Church beginnings

[Tawhano]

In another thread there was put forth a challenge to identify contradictions between the BoM and the Bible. I submitted that according to the BoM the Church was founded by Alma and according to the Bible it was founded by Christ. I was told this wasn’t a contradiction but a contra-indication. So I start this thread to address this ‘contra-indication’.


Also I want to outline the discussion between myself and Jenda as she attempted to answer the issue I brought up. It is becoming increasingly frustrating to me that when I ask questions and someone appears to answer them that the point I am making is ignored and the answers given appear to be a diversion tactic to steer the discussion away from my point. Here is the issue I put forth:

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 18:13 - 20)
13 And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.
14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.
15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water.
16 And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of God.
17 And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church.
18 And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.
20 Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.

The BoM records that Alma was the founder of the church of Christ. Here we see an account that could only have taken place after Christ gave himself for sacrifice. The baptism of water and the coming of the Holy Spirit as promised by God were things that pertained to the new covenant and Alma was still under the old covenant.

The first response I received was to put forth the notion that if you have knowledge that something is going to happen, and that knowledge requires action, are we not beholden to act? This of course does not explain away how it is the events described in Mosiah 18 mimic the events in Acts which could not have happened until Jesus fulfilled the law and was glorified.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The response to that was to ask if I was suggesting that the Holy Spirit did not operate before Christ rose, or the day of Pentecost. Everybody, or at least I thought, knows that there is a vast difference between the OT times of God filling someone with His Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit at and after the event on Pentecost. This is the event described in Mosiah 18. It did not happen and it could not happen except that Christ fulfilled the law and was glorified. The event at Pentecost was prophesied to happen long into the future and did so at Pentecost and not when Alma started a church.

I was then told that it is the knowledge of the sacrifice that creates the law within us. If the law is there, the covenant is there. It is not the knowledge of the sacrifice that puts the laws in our hearts it is the Holy Spirit given to us as promised after Christ was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Jeremiah 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Acknowledged in the New Testament:

Hebrews 10:15-16 [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

2 Corinthians 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

The people of Alma’s period could not partake in the promise of the laws being written on our hearts (new covenant) because it had not yet been implemented. The question still remains; how is it that the events of Pentecost are recorded as happening prior to the prophecy being fulfilled?

 

[A New Dawn]

edited

 

[Tawhano]

Jenda, I extend this apology to you as well.

MormonFriend said:
Perhaps you do not see the point I am making and how it relates to the discussion. Perhaps I assume you will see the connection. Perhaps what you perceive as "steering away from the issues of the discussion" is wrong, and that what I bring out is necessary to understand the issue more clearly. There are so many factors that you are not justified to make the assumption above.

You know what, you are absolutely right. I apologize for being short tempered lately. I have become increasingly impatient with several posters here and I am taking it out on everyone. Again I apologize.

 

[Swart]

This has the makings of a very LONG thread, as long as it isn't hijacked. I will do my best to explain my midset of the BoM in line with how my testimony grew and developed as I learnt more.

Firstly, since I gained a testomony of the BoM at age twelve, although my understanding of things spiritual and worldly have grown in that time, my testimony is still substantially the same. This is because this knowledge came to me through spiritual means. For sure, my testimony then was a simple one and since my knowledge and understanding have grown, I have had to renew my testimony to cover the developing gaps. This is not to say there are problems with what I believe, but in the fine tuning process, that testimony needs to be extended. For example, at one time it was sufficient to know the BoM to be true to know the church was also. Later, that became insufficient and my testimony had to be expanded to cover both areas. For any testimony, a knowledge of the saviour is the foundation.

So the process for me is to stick with what I know to be true and work from there. As questions arise, I develop my own theories to suit through studying and pondering the scriptures. If something becomes critical enough, I will take my hypothesis to the Lord in prayer. As the questions move more and more away from the important parts of the Gospel, inspiration becomes more and more scarce and receiving an answer takes longer and longer. For important things, answers are almost immediate. The way I receive answers to my prayers varies with what I am studying and the importance of what I am praying about. One time I received a booming thought in my head "Trouble me no more concerning this matter!"

