339 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

Again, huh???

BCSpace, on 10 November 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Game over Bowman.  You forgot about Acts 2.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:34 PM, said:

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’ 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.

If there is no difference/distinction then the laying on of hands is unimportant. Why was it needed in this case?

Acts 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Notice it does NOT say "gift". So why is Rob reading "gift" into it?

  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,
  47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Clearly describing the gift of tongues, which is a gift of the Spirit or Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.
So Rob is conflating to different things here. (No surprise.)

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.

A clear indication to Paul that who ever baptized them didn't have the proper authority, thus there baptism was null and void? (A conflict between Rob's dogma and Acts. A conflict that he will likely deny.)

  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.

Who was going to "baptize" with the Holy Ghost.

  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.

So again, if there is no difference, why did Paul HAVE to lay his hands on them for them to receive the gifts of the Spirit.

Edited to add,
Clearly, the laying on of hands is significant. What that significance is can not be determined by what is available in the Bible.  The Bible is insufficient in determining all aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ.   

Edited by Vance, 10 November 2010 - 04:41 PM.

[stemelbow]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 04:14 PM, said:

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.  

Quote

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.  

Quote

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]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ahab,

I stand by my analysis of the issues.

Fine with me.

I stand by what God has told me.

Quote

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]

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

Game, set, match.

Amen!

[BCSpace]

Quote

Game over Bowman. You forgot about Acts 2.

Quote

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]

BCSpace, on 10 November 2010 - 04:09 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 10 November 2010 - 05:51 PM.

[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.

Quote

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—to attain the blessings consequent upon obedience. (Brigham Young, July 3, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:4)

Note Brigham Young's point: Cornelius still had to submit to baptism, even though he had received the Holy Ghost prior to his baptism. Do you agree with this, Rob?

Quote

Who can say that the laying on of hands is not necessary for the reception of the Holy Ghost? It is true that the house of Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before the Gospel was preached unto them. But the Lord had a special purpose in view in its bestowal in their case, namely, the removal of the prejudice of Peter and his brethren, who, being Jews, and full of the traditions of their fathers, thought that the Gentiles—among whom Cornelius and his house were classed—were not privileged to receive the Gospel. But the vision which Peter had on this subject, and the message sent to him by Cornelius in obedience to the command of the Lord in connection with the fact of the bestowal of the Holy Ghost on Cornelius and his family was so convincing to Peter and his brethren that the former was constrained to exclaim, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Some may say, "What was the necessity of sending for Peter, one of the Apostles, when they had already received the Holy Ghost?" The simple fact is this: there was nobody to baptize Cornelius and his household, nobody to bury them with Christ in the water; no one had authority to baptize them for the remission of their sins; and consequently, although they had received the Holy Ghost, an Apostle had to be sent for to administer that ordinance. And we read further in relation to this case, that Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Did any others receive the Holy Ghost before baptism? None that we have any record of; but there is no doubt that many who were worthy received it in a measure; but, whether in the days of the Apostles or in our day, when the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins is preached by a servant of the Lord to persons who have received the Holy Ghost, if they reject that doctrine the Holy Ghost will withdraw from them for ever. (Brigham Young, July 17, 1870. Journal of Discourses 13:214)

Do you agree that the continued possession of the gift of the Holy Ghost for Cornelius depended on his acceptance of and submission to the instructions that Peter gave him? Would he still have had "it" if he had concluded that he didn't have to listen to Peter?

Quote

A great many, to prove that baptism and laying on of hands are not necessary, have cited the case of Cornelius, who, though he was not baptized, received the Holy Ghost . . . and there were strong reasons why it should be as it was with him. The Gospel and its ordinances were administered only to the Jews; Cornelius was a Gentile, and between the two races strong prejudices existed, the Jews looking upon the Gentiles as far inferior to them. Cornelius and his household were the first Gentiles to whom the Gospel was preached, they received it, and the Lord, to show to the Apostles that the Gentiles were entitled to the ordinances of salvation as well as the Jews, if they were willing to comply with the requirements of the Gospel, conferred the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and his family. When Peter saw this family he said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." And when afterwards, he heard them speak with tongues and magnify God, he said, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Peter did not say, Cornelius, you have received the Holy Ghost as well as we have, and there is no necessity for you to obey any further ordinances, which, under the circumstances, if he had considered baptism or the laying on of hands non-essential, he would have been very likely to do; but instead of that he commanded them to be baptized. Peter took this, as the Lord intended it, as an evidence that the Gentiles as well as the House of Israel were entitled to the Gospel. And he had them baptized, and without doubt laid his hands upon them to confirm upon them the gift they had received. Had Cornelius, at that hour, stood upon his dignity and said, There is no necessity for me to be baptized for the remission of my sins, God having given me the Holy Ghost without obeying that ordinance, and having already received the Holy Ghost, I have no need to have hands laid upon me, there is not a doubt in my mind but what that precious and inestimable gift would have been withdrawn from him, and he would not have enjoyed it after. It could only be continued to him on condition of his obeying the ordinances which God had placed in his Church and which he required all the inhabitants of the earth to submit to without hesitation; and without doubt, Cornelius wisely went forward and obeyed those ordinances.  (George Q. Cannon, August 15, 1869. Journal of Discourses 14:50)

