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

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Thank you for implicitly admitting you cannot establish the matter from the Bible.

Why limit the discussion to the Bible? Clearly the Bible is insufficient to determine the truth of the topic.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Two out of the six times in Acts that someone receives the Holy Spirit, those who receive him have hands laid on them first. That doesn't establish a pattern at all, let alone the pattern that the special, permanent presence of the Holy Spirit can only come through that ritual. You have not even offered any evidence that what the Samaritans and disciples of John received in Acts 8 and 19 was something different from what was received by the apostles, Jews, Saul, and Cornelius in Acts 2, 9, and 10.

Hebrews says nothing about the gift of the Holy Spirit coming through the laying on of hands, so it does not support your conclusion.

Finally, you assert that Cornelius had to have hands laid on him, but the Bible says nothing of the sort. In reality, you are simply assuming what you are supposed to be proving.

Well, there is a pattern, and there is a theological explanation that fixes the pattern as a necessary requirement. Here they are:

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.

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.

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.

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.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

Hebrews 6

:

1 Therefore leaving the

principles of the doctrine of Christ,

let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the

foundation

of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of

baptisms, and of laying on of hands,

and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

The theological explanation that fixes the pattern is provided by the last quote from Hebrews. It affirms that the laying on of hands is a necessary sacrament, just as baptism is. It is not "optional," any more than baptism is optional. Paul lists the laying on of hands as one of the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and a foundational requirement like repentance and baptism. It can't make it clearer than that. That is the answer to your question. And the examples confirm the theory. Cornelius still had to undergo that necessary and required sacrament, just as he still had to be baptized, even though he had already experienced the outpouring of the Holy Ghost prior to his baptism. Peter doesn't say, "Cornelius has already received the Holy Ghost, therefore what need has he of baptism?" He orders him to be bapized! Likewise, Cornelius still had to undergo the sacrament of the laying on of hands, even though he had already received the outpouring of the Holy Ghost.

[Hick Preacher]

PacMan in quotes--

<<<You are all over the place without giving any decent explanation, but have rather completely stripped the Bible from its meaning. >>>

What are you talking about?

[LeSellers]

Thank you for implicitly admitting you cannot establish the matter from the Bible.

I disagree that he did not make the case from the Bible, but the issue remains for you to show your position, which you have not done.

The Bible is not sufficient to establish that the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not require the laying on of hands. Because of this (and many, many others like it, e.g., the necessity of baptism for salvation), you have implicitly acknowledged that requirement for living prophets to establish the matters as per the will of the Lord.

Men's (best educated) guesses are not going to be adequate to meet whatever requirements He lays on us. You are betting your life (literally) on guesses, and nothing more.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Hebrews says nothing about the gift of the Holy Spirit coming through the laying on of hands, so it does not support your conclusion.

Of course it does. That is what the "laying on of hands" in that context means. You can't wriggle your way out of that one I am afraid.

Finally, you assert that Cornelius had to have hands laid on him, but the Bible says nothing of the sort. In reality, you are simply assuming what you are supposed to be proving.

See above. That is the obvious assumption. Am I also assuming that he had to be baptized? Just as he had to be baptized, if Paul's statement is correct, then he had to receive the laying on of hands as well. Both sacraments are equally the "principles of the doctrine of Christ," and one of its "foundations". What can be clearer than that?

[PacMan]

Hick,

PacMan you seem to be constantly discounting the value of culture. Human culture plays key roles in God

[Zakuska]

As far as I'm concerned this shows how inept the Bible is at clarifying basic doctrine. It's no wonder that strictly Bible based Churches have no clue what on Earth they are talking about. The Bible so incomplete and confusing that you can't prove anything with it.

Praise the Lord for modern day scriptures and Prophets.

AMEN!

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to

[Zeta-Flux]

Vance,

Thank you for implicitly admitting you cannot establish the matter from the Bible.

Rob Bowman,

Given the fact that we are discussing Joseph Smith, and what Joseph Smith taught, it is and naturally would be impossible to establish this matter from the Bible. Just as it is, and naturally would be, impossible to establish what almost any other human being meant by restricting one's sources so drastically.

I'll again assert that the quote you gave from Joseph Smith was an explanation by him that the phrase in question is not used universally in the scriptures the same way. In particular, as it is used in Acts 10, it does not hold the same meaning that the Latter-day Saints had come to use it to mean. As evidence, I'll cite other holy books accepted by Joseph Smith, and the cultural background Joseph existed in.

[Hick Preacher]

upload error-- sorry

[Hick Preacher]

Pacman is substantive-- and he is in quotes.

<<<That

[PacMan]

Hick,

To say culture is

[PacMan]

I have to beat a dead horse once more. Given the explicit language of Heb 5:4 (some translations are more explicit than others), we can conclude that if one is not called as Aaron, he aint got the "honor." Now, we can be fairly certain that Joshua properly received this "honor." So the question is, in the text, what is the common and definite link between Aaron and Joshua? I believe the link is Moses. And where Joshua's 'laying on of hands' experience is explicit, we at least know that regarding Aaron, Moses was told

[Vance]

Vance,

Thank you for implicitly admitting you cannot establish the truth of the matter from the Bible.

I didn't implicitely admit any thing of the kind, I explicitly stated that you cannot establish the TRUTH OF THE MATTER from only the Bible.

The Bible is insufficient. OBVIOUSLY!!!

[Hick Preacher]

PacMan in quotes <<<>>>

(Laying on of Hands as a cultural act, to communicate the gospel, but is not the gospel itself.)

<<<Disagree. I doubt you

[PacMan]

Hick,

Law is represented in an original written language it is verbal information scribed in a written record called scripture. The original written language is a product a culture