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

[Vance]

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.

And so the question remains. What was it that "pricked" "their hearts"? Can a person be "pricked in their heart" without the Holy Ghost falling on them in some way?

Then this questions remains, WHY did Peter tell them they had to be baptized BEFORE the could received the "gift of the Holy Ghost"?

[David T]

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.

Although this observation was presented as obvious points against LDS practice and language, and while I'm sure many Mormons will be annoyed at the inference and deny it, to me, it seems consistent with how the New Testament writers built upon and claimed Old Testament language and passages and gave it different context and significance than was often originally intended when recorded. A new era and community building upon and re-framing the language and imagery of the old. It seems consistent to me with scriptural and prophetic history.

[Hick Preacher]

And so the question remains. What was it that "pricked" "their hearts"? Can a person be "pricked in their heart" without the Holy Ghost falling on them in some way?

Then this questions remains, WHY did Peter tell them they had to be baptized BEFORE the could received the "gift of the Holy Ghost"?

Thanks for asking--

I would contend that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does NOT have the exclusive rights, power or authority to impart the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Laying on of Hand is sometimes used by Believers to facilitate Blessings from God. But is not absolutely required to get the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Many have gained the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the Laying on of Hands.

For the Gift of the Holy Ghost by which people are Born-Again into the regeneration of Life- There is no Bible teaching that there is a special priesthood gift of the Holy Ghost other than the initial Gift to those who have made a covenant with God, by receiving Jesus Christ as Lord.

Some examples

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and though hearest the sound thereof, but canst tell whence it cometh, and whiter it goeth; so it is every one born of the Spirit.

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him...

Ac 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Acts 10: 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

I do not think that LOH actually

[cdowis]

Ac 2:38 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.

Why does not Peter say Repent, get baptized, Get LOH, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?

For the same reason he did not say "get baptized in water by someone who has the priesthood authority". It was unneccessary.

[Hick Preacher]

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.

The Eleven Apostles sins were remitted.

Baptism of the remissions of sins is an issue of scriptural controversy in D&C section 20

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism

[Vance]

I would contend that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does NOT have the exclusive rights, power or authority to impart the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

If by "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" you mean the right to his presence as you are worthy, then I disagree.

But if by "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" if you mean the privilege to his presence as you are worthy, then I agree.

The Laying on of Hand is sometimes used by Believers to facilitate Blessings from God.

They of course are free to do what ever they want. But without authority it is less effectual.

But is not absolutely required to get the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Many have gained the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the Laying on of Hands.

See above.

There is no Bible teaching that there is a special priesthood gift of the Holy Ghost other than the initial Gift to those who have made a covenant with God, by receiving Jesus Christ as Lord.

I am confused by this statement. You seem to be saying that the initial gift is a special priesthood gift. I don

[LifeOnaPlate]

Why argue with a biblical inerrantist? WOT. A Waste o time.

[semlogo]

Quibbling over fine details in a book edited so many times and so full of forged sections seems pointless. All the Bible is really good for is a very general, soft focus version of events.

[Hick Preacher]

Why argue with a biblical inerrantist? WOT. A Waste o time.

Whose that?

Aside from this what have you been up to these days?

Thanks for lurking.

---------------

semlogo

Quibbling over fine details in a book edited so many times and so full of forged sections seems pointless. All the Bible is really good for is a very general, soft focus version of events.

All that is needed it to make a determination of general themes. Quibbling over details is not necessary.

Nice to have you chime in semlogo.

[Vance]

Oh and in the James example doesn

[Hick Preacher]

If by "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" you mean the right to his presence as you are worthy, then I disagree.

But if by "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" if you mean the privilege to his presence as you are worthy, then I agree.

Yes you are correct the Holy Ghost has several offices and callings.

Note that Acts 10 says that those who heard the word got the Holy Ghost the same as the Apostles.

They of course are free to do what ever they want. But without authority it is less effectual.

Yes authority is important. Those that are indwelt with the Holy Ghost have God's direct authority. As in Acts 20:

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

TRUE!!!

Even when the right (not the privilege) is conferred by authorized priesthood holders, it still comes from God. The priesthood also is a gift from God and it is conferred in a similar manner.

John is writing to the saints, members of the church, who would have all already been given the right to the presence of the Holy Ghost upon baptism.

So this scripture doesn

[Vance]

WHAT!!!

