology. I'm still insistent, that our particular terminology in describing an ordinance and our strict uses of that terminology, need not be applied to those of old.

love,

stem

[BCSpace]

Come to think of it, that pretty well sums up the actual situation.

Game over Bowman. You forgot about Acts 2.

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

Huh?

Who in Acts 2 had the Holy Spirit fall on them but had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit as per Acts 2:38??

Acts 2:38 and 10:45 are the only verses in the Bible to use the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit." Are you saying it means one thing in Acts 2:38 but something else in 10:45, and if so, on what basis?

The only thing that seems absolutely impossible to me at the moment is understanding your post. Perhaps it's because I'm really overtired and overdue for dinner.

With that thought, I'll have to excuse myself from the forum here for at least a while.

Actually, the GP statement is correct when you look at the example of Acts 2 which is exactly like Acts 10 except there are a few more details. Notice that in Acts 2, even though the Spirit had already fallen upon them and they spoke in tongues, they still had not got the gift of the Holy Ghost as per Acts 2:38. So in Acts 10 they had received the testimony or witness of the HG as well as anyone else including the Apostles, just like in Acts 2, but cannot possibly have received the gift of the HG according to the Acts 2 example. So once again, if you want the Bible to be internally consistent, LDS doctrine is the only way to go.

It's absolutely impossible rely on evangelicalism to clearly transmit the doctrine of the Bible.

Game, set, match.

[Rob Bowman]

Again, huh???

Game over Bowman. You forgot about Acts 2.

[Vance]

Vance,

I see no contradiction between Acts 10 and either Acts 8 or Acts 19. I do see contradictions between Acts and LDS dogma. What to do about that is the question.

Edited to add,

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

. . .

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If they had already received the "gift" Peter was referring to, why did he tell them they had to be baptized BEFORE they could receive it?

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

[stemelbow]

stem,

By your reasoning, your religion can use biblical words, names, and expressions to mean anything and it doesn't matter if those meanings line up with the Bible or not.

Oh come on. I find one example where this may be the possible explanation and you conclude that means use of any biblical words doesn't matter? Not really. As I said, it is a gift. They very well could have used the official terminology of gift of the Holy Ghost when referring to the ordinance and also used the same words to describe when the Holy Ghost falls on, or witnesses for people. I think if LDS are right, this little example of critique doesn't mean a thing. If LDS are wrong, this example of critique isn't going to show anything of the sort.

The words God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, gospel, salvation, gift, scripture, creation, angel, virgin, transgression, fall, heaven, hell, eternal, endless, apostle, priest, priesthood, teacher, deacon, patriarch -- these words and more can mean whatever your religious leaders decide they mean. What the Bible means by these things doesn't really matter.

Let's not get carried away. But if you think about it, we are free to use whatever terminology we feel is appropriate and we are not bound by what the Bible uses the terms to mean. Thus, even your over-zealous exaggerated critique of my point, is not a fair examination of my point.

Come to think of it, that pretty well sums up the actual situation.

Adorable addition. It doesn't seem like you have evaluated whether my point is reasonable or not. I find it reasonable you seem to have dismissed it because you simply don't want it to be possible.

love,

stem

[Ahab]

Ahab,

I stand by my analysis of the issues.

Fine with me.

I stand by what God has told me.

You wrote:

I do understand what you mean. Unfortunately, you are in effect telling me to ignore what the Holy Spirit tells me in Acts (which he inspired) in favor of what you claim the Holy Spirit has told you. I'm sorry, but this isn't an option for me.

That's not what I mean, Rob, not even in effect.

I would never tell you to ignore what the Holy Ghost has told you, although I would and am telling you that you should rely on God rather than your own reasoning.

[BCSpace]

Who in Acts 2 had the Holy Spirit fall on them but had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit as per Acts 2:38??

Men from all nations vs. 5-6.

Acts 2:38 and 10:45 are the only verses in the Bible to use the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit." Are you saying it means one thing in Acts 2:38 but something else in 10:45, and if so, on what basis?