Many Brethren also insisted that Cornelius still had to receive the ordinance of laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, even though the Holy Ghost had already fallen on him. Do you agree that the Holy Ghost wold not have tarried with him if he had refused baptism or laying on of hands?

Quote

We read in the days of the Apostles of a certain man named Cornelius, a devout man and one who worshipped the Lord according to the light he possessed. As he was once praying in his house, the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he and his household rejoiced exceedingly. What was the word of the Lord to Cornelius under these circumstances? Was it "You are saved, you are just right, you can build up churches, you can show the people that they can be saved, and can receive the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands?" No, the word of the Lord to Cornelius was, "Send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter; he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the seaside; he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do." Cornelius sent to Joppa, and just before his messengers reached the house at which Simon lodged, he had had a vision in which a sheet descended from heaven, in which were all manner of beasts and creeping things of the earth; and a voice said, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." But Peter said, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And the voice said unto him, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." At that time the Gospel had been given to the Jews only, and Peter and his brethren had the idea that it was not for the Gentiles; but this vision was as much as to say, "I want to open your eyes and show you that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are to receive and participate in the blessings of the Gospel." Just as Peter awoke from his vision there came a rap at the door and the messengers of Cornelius inquired for him, and made known to him their errand, and he and some of his brethren went down and conversed with Cornelius, and while doing so the Spirit of God rested on them so powerfully that they glorified God. The Jews who were with Peter 100ommenced, "Take care, Peter, we do not like this; we do not understand that the Gentiles are to have the Gospel. The Savior is the Savior of the Jews; Jesus was the king of the Jews only and not the king of the Gentiles." Peter 100ommanded them to be still. Said he, "Do you not see the pouring out of the Spirit just as on the Day of Pentecost, these people speaking with new tongues and prophecying;" and said he, seeing that this is the case, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we." Cornelius, if he had rejected the testimony of Peter, would have been led to reject the Holy Ghost, which had fallen upon him, and been lost. This was an instance in which the Holy Ghost was given before baptism; there may be other cases in these days, but if parties are thus favored of the Lord, the outpouring of his Spirit prompts them to send for an Elder of Israel that they may be baptized for the remission of their sins. I do not know that it is recorded that Cornelius received a remission of sins before baptism.  (Brigham Young, May 21, 1871. Journal of Discourses 14:134)