Okay, with that groundwork laid, I am ready to impart my studious 'opinion' on these matters. Take them or leave then as you please!

The BoM records that Alma was the founder of the church of Christ. Here we see an account that could only have taken place after Christ gave himself for sacrifice. The baptism of water and the coming of the Holy Spirit as promised by God were things that pertained to the new covenant and Alma was still under the old covenant.

We need to take a number of things into consideration when reading the Book of Mormon. It was abridged from a large number of records by the prophet-historian Mormon who had a vision of our modern day. He saw what we were going through and how similar we were to the Nephites. He wrote only about things that would be of worth to us. Also, writing in 400AD, he had the teachings of Christ and a wealth of knowledge that perhaps would not have been known earlier. Since he had access to all the records, he also would have been aware of things the general population would not have known. Extrapolating from this it is quite possible for Mormon to have inserted concepts and teachings not fully understood at the time they were recorded. Taking just the name of the church, the 'Church of Christ' as an example, it may even have been 'The Synagogue of the Messiah' or 'A nice bunch of people following the Laws of Moses but looking forward to the coming of the Messiah', or it could literally have been 'The Church of Christ'.

The method of translating the BoM was also different than the Bible. It was spiritually done and not physically done. Thus words, phrases etc that have a particular meaning today would have been translated into the words we use and not the literal ones. For example, Messiah may have been the word, but it would have been translated 'Jesus Christ'. Since the Nephites didn't speak English or Greek, the actual words used would probably bear no relationship at all to the forms in current use. It is interesting to read the HRV and try to follow who is who since the names are so different - Yochanah the Immerser for example.

As for the question raised above. Baptism and the gift of the HG were commonly used after the resurrection of Christ. However, they were not originated there. Both of these ordinances were practiced amongst the Essene's in the Qumran community. Baptism as a rite was part of the cleansing ritual to enter the Tabernacle as far back as Moses. It was performed in the 'molten sea'. When John the Baptist performed baptisms it was not a new ordinance the Jews were unfamiliar with. It was something they understood and were delighted it was being made available to all and not just a select few. The Holy Ghost was well understood before Christ and referred to as Ruach HaKodesh in Aramaic. For a long time in Judaism, there was no one with the power and authourity to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost, until Jesus came along. At that point, this gift was restored to the Jews when previously they had lost it, possibly during the captivity.

At various points the old covenant is briefly mentioned, but not dwelt upon. It must have been an important part of the Nephites lives but it seems that Mormon considered it unimportant as it had been filfilled. He therefore would have concentrated on aspects of the new covenant, or parts of the old covenant with similarities to the new. Aside from the prescriptive aspects of the Law, the teachings are essentially the same, especially when you look at the underlying spirit that each part of the Law gives. The Law was a prescriptive school master that brought us to Christ.

The first response I received was to put forth the notion that if you have knowledge that something is going to happen, and that knowledge requires action, are we not beholden to act? This of course does not explain away how it is the events described in Mosiah 18 mimic the events in Acts which could not have happened until Jesus fulfilled the law and was glorified.

It seems obvious to me that whilst Jesus was in his mortal ministry, the HG was somewhat dormant. This is perhaps because there is some unalterable requirement for only one comforter to be present at a time. Jesus was preparing his disciples for the knowledge that although he would be removed from them physically, his presence would be there even stronger through the HG, which was a much better way.

The response to that was to ask if I was suggesting that the Holy Spirit did not operate before Christ rose, or the day of Pentecost. Everybody, or at least I thought, knows that there is a vast difference between the OT times of God filling someone with His Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit at and after the event on Pentecost. This is the event described in Mosiah 18. It did not happen and it could not happen except that Christ fulfilled the law and was glorified. The event at Pentecost was prophesied to happen long into the future and did so at Pentecost and not when Alma started a church.

