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

[ELF1024]

ELF,

You wrote:

I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized.

Uh... well... ya know... it IS kinda like a "Mormon Apologetic & Discussion Board"... dude...

Just saying...

[Hick Preacher]

See below-- this was an upload error

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

Your statement, which suggests as many as three different explanations, provides another example of the observation that I have made, which is that Mormons are willing to entertain almost any explanation for the discrepancy between Luke and Joseph Smith except that Joseph was wrong.

I would say Acts is mistaken, or altered. Perhaps what we consider the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" is not to what they were reffering to at that time. I would say that the meaning they intended is not what we are reading.

[Hick Preacher]

]

Rob says

Hick,

Evangelicals are Protestants. More specifically, evangelicals are Protestants who maintain the faith articulated in all of the historic Protestant confessions of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Other groups may use the term "evangelical" as an adjective to describe their emphasis on the gospel (as they understand it), but Roman Catholics are not evangelicals; nor are non-Trinitarian groups evangelicals. For a definition of what evangelicals believe, see the following statement of the World Evangelical Alliance:

http://www.worldevangelicals.org/aboutwea/statementoffaith.htm

And see the following article for a history of the WEA and further references on evangelicalism:

http://www.worldevangelicals.org/aboutwea/history.htm

I think this WEA site contains descriptions that are accurate enough for dealing with Catholics, and High Church people over in Europe and the Eastern USA. This is because many people see all of Christianity as being either Catholic or Protestant. So if Evangelicals are not Catholic, then they would be assumed to be Protestant. For what ever reason, and it is common, the Christian world (in the West) is seen as being two big lumps-- Catholics and Protestants. The WEA description in my view is a kind of maxim of the two lumps, that does not account for the critical distinctions of belief needed with discussing religious ideas with LDS people.

That is to say creating this WEA dichotomy of labeling Evangelicals a kind of Protestant in these discussions and leads to the problems when communicating religious ideas with LDS people.

It can lead to certain forms of Mormonism also being 'Protestant'. On some level I find the assertions that claim that I would have to take on the mantel of the Protestants as becoming potentially offensive. And yes there are Catholics who are interfacing with Evangelicalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic

I am affiliated with an Evangelical Church that is now non-denominational, but has its roots in the Campbell-Stone Restoration Movement. For the older founders of this Church, to infer that they are 'Protestants' gets you corrected in short order that they are NOT Protestants, but rather Restorationists. This comes with an elaborate history lesson shoved down your throat. I have read their reasoning and it is sound and extensive. These Restorationists are just as militant as Mormons are about not being 'Protestants'. They would fight you in the Church parking lot and not let you sit in Church it you insisted they are 'Protestants", yet they have nothing against Protestants-- but they adhere to their own identity and history.

Mormons and Evangelicals dealing with Mormons should be aware that Sidney Rigdon was a Campbellite Preacher. Also, 'the First Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel' described in Mormonism are are parallel to those of the Campbellites that pre-date Mormonism. A lot of what we see in the LDS Preparatory Gospel is similar to ideas found in the Campbell-Stone Restoration Movement. Alexander Campbell a dominate preacher in the movement, had a vision of Christ in the Woods and e.l..

When Mormonism was first founded many in the 1800s considered Mormonism to be an offshoot of the Campbellites. And of course Mormons are not 'Protestants'.

In the most technical sense Church organisations that are tied to the Campbell-Stone movement along with a wide spectrum of other Churches that are congregationalist in nature are not Protestants in a technical sence. (this would for example included Independent Baptists). This technical sense may be important as it relates to the Latter-day Saint Movement as a king of Restorationism. Evangelicals have gotten into the habit of calling themselves "Protestants" when they have no direct organisational ties or links to the Reformation of the Roman Catholic religion, aka the Protestant Reformation. In most situation this does not matter, but it might when Evangelicals communicate certain ideas to Mormons.

It is true that Evangelicals are often classed as Protestants by non-technical encyclopedic taxonomies This is because these simple taxonomies class Christianity as being universally split three ways into Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant movements. (Two splits in the West).

Under the three way over simple taxonomies many descriptions of a "Protestant" would place Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists as Protestants.

