339 replies to this topic

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 10 November 2010 - 07:49 PM, said:

Quote

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.
  

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

    
We can throw that one out if you like it is not critical.

Quote

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.


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

The issue and point is whether or not the Gift of the Holy Ghost can ONLY come to a person by LOH.  LOH is OK to do, but not an absolute necessity.

Quote

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.

  Not necessarily.

Quote

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.

Of course obedience is vital.

I think you missed the idea, that is the Gift of the Holy Ghost has come to people without the LOH. The scriptures tell of this over and over. LOH is fine, but not always necessary.

[Vance]

WHAT!!!

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

          

    

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 10 November 2010 - 08:30 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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’t support your point the way you think it does.  First off, no one is given the calling of “overseers” without having the priesthood.  They would have been called to be “overseers” by revelation from God through the Holy Ghost.  So yes, they, worthy priesthood holders were made “overseers” by direction from the Holy Ghost.

So again, nothing in that verse contradicts LDS doctrine or practice.

Quote

The issue and point is whether or not the Gift of the Holy Ghost can ONLY come to a person by LOH. LOH is OK to do, but not an absolute necessity.

And it depends on whether you are talking about the right or the privilege.

It is a necessity for the conveyance of the right. It is NOT necessary for the privilege.

Quote

Not necessarily.

Just look to whom the epistle was written.   It either says “to the saints” or “to the church” or to the “elect” or some other indicator that they are members of the church.

Quote

Of course obedience is vital.

So then if one obeys, one repents, is baptized, and the Viola!!! LOH for the gift of (right to) the Holy Ghost.

Quote

I think you missed the idea, that is the Gift of the Holy Ghost has come to people without the LOH.

See above.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 10 November 2010 - 08:31 PM, said:

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.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 10 November 2010 - 10:01 PM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hick Preacher, on 10 November 2010 - 08:16 PM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 01:58 PM, said:

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—that “Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized”—is flat wrong.

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

I see.

Thanks.

USU "False Dichotomies Abound in RB-land" 78

[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.

Quote

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-

Quote

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.

Quote

Again, this verse doesn’t support your point the way you think it does.  First off, no one is given the calling of “overseers” without having the priesthood.  They would have been called to be “overseers” by revelation from God through the Holy Ghost.  So yes, they, worthy priesthood holders were made “overseers” by direction from the Holy Ghost.

Remember I am not against the LOH or Authority, but rather insistence by certain Churches claiming to have the only proper process or kind of LOH or Authority to do such things.

There just is not enough information in the Bible to establish a rule that says the LOH is required, and cases of people getting the Gift of the Holy Ghost by other means exist in the Biblical record as happening without LOH.

The topic of Authority would open up a whole exposition on kinds of authority in New Testament. Perhaps should be another thread. But here are a few basics. --------

In the New Testament, Christian authority comes primarily from the Holy Ghost. This is also called charismatic authority in some circles. Church Administrative authority is also required but has different roots than charismatic authority.  When Apostles got sent on Missions, the primary call came from the Holy Ghost and was charismatic in nature. And an the administrative command did not come down from the original 12 Apostles to the Missionary.

Likewise, the call of Paul to be an apostle came directly from the Lord without either priesthood or hierarchical church authority (Galatians 1:1,11,12). In fact, when he and Barnabas were called on their first missions, they were called by God's prophets in Antioch, not from Peter, James, or John in Jerusalem (Acts 13:1-4).    

Quote

Acts 13: 4   So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia;

How could Apostles be sent by non-Apostles (Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen) who were ‘prophets and teachers’? The passage says that the Holy Ghost sent Paul and Barnabas,  How could these men be ‘prophets’ is not first Apostles?—as the LDS pattern dictates??

Quote

So again, nothing in that verse contradicts LDS doctrine or practice.

  I have no desire to claim that the LDS are Wrong in LOH generally. However I am against any Church or group that Claims it owns rights to the only way of doing LOH, or is the sole owner and Proprietor of the only proper process of human salvation and or relationship with God.-

Quote

And it depends on whether you are talking about the right or the privilege.

This is partly true.  There are a number of ministries, functions and associated offices of the Holy Ghost.  And the Holy Ghost operates in a number of kinds of Authority.  

There is:

I. Traditional Authority is that which is passed down according to family and tribe.( Patriarchal  Authority) OT
II. Rational/Legal Authority as beauracratic authority, based on what is written in a Constitution or set of Bylaws.   The Nation of Israel---  “The Law” Part of the Law and the Prophets
III. Charismatic Authority is that which is acknowledged as a gift of God. ( John the Baptist- Jesus)  The Prophets part of the Law and the Prophets.