You mean the Bible isn't the complete, inerrant, directed quotations from God!!!

[Vance]

Yes you are correct the Holy Ghost has several offices and callings.

Note that Acts 10 says that those who heard the word got the Holy Ghost the same as the Apostles.

True, it is talking about the privilege not the right.

Yes authority is important. Those that are indwelt with the Holy Ghost have God's direct authority. As in Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Again, this verse doesn

[Hick Preacher]

WHAT!!!

You mean the Bible isn't the complete, inerrant, directed quotations from God!!!

I think the Bible is highly reliable. But I do not believe in plenary verbal preservation of all translated texts.

I think the Bible's themes of redemption are complete.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Aside from this what have you been up to these days?

More than trying to poke holes in someone else's religion. See my sig.

[USU78]

Although honest people can disagree about many things, in this instance there really is no room for doubt that the statement made by Gospel Principles

[Hick Preacher]

To VANCE

True, it is talking about the privilege not the right.

On the other hand consider John 20:21, where the Apostles received a commission from the Holy Ghost by Christ breathing on them. Later in Acts they received the Baptism of Fire, another function or office of the Holy Ghost.

A careful examination of scripture shows that there are many cases where the Gifts of the Holy Ghost/Spirit has been given direct by God with out LOH.

Matt 18:

18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

There are many offices and functions of the Holy Ghost. Yet in the Acts 10 account the hearers of the word received the same kind of Gift of the Holy Ghost as did the Apostles.

When it comes to LOH-- we can see other functions of the LOH as in HEALINGS were the common practice is to Heal with LOH. But Healing from God by God's disciples as agents with authority in other cases does not come by LOH. LOH is not an absolute necessity, though a common practice in healing. This idea can be transfered to LOH and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and NO LOH for the Gift too.

Examples-

Ac 28:8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.

Acts 20: 9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

Lu 8:47 And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.

Mark 5:23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. ( as the account turns out)

41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

John 11: 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Jas 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Luke 4: 39 And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.

40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.

The general principle is all who ask God will receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him...

There is no scripural rule that demands that the Gift (right) of the Holy Ghost has to be given by LOH, even though a few case histories show it being given that way. Other cases show it came with no LOH. The same is true of LOH and Healings, some healing comes in scriptural records by LOH and others do not.

Again, this verse doesn

[Hick Preacher]

More than trying to poke holes in someone else's religion. See my sig.

Of Course.

But also, I see you are going to present at a Media Conference on LDS Blogs.

[TAO]

I think the Bible is highly reliable. But I do not believe in plenary verbal preservation of all translated texts.

I think the Bible's themes of redemption are complete.

If you don't mind me asking...

Where is it preserved, and where is it not preserved?

What of themes other than redemption, for redemption be not the only theme in the Bible?

Why not use the perfectly accurate spirit instead of assuming the Bible's reliability?

[evanrm]

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.

A significant problem is apparent. You claim "...what the Holy Spirit tells me in Acts (which he inspired)...", which means that you think that what you read is the correct interpretation. This would indicate that you think a) that the scriptures are a perfect copy of what the author of Acts wrote and b) that the words on the page are only subject to your singular opinion (ie: "Semantically, there is no discernible difference between giving someone the Holy Spirit and giving someone the gift of the Holy Spirit", which is completely untrue). The reason why I think that it is untrue is a)

"the Holy Spirit fell on them" (v. 44; also 11:17)

"the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles" (v. 45)

They had "received the Holy Spirit" (v. 47)

is talking about different things. "the Holy Spirit fell on them" and they had "received the Holy Spirit" is in my opinion functionally the same, ie: the Spirit testified to them, not that they had recieved the "gift of the Holy Ghost". "the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles" is, I think, contextualised by

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

I suggest that this instance is the Holy Ghost "falling" on them, not residing in them as the Gift of the Holy Ghost in LDS theology proposes. It is still a significant event since these are the first Gentiles that this has happened to (please correct me if I am wrong in that). All other instances were the Holy Ghost influences people prior to baptism involves Jews.

As for point 'a' ("that the scriptures are a perfect copy of what the author of Acts wrote"), to claim that your reading of the scriptures, claiming that they trump someone else's view because "the Holy Ghost inspired Acts", is particularly invalid. It is clear that within even mainstream Christianity (both past and present) there is divergence based solely upon readings of the Bible.