Naturally, I disagree here. We are talking of different times and locations and (despite the similarities) quite different situations. There is no reason to suggest that God could not work mighty miracles amongst his people at other times in addition to the ones prophecied.

The people of Alma’s period could not partake in the promise of the laws being written on our hearts (new covenant) because it had not yet been implemented. The question still remains; how is it that the events of Pentecost are recorded as happening prior to the prophecy being fulfilled?

Quite simply, I (and I assume most LDS) disagree with this interpretation of scripture. There is nothing to say that although one event will occur at a particular place as a sign that X has occurred that another similar event could not occur at a different place and a different time for a different reason.

At a young age, I asked my Presbyterian Minister a number of questions that failed to satisfy even my nine year old mind. In retrospect, I think he was perhaps giving me the 'kid answers' to my questions. When I asked him who wrote the Bible, he said God did. When I asked him about I had heard a voice in answer to one of my prayers, he said it was my imagination, God doesn't literally answer prayers. Then I asked him about angels, miracles, etc. and he said the heavens were closed and they didn't happen any more and if they ever did, they were of the devil, God did not speak directly to man anymore, everything we needed to know was in the Bible. As he told me these things I knew he was wrong. OC thinking has changed since those days, although many claim it really hasn't.

Human knowledge varies and contemporary wisdom changes regularly. Today's favoured truths are tomorrows despised heresies. We can muse and ponitifcate all we like but the HG is what leads us into all truth, not just some.

What you have outlined above is a good contra-indication of the BoM. The passage contradicts with contemporary OC wisdom as to the relatioship between the new covenant and the old and the timing of crucial events in history. For someone with a good knowledge and understanding of these things it begs some form of reconciliation. But consider this hypothesis: If an Angel of God appeared to you and you knew for a fact that it WAS an angel from God. If that same angel told you the BoM was true scripture, how would that compare with any argument or intellectual defect you found with the BoM? Would you then conclude your logic and reasoning were faulty? For my part, if this were to happen to me it would marginally improve my testimony of the Book of Mormon, so strong is the witness I have had. Any detraction I encounter must fit into that conext.
[Bible]Matthew 16:17[/Bible]

 

[Aceman1992]

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 18:13 - 20)
13 And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.

I will add some additional background that might help in this discussion. From the Jewish Encyclopedia: The Baptism of the proselyte has for its purpose his cleansing from the impurity of idolatry, and the restoration to the purity of a new-born man. This may be learned from the Talmud (Soṭah 12b) in regard to Pharaoh's daughter, whose bathing in the Nile is explained by Simon b. Yoḥai to have been for that purpose. The bathing in the water is to constitute a rebirth, wherefore "the ger is like a child just born" (Yeb. 48b); and he must bathe "in the name of God"—"leshem shamayim"—that is, assume the yoke of Gcd's kingdom imposed upon him by the one who leads him to Baptism ("maṭbil"), or else he is not admitted into Judaism (Gerim. vii. 8). For this very reason the Israelites before the acceptance of the Law had, according to Philo on the Decalogue ("De Decalogo," ii., xi.), as well as according to rabbinical tradition, to undergo the rite of baptismal purification (compare I Cor. x. 2, "They were baptized unto Moses [the Law] in the clouds and in the sea").
The phrase "poured out" or "pour out" is also an OT phrase (Hebrew nathak, shapshak, nacak, tsuwq, 'arah) and is used very little in the NT. Please consider Job 29:2-6, Oh that I were as in months past, as in the days when God preserved me; When his candle shined upon my head, and when by his light I walked through darkness; As I was in the days of my youth, when the secret of God was upon my tabernacle; When the Almighty was yet with me, when my children were about me; When I washed my steps with butter, and the rock poured me out rivers of oil;
Oil (as a metaphor) in the OT was typically a reference to the Holy Spirit. This makes Job 29:6 very understandable - God had previously poured the HS over Job in abundance.
Also consider Mosiah 18:12 (RLDS 9:43) And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying, O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart. and Deu 30:14, But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
I would say that Mosiah 18:12-13 (9:43-44) are very OT in style and meaning.