Quote

It is a necessity for the conveyance of the right. It is NOT necessary for the privilege.

When a person gets Patriarchal Authority their are rights, and the Holy Ghost supports that right.
When a Aaronic Priests got Legal Authority, the Holy Ghost supported those set of rights.
Likewise Charismatic Authority.

But the Holy Ghost does do more than that-- it also acts as a witness for people.

Quote

Just look to whom the epistle was written.   It either says “to the saints” or “to the church” or to the “elect” or some other indicator that they are members of the church.

Yes indeed.

Quote

So then if one obeys, one repents, is baptized, and the Viola!!! LOH for the gift of (right to) the Holy Ghost.

Yes this LOH can be so under certain situations ( but not all)   Such as, if a Church loves the Lord, and its leadership are godly men, and that is how the Church has its members demonstrate obedience. Then the rebel who will not obey the Administrative Authority of the Church will likely not be blessed by God with the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Because of that rebellion against the Church overseers who have Administrative Authority. For God commanded  human culture to have Administrative Authority, and even so in the Church.

To this we can agree.
---------------

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.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 10 November 2010 - 11:22 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 November 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

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]

Hick Preacher, on 10 November 2010 - 10:01 PM, said:

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]

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

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)

Quote

"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]

USU78, on 10 November 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

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:

• RB is always right;
  
• Words only ever have one meaning;
  
• Phrases only have one meaning; and
  
• 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]

Hick Preacher, on 10 November 2010 - 11:02 PM, said:

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.

Edited by Vance, 11 November 2010 - 08:12 AM.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 11 November 2010 - 08:09 AM, said:

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....Prima_scriptura

Quote

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]

Hick Preacher, on 11 November 2010 - 09:11 AM, said:

Ok thanks for you time and effort.

You are welcome.

Quote

BTW I am not actually a "sola biblicist",

Sorry, my presumption.

Quote

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....Prima_scriptura

I would call that an improvement.

Quote

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:

Vance, on 10 November 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

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:

Quote

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?

I don't understand your reasoning here.

You wrote:

Quote

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.)

I have already answered this argument.

You wrote:

Quote

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.)

I don't see anything in this passage about a lack of proper authority.

You continued:

Quote

  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.

Where does it say that Paul had to lay hands on them? And if it is true, as you say here, that someone had to lay hands on them "for them to receive the gifts of the Spirit" (i.e., tongues), then how did Cornelius's household manage to speak in tongues before they were baptized?

You wrote:

Quote

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.   

What is actually quite clear from the Bible is that laying on of hands, while it can be significant, is not mandatory or essential to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The problem you are fighting is not that the Bible is insufficient but that it does not fit your paradigm.

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

You wrote:

stemelbow, on 10 November 2010 - 04:24 PM, said:

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.

In other words, when you're right, you're right, and when you're wrong, you're still right. Convenient.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

Precisely my conclusion as to your stance.

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

I'm sorry, but I confess that I am unable to follow your reasoning.

[Rob Bowman]

rongo,

You wrote:

rongo, on 10 November 2010 - 04:43 PM, said:

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).

The problem, rongo, is that Joseph Smith and the LDS Church ever since have explicitly denied that Cornelius was an exception or deviation from the established pattern. From Joseph Smith in 1842 to the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles, the LDS Church has taught that Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. My simple point: they are wrong.

You wrote:

Quote

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

None of your lengthy excerpts address the point I have raised. None.

You wrote:

Quote

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?

The text does not say, but of course there is no reason to think that Cornelius or anyone else would have refused to be baptized. Your question seems to present what is called a hypothesis contrary to fact argument (as do the rest of your questions). The text doesn't say what would have happened if Cornelius had not gotten baptized. What it does tell us is that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.

You wrote:

Quote

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?

Same problem. Look, I am not suggesting that people could continue to enjoy the gift of the Holy Spirit while spurning the instructions of the apostles. I am simply pointing out that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit was not dependent on any ritual. This conclusion follows from what the text actually says. You cannot overturn this conclusion by speculating about what the text doesn't say about things that didn't happen.

You wrote:

Quote

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.

Those "Brethren" are simply contradicting Luke. I go with Luke on this one.

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

You wrote:

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

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

Had Joseph Smith or any other LDS leader stated frankly that they disagreed with Acts 10:44-48 or with that passage as it has come down to us, we would be having a different discussion. The problem is that the LDS Church flatly denies what Acts 10:44-48 says while not acknowledging that they are disagreeing with the text.

[Rob Bowman]

semlogo,

May I take it, then, that you never quote specific statements from the Bible to support your views, since, as you have said here, doing so would be pointless?

semlogo, on 10 November 2010 - 08:07 PM, said:

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.