Example. Is this the gift of tongues or not? It is a gift that comes from the HG and Acts 2 is the key to determining which is which.

Game, set, match.

Amen!

[BCSpace]

Game over Bowman. You forgot about Acts 2.

Again, huh???

Feel free to play for time...

[BCSpace]

I dunno Bowman, but it seems to me that you can't distinguish between gifts of the Holy Ghost without the example of Acts 2. In Acts 10 the gift of tongues is the gift of the Holy Ghost but in Acts 2 it's not by your logic.

[Hick Preacher]

Actually, the GP statement is correct when you look at the example of Acts 2 which is exactly like Acts 10 except there are a few more details. Notice that in Acts 2, even though the Spirit had already fallen upon them and they spoke in tongues, they still had not got the gift of the Holy Ghost as per Acts 2:38. So in Acts 10 they had received the testimony or witness of the HG as well as anyone else including the Apostles, just like in Acts 2, but cannot possibly have received the gift of the HG according to the Acts 2 example. So once again, if you want the Bible to be internally consistent, LDS doctrine is the only way to go.

It's absolutely impossible rely on evangelicalism to clearly transmit the doctrine of the Bible.

Game, set, match.

This is my initial response--

OK then about Acts 2 to begin with:

The Apostles were gathered and were baptized by the fire of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2: 1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

People in the general public saw this amazing event, but were not directly effected. So Peter addresses masses of people who were not baptized by the Holy Ghost

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Peter Preaches to the masses who were not baptized in the fire of the Holy Ghost about the prophecy of the pouring out of God's Spirit.

After Peter convinces this mass of people who were not baptized with the fire of the Holy Ghost Peter receives their response, and gives them instructions on what to do.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[rongo]

Obviously, God is free to deviate from His established pattern, and as has been mentioned, there are concrete examples of this in the scriptures and in Church history (Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery being ordained and then baptizing each other, for instance --- it could hardly have been otherwise in their case, unless John the Baptist had baptized them himself. Which he could have done, but God had them baptize each other after they received the priesthood). The instance of Cornelius falls under one of these exceptions, and for good reason, given the deep-seated Jewish abhorrence for Gentiles --- an abhorrence which required ministering of angels and a revelation to Peter, the president of the Church (and which probably also stemmed from Jesus' direct instructions not to take the gospel to the Gentiles).

It may interest people (yourself included, Rob) that LDS Church leaders have addressed this question at length.

When he pleases to bless the children of men, he is able to accomplish his purpose. If he is disposed to permit a Nebuchadnezzar to see a finger writing on a wall, it is his privilege to do so. If he is disposed to talk with an Enoch, or to show himself to the brother of Jared, it is his privilege. And if he is disposed to pour out the Holy Ghost upon the house of Cornelius before he embraced the Gospel in the usual way by baptism for the remission of sins, it is his privilege. The principle is, God must be obeyed. And even after Cornelius and his house had received the Holy Ghost, they did not, like some in our day, rise up and say, "We have no need to be baptized." Why did not Cornelius tell Peter that he had received the Holy Ghost, and was as good a Christian as he? But, no; he must send to Joppa for one Simon Peter, who would tell him words whereby he and his household could be saved. What words? To be baptized in water. Peter did not tell them to receive the Holy Ghost, for they had received it.

They had already been endowed with the Holy Ghost, and it was the right and privilege of him who laid down his life to redeem the children of men to bestow that Holy Ghost where and when he pleased. If Cornelius had refused to have been baptized, he never would have received the influence of the Holy Ghost afterwards. He must obey the outward ordinances to secure to himself eternal lives

[BCSpace]

Peter Preaches to the masses who were not baptized in the fire of the Holy Ghost about the prophecy of the pouring out of God's Spirit.

After Peter convinces this mass of people who were not baptized with the fire of the Holy Ghost Peter receives their response, and gives them instructions on what to do.

Well there is the little matter of the tongues of flame vs. 3, but no, their sins had not yet been remitted. This is an excellent example of how the requirements for salvation of both the Jews (Acts 2) and the Gentiles (Acts 10) are the same.