[Pahoran]

So . . . we can only disagree with RB if we're not honest people.

I see.

Thanks.

USU "False Dichotomies Abound in RB-land" 78

That's because, in RB-land:

1. RB is always right;
   
2. Words only ever have one meaning;
   
3. Phrases only have one meaning; and
   
4. Not only is RB always right, but that simple fact is self-evident to everyone.
   

In the real world, as distinct from RB-land, the problem is obvious: As a bibliolater, RB unquestioningly assumes that whatever Greek words are translated as "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10 must necessarily have exactly the same range of meaning as the modern LDS term, "the Gift of the Holy Ghost." This assumption (which is, of course, unspoken) is the sandy foundation upon which the whole shaky edifice of his accusation is built; without it, there is no "contradiction" at all, and the whole house of cards collapses.

We, as Christians, make no such assumptions; thus, we remain unpersuaded by Mr. Bowman's sophistries.

The fact is that the English LDS phrase "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" is of modern origin, and it encapsulates a single sharply delimited concept: the conferred right to have the lifelong, constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. This concept, while quite unmistakably present in the New Testament is nowhere (to my knowledge) spelled out or defined therein; and the phrase used to denote it only accidentally resembles the phrase Mr. Bowman hangs his hat upon.

I call on Mr Bowman to abandon his bibliolatry, and his devotion to "the God of the Bible" -- a purely imaginary construct that is, ironically, entirely unscriptural -- and instead become a Christian, and join us in worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

That will also involve him abandoning his career as a professional anti-Mormon; which means that everybody wins!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Vance]

To VANCE

<SNIP>

Yet if the overseers do not have this system in place, then I submit that the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be given with out LOH.

Long post. I don't see anything that is much different from what we have already discussed. As you are a "sola biblicist", I can see where you are coming from. But, you haven't presented anything that requires me to change my belief. There is plenty of room for a different interpretation than the one you have provided. Frankly, the Bible is insufficient to make a determination as to who is correct and who isn't.

If there is something specific that you would like me to respond to, feel free to ask. Otherwise, for now, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Hick Preacher]

Long post. I don't see anything that is much different from what we have already discussed. As you are a "sola biblicist", I can see where you are coming from. But, you haven't presented anything that requires me to change my belief. There is plenty of room for a different interpretation than the one you have provided. Frankly, the Bible is insufficient to make a determination as to who is correct and who isn't.

If there is something specific that you would like me to respond to, feel free to ask. Otherwise, for now, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Ok thanks for you time and effort.

BTW I am not actually a "sola biblicist",

But a "Prima Biblicist".

This wiki has a pretty good description that would describe my views on the use and place of scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura#Prima_scriptura

Sola scriptura may be contrasted with prima scriptura, which holds that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he or she should live. Examples of this include the general revelation in creation, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

Also I am not a 'Protestant' but like Mormons I am a kind of a Restorationist Christian. I have Church roots with a history with the Mormons, and fellowship in Churches that are historically connected with Campbellites.

[Vance]

Ok thanks for you time and effort.

You are welcome.

BTW I am not actually a "sola biblicist",

Sorry, my presumption.

But a "Prima Biblicist".

This wiki has a pretty good description that would describe my views on the use and place of scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura#Prima_scriptura

I would call that an improvement.

Also I am not a 'Protestant' but like Mormons I am a kind of a Restorationist Christian. I have Church roots with a history with the Mormons, and fellowship in Churches that are historically connected with Campbellites.

Ok.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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?

My response:

1. Acts 2:4 refers to the apostles (see 2:26; 1:14), not to the thousands to whom Peter was speaking in Acts 2:38. Peter was not addressing himself or the other apostles when he spoke what is recorded in Acts 2:38.

2. Acts 2:38 does not say that everyone or anyone had to be baptized "before" they "could" receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In this verse, Peter tells the people hearing him at that particular time to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Nothing is said about this being the only possible way for the gift to be received. Nothing is said to indicate that this is an inviolable order. And by the way, nothing is said about anyone needing to have hands laid on them.

3. Puzzling, then, that in the only two references in the Bible to "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38; 10:45), nothing is said about laying on of hands! Since your theology denies that receiving the Holy Spirit is the same thing as receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, this leaves you with absolutely zero biblical support for the claim that you must have hands laid on you to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

You wrote:

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