Quote

The gifts which I have been describing are the effects of the Holy Ghost. Now we hear almost every society praying the Lord to send the Holy Ghost. Their cry is, "Let the Holy Ghost come down upon us now; let it be with us this very moment; let us have its influence and enjoy its operations now." But they know nothing about it; they have never received the Holy Ghost, neither can they until they comply with the Gospel ordinances—repent of their sins and be baptized for their remission. "But," says one, "do not you remember good old Cornelius? was he baptized?" No, he received the Holy Ghost before baptism. But had he any promise of it before? No. The Lord, on that occasion, had a special object in view, which is named in the history of the transaction. Cornelius seems to have been the first Gentile, whom the Apostle Peter 1n opening the door of the Gospel to the Gentiles, was commanded to visit. The Jewish nation was exceedingly prejudiced against the Gentiles. Peter happened to have six proselytes from the Jewish nation with him on that occasion. Oh, how bitter they were against the Gentiles! They thought the Gentiles had no part or lot in the matter; and notwithstanding the commission that the Lord had given to the Apostles he had to work a miracle to convince Peter, so strong were the prejudices of the Jews that the Holy Ghost and the Gospel blessings were not for the Gentiles. You recollect Peter's vision, in which the Lord let down a sheet by the four corners, full of all manner of beasts, clean and unclean, and Peter being commanded to arise, slay and eat; and his not being willing to do it because it was contrary to the law of Moses. But he was told that the Lord had cleansed the contents of the sheet, and he was forbidden on that account to call it common or unclean. You recollect that the Lord sent an angel, as he always does when he has a Church on the earth, to a certain man called Cornelius. This man had been praying, he wanted to know how to be saved. The Lord had heard his prayers, and had sent an angel to him, and the angel said to him, "Cornelius, thy prayers are heard, and have come up before the Lord as a memorial. Now send to Joppa for one Simon, whose surname is Peter, and he will tell you words whereby you and your house will be saved." What! Cornelius not in a state of salvation, and he a praying man? No doubt he was in a state of salvation, so far as he understood; but he was ignorant and did not understand how to get into the celestial kingdom. He knew nothing about the birth of the water and of the Spirit, that we heard about this forenoon, without which no man can enter into the kingdom of God. Yet he had given much alms, and his prayers had come up as a memorial before God, and the Lord had pity on his ignorance and sent an angel to him. But the angel did not see proper to tell him what to do to get into a more full state of conversion; he simply told him to send for Peter—a man of God, promising him that he would tell him how to be saved. Peter, being warned beforehand, by the vision, went down to the house of Cornelius, nothing doubting, taking these six Jewish converts with him, full of all their Jewish prejudices. When Cornelius had given an account of the visit of the angel to him, Peter began to preach Christ and him crucified, and while he was speaking the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and his household, and they spake with tongues and magnified God. Do you suppose that the Holy Spirit could have been retained by Cornelius supposing he had refused to obey the ordinances of the Gospel? No, it was only given as a witness and testimony to convince the Jewish brethren, who were with Peter, that the Gentiles might have salvation as well as the Jews; for when they began to speak in tongues, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, Peter turned to his Jewish brethren, and said, "Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized?" and he commanded them, in the name of the Lord Jesus, to be baptized. What, a command? Yes. Had Peter the right to give that command? Yes; for the angel of the Lord had said to Cornelius, "He shall tell you words whereby you and your house shall be saved," and his command to them to be baptized was some of his words unto them. Supposing that Cornelius had said, "Oh, baptism is not essential, it is not among the fundamental principles of salvation; it is one of the non-essential, outward ordinances, etc., and is of no consequence, I have received the Holy Ghost, I am a Christian, I believe in your words; I have offered my alms to the poor, and they have come up before the Lord; I am good enough, there is no need for me to be baptized," how long would the Holy Ghost have remained with him? Just the moment that he had refused to obey this commandment the Holy Ghost would have fled from him and his house. The only way for him to retain the gift that comes through obedience was to be baptized, though on that occasion it was given without promise, and without baptism. Baptism, recollect, is for the remission of sins, and the Holy Ghost comes afterwards; but on this occasion it was given before it; but he could not have retained it, it would have left him, and he would have been in seven-fold greater darkness than before had he refused to obey the words of this inspired messenger. The Jewish brethren could not forbid water after the manifestation of the power of God on that occasion; their prejudices were done away by a miracle. Now, because the Lord varied on that one occasion and gave the Holy Ghost before baptism, how many there are who want to do away with baptism, and to seek some other way for those who are convicted and laboring under a feeling of sorrow and mourning for their sins; but there is an ordinance connected with the receiving of the Holy Ghost. If there is an ordinance connected with the baptism of water, so there is in relation to the higher baptism; and the Lord made his servants, the Apostles, ministers not only of the word, but also of the Spirit. They were able ministers of the Spirit; that is, they had authority to administer the Spirit. They could not do it of themselves; but when God calls a man and gives him authority by revelation and sends him to preach his Gospel, and people listen to that Gospel and are willing to be baptized, that man has the right to baptize them; and if he is ordained to the Apostleship or to those offices that have the power to administer the higher ordinance of the laying on of hands, and he lays hands on, God will acknowledge that ordinance. He will acknowledge baptism by giving remission of sins; and he will acknowledge the laying on of hands by sending from heaven the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Orson Pratt, June 18, 1871. Journal of Discourses 14:182)

[BCSpace]

Quote

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.

Edited by BCSpace, 10 November 2010 - 04:53 PM.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 10 November 2010 - 04:39 PM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 04:14 PM, said:

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.

Edited by nackhadlow, 10 November 2010 - 04:53 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 10 November 2010 - 04:48 PM, said:

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

Quote

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 “PUTS”  a Gift into another person.  The Gift came from God  direct, not from being transferred nor channeled through the person(s) who did the LOH.

For it is written:

Quote

1Jo 4:13  Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.  

    

The Apostle Paul explains the Gift of the Holy Ghost as coming directly from God—although it can be facilitated by the Laying on of Hands.