In this same way, Churches that have there roots in the Restorationist movement, and even the Campbell-Stone movement are technically incorrect in being classes as "Protestant". This is even seen in Wikis-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church_(Disciples_of_Christ)

So some taxonomies now place Non-Trinitarian Groups in an an Ad Hoc non-catagory Then note other odd groups with another small side note.

Evangelicals however of all kinds (Protestant or otherwise- or what ever one wishes to lump them) reject the idea of a complete and total Apostasy.

[Rob Bowman]

Hick,

It's true that the Churches of Christ and similar groups often deny being "Protestant," and yet some would call themselves "evangelical." Religious terminology is notoriously subject to being reused in different ways. Groups that view themselves as Restorationists rather than Protestants simply do not fit in what is known historically as evangelicalism. However, for sake of clarity, I am comfortable with the term "evangelical Protestantism," which will exclude such groups more clearly.

I have gone on record repeatedly pointing out that there are other forms of Christianity beside Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

[ELF1024]

ELF,

Your statement, which suggests as many as three different explanations, provides another example of the observation that I have made, which is that Mormons are willing to entertain almost any explanation for the discrepancy between Luke and Joseph Smith except that Joseph was wrong.

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

[zerinus]

zerinus,

Some of your fellow Mormons assert that there is a "pattern" of how one must receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I simply asked for a demonstration of this pattern. What you are saying, in effect, is that there is no pattern because the Holy Ghost can be received in all sorts of different ways, but there still is some obligation of undergoing the laying on of hands in order to obtain the Holy Ghost in one specific capacity. So, I conclude that you have conceded that this obligation cannot be supported by reference to any "pattern" in the Bible. Is that correct?

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

[Hick Preacher]

Hick,

It's true that the Churches of Christ and similar groups often deny being "Protestant," and yet some would call themselves "evangelical." Religious terminology is notoriously subject to being reused in different ways. Groups that view themselves as Restorationists rather than Protestants simply do not fit in what is known historically as evangelicalism. However, for sake of clarity, I am comfortable with the term "evangelical Protestantism," which will exclude such groups more clearly.

I have gone on record repeatedly pointing out that there are other forms of Christianity beside Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

Thanks Rob,

This situation is significant because some LDS think that one has adhere to the esoteric language of the Trinitarian Creeds of Protestant High Church, to be saved.

It could also be significant because Mormonism in a historical manner has connections to certain kinds of Biblical Restorationism (Christian primitivism).

And in these Restorationist movements, 'the seekers' asked similar questions, and debated similar issues concerning the Laying on of Hands for the Holy Ghost.

[Hick Preacher]

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

Zerinus,

What you have related is a fundamental Mormon claim. It is part of why Mormons say that the LDS Church is the One True Church.

Nevertheless, as posted previously on this thread, there are other Bible-based explanations as to why Christians over the last 2000 years have had the conviction, testimony, and fruits of the Spirit that indicate that they have had the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit. All of this with out this specific LDS style ordinance for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[ELF1024]

Zerinus,

What you have related is a fundamental Mormon claim. It is part of why Mormons say that the LDS Church is the One True Church.

Nevertheless, as posted previously on this thread, there are other Bible-based explanations as to why Christians over the last 2000 years have had the conviction, testimony, and fruits of the Spirit that indicate that they have had the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit. All of this with out this specific LDS style ordinance for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

I would argue that there is no way to prove "that they have had the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit".

[Vance]

I would argue that there is no way to prove "that they have had the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit".

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

[ELF1024]

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

I'm waiting for someone to say that the signs of the Stigmata are proof of the constant indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and not signs of a deranged mind and self-mutilation.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

What you have related is a fundamental Mormon claim. It is part of why Mormons say that the LDS Church is the One True Church.

Nevertheless, as posted previously on this thread, there are other Bible-based explanations as to why Christians over the last 2000 years have had the conviction, testimony, and fruits of the Spirit that indicate that they have had the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit. All of this with out this specific LDS style ordinance for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

It is no secret that Protestants in general, and Evangelicals in particular, have rejected the efficacy of most, if not all the Catholic sacraments, and the necessity of them for salvation; but that still amounts to a minority of "Christians," not most, or by any means all of them.