2 Tim. 1: 6

Quote

6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

This passage says tells of a gift of God.  The Laying on of Hands is a formal ritual showing recognition and agreement that it is given by God.  It cannot mean that Paul is the one who is the fountain or source of the power.
This passage does not  communicate the notion that Paul Put the Gift in timothy by LOH.

Instead the Gift of the Holy Ghost is given to all those who have the desire to commune with God.
Examples.

Quote

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
2 Cor 3:18 the spirit works in us to make us like Him
James 1:5 God gives wisdom (knowledge through the Holy Ghost) to those who ask... ( where is an indication that a special blessing must be given by LOH)

Peter 1:5 Christians are kept by the power of God (Holy Ghost) through faith unto salvation...
Gal 3:14 Abraham's promise-- that the Spirit would be given through faith...
2 Thes Salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth...

So LOH never has been preached or taught as being an absolute necessity-- only a facilitation.

OK Vance as to your question and comment about Acts 2:38

I do not think  “ a rule “ has been established or a requirement of LOH, by one in authority   based on Acts 2:38.
  
Again when the Gospel was preached, water baptism is also often mentioned along with the preached message. Baptism is a tangible ritual, but the Baptism by the Holy Ghost is not tangible.  If LOH were as important like water Baptism, then the Apostles would have overtly preached the Laying on of Hands.   Instead we see:


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?    

Instead the New Testament says things like--

Quote

1:13  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

1Co 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Enough for now--- he best is yet to come.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 10 November 2010 - 05:29 PM.

[cdowis]

Hick Preacher, on 10 November 2010 - 05:07 PM, said:

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]

BCSpace, on 10 November 2010 - 04:46 PM, said:

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—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 10 November 2010 - 05:07 PM, said:

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.
  

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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’t think that is what you meant to convey.

Quote

I do not think that LOH actually “PUTS”  a Gift into another person.

You are free to think what you want.  But nothing in Acts, when properly understood, contradicts LDS doctrine or practice.

Quote

The Gift came from God . . .

TRUE!!!

Quote

. . . not from being transferred nor channeled through the person(s) who did the LOH.

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.

Quote

For it is written:
1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

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’t support you point in the way you think it should.
    

Quote

The Apostle Paul explains the Gift of the Holy Ghost as coming directly from God—although it can be facilitated by the Laying on of Hands.

See above.

Quote

2 Tim. 1: 6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

Again, Timothy was a member of the church and therefore was baptized and given the gift of (right to) the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. But whether Paul is referring to this gift or the gift of the priesthood or some other gift, the context doesn’t tell us.

Quote

The Laying on of Hands is a formal ritual showing recognition and agreement that it is given by God.

There is nothing in that passage to support your interpretation.  You are just making that up.

Quote

It cannot mean that Paul is the one who is the fountain or source of the power.

Of course not, but he is the conveyor of the right to it.

Quote

This passage does not  communicate the notion that Paul Put the Gift in timothy by LOH.

??????

What part of “is in thee by the putting on of my hands” that is so difficult to understand?

Quote

Instead the Gift (privilege) of the Holy Ghost is given to all those who have the desire to commune with God.
Examples.

Every example (except James) comes from letters to the saints, who would have received the gift (right) of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

I would also add that according to Acts 5:32, God gives the Holy Ghost (first the privilege and then the right) to the obedient.

Quote

So LOH never has been preached or taught as being an absolute necessity-- only a facilitation.

Yes, it gets preached all the time.

[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.

Edited by semlogo, 10 November 2010 - 08:07 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 November 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

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

Quote

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’t say how God will provide the wisdom, but only that He will give it. Nothing in there requires that it will be given directly by the Spirit.  It could be given by a messenger.

Quote

I do not think  “ a rule “ has been established or a requirement of LOH, by one in authority   based on Acts 2:38.

Act 2:38 is evidence of a rule, but not proof of one.

Quote

Again when the Gospel was preached, water baptism is also often mentioned along with the preached message. Baptism is a tangible ritual, but the Baptism by the Holy Ghost is not tangible.  If LOH were as important like water Baptism, then the Apostles would have overtly preached the Laying on of Hands.   Instead we see:
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?

Well, why didn’t he mention every other aspect of the Gospel as well?  And what makes you think that what we have in Acts is his complete/unedited/unsummarized sermon?  Luke didn’t have an audio recorder you know.  Paul preached for hours and yet only a small portion is recorded.  Why would you expect different with Peter?

Quote

Instead the New Testament says things like—
. . .

Again, written to the saints, who would have already been taught at least the basics prior to baptism and reception of the gift (right) of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

Edited by Vance, 10 November 2010 - 08:27 PM.