[Hick Preacher]

I would argue that there is no way to prove "that they have had the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit".

Are you saying that you have concrete proof that Mormons do?

[Vance]

Are you saying that you have concrete proof that Mormons do?

Do you have concrete proof that you do?

[Vance]

It is no secret that Protestants in general, and Evangelicals in particular, have rejected the efficacy of most, if not all the Catholic sacraments, and the necessity of them for salvation; but that still amounts to a minority of "Christians," not most, or by any means all of them.

But . . but . . . but there was no general apostasy, the church was just corrupted and only needed to be reformed.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"You first."

"No, you first."

"But I asked you first."

"So? I'll show you my proof if you show me yours."

Bah.

[ELF1024]

Are you saying that you have concrete proof that Mormons do?

I'm saying that it's just as likely that neither are true.

You can't prove it, we can't prove it... so what's your point?

If you had one example of someone having a constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit (prior to 1830) it might lead somewhere, but you don't. We don't have proof (since 1830) either.

[Hick Preacher]

It is no secret that Protestants in general, and Evangelicals in particular, have rejected the efficacy of most, if not all the Catholic sacraments, and the necessity of them for salvation; but that still amounts to a minority of "Christians," not most, or by any means all of them.

The efficacy of these Sacraments I would not discount out of hand.

The necessity of these Sacraments is it a different matter.

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

And please note that I did qualify what I wrote with "LDS Style" associated with these what you call 'sacraments'.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have felt the Spirit in the LDS Church, the RLDS Restoration Branches, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), the Adventist Church, a non-denominational church, watching TV preachers, listening to Christian radio, etc...

The Holy Spirit is there to witness of Jesus Christ, and it does it's job wherever that may be at. No one owns exclusive rights to it. Get over yourselves.

[Hick Preacher]

I'm saying that it's just as likely that neither are true.

You can't prove it, we can't prove it... so what's your point?

If you had one example of someone having a constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit (prior to 1830) it might lead somewhere, but you don't. We don't have proof (since 1830) either.

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

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

[ELF1024]

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

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

I assume you are purposefully missing the fact that a constant indwelling and a brief inspiration are completely different things.

I would not argue that the light of Christ has not been available for everyone since he beginning of time.

There is only one process by which you can have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. It requires the laying on of hands by someone in Authority.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I assume you are purposefully missing the fact that a constant indwelling and a brief inspiration are completely different things.

I would not argue that the light of Christ has not been available for everyone since he beginning of time.

There is only one process by which you can have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. It requires the laying on of hands by someone in Authority.

I wonder what your feelings are about the Savior telling the Nephites that they could receive the 'baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost" just like the Lamanites did at the time of their conversion "and knew it not". Seems the Savior is giving equal value to what the Nephites could receive to what the Lamanites received without the laying on of hands...

3 Nephi 9:20

And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

*** I believe the laying on of hands is one method for receiving the Holy Ghost, but perhaps not the ONLY method. It is Christ who does the baptizing in this regard and He can baptize who He wants, it appears.

[Hick Preacher]

I assume you are purposefully missing the fact that a constant indwelling and a brief inspiration are completely different things.

I would not argue that the light of Christ has not been available for everyone since he beginning of time.

There is only one process by which you can have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. It requires the laying on of hands by someone in Authority.

Yes, I am familiar with the LDS view. I was active LDS from age 18 to age 37.

I think the LDS system insists on this view of constant companionship because it is consistent and ideologically supportive of other aspects of of teachings- such as a way to explain the notion of the universal Apostasy.

[Hick Preacher]

I wonder what your feelings are about the Savior telling the Nephites that they could receive the 'baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost" just like the Lamanites did at the time of their conversion "and knew it not". Seems the Savior is given equal value to what the Nephites could receive to what the Lamanites received without the laying on of hands...

3 Nephi 9:20

And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

*** I believe the laying on of hands is one method for receiving the Holy Ghost, but perhaps not the ONLY method. It is Christ who does the baptizing in this regard and He can baptize who He wants, it appears.

Yeah, BookofMormonLuvr, I think that the Book of Mormon supports your stated assertion on this topic.

( and from my studies I am convinced the BoM is monotheistic too- another topic)