 

[Tawhano]

Swart said:
As for the question raised above. Baptism and the gift of the HG were commonly used after the resurrection of Christ. However, they were not originated there. Both of these ordinances were practiced amongst the Essene's in the Qumran community.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is not an ordinance, it couldn’t be practiced by anybody nor can it be ‘practiced’ today. God either fills you with the Holy Spirit or He doesn’t. God poured out the Holy Spirit before Christ on people He ordained to do a particular task and when that task was accomplished the Holy Spirit left them. The Gift of the Holy Spirit is a permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is also called the Spirit of Promise because it was prophesied and promised to the people of Israel. The Gift was given on the day of Pentecost never before, ever.

Swart said:
It seems obvious to me that whilst Jesus was in his mortal ministry, the HG was somewhat dormant.

It is far from obvious to me. Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit; everything he did was through the Holy Spirit.

Swart said:
The Holy Ghost was well understood before Christ and referred to as Ruach HaKodesh in Aramaic. For a long time in Judaism, there was no one with the power and authourity to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost, until Jesus came along. At that point, this gift was restored to the Jews when previously they had lost it, possibly during the captivity.

The Gift was never lost so therefore could never be restored.

Swart said:
Naturally, I disagree here. We are talking of different times and locations and (despite the similarities) quite different situations.

There is more than a passing similarity to the two events. The gospel was preached, the people believed and were baptized and received the Holy Spirit. Nowhere, ever, did anybody practice water baptism where you received the Holy Spirit afterwards. The Essene knew that the Holy Spirit was poured out only on those God called to do a certain task. There was never an ordinance for receiving the Holy Spirit. If you believe you have information refuting that I would love to see it.

Swart said:
Quite simply, I (and I assume most LDS) disagree with this interpretation of scripture. There is nothing to say that although one event will occur at a particular place as a sign that X has occurred that another similar event could not occur at a different place and a different time for a different reason.

The scriptures are quite clear that the promise made by God is the event of Pentecost and that promise could not be given until Christ was glorified. I believe you sense this to be true and that is why you do not address the scriptures I quoted which show this is indeed true.

Swart said:
What you have outlined above is a good contra-indication of the BoM.

I believe what I have outlined is a gross error in the BoM

 

[Tawhano]

Aceman1992 said:
I will add some additional background that might help in this discussion.

Sorry Aceman1992, I didn’t quite grasp the point of your post.

 

[A New Dawn]

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is not an ordinance, it couldn’t be practiced by anybody nor can it be ‘practiced’ today.

Paul outlined the principles of the gospel to include baptism(s), laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. What do you do with that scripture? Paul evidently believes it is an ordinance.

 

[Tawhano]

Jenda said:
Paul outlined the principles of the gospel to include baptism(s), laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. What do you do with that scripture?

What scripture? Can you be more specific?

 

[A New Dawn]

Hebrews 6:1-2
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.

 

[Tawhano]

Jenda said:
Hebrews 6:1-2
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.

So you believe ordinance and doctrines is the same thing? Ordinance is used to denote the following: laws, commandments, traditions. Doctrine is always denoted as teachings. Not the same thing but never the less it doesn’t change anything either way you wish to use it. You see the phrase ‘laying on of hands’ and immediately believe it is talking about the Gift of the Holy Spirit. The ‘laying on of hands’ could be anything from giving authority, blessing or healing people. Let’s just say that is what is being talked about in Hebrews, the laying on of hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Does that make the receiving the Gift an ordinance? If it does then the person who is practicing the act of ‘laying on of hands’ is the giver of the Holy Ghost and not God.

The doctrine Paul quotes is the instructions that have been taught on the subject of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Paul does not equate the Gift of the Holy Spirit to an ordinance in that verse. By making the Gift of the Holy Spirit an ordinance you take the gift part away and make it a works issue.

 

[A New Dawn]

So you believe ordinance and doctrines is the same thing? Ordinance is used to denote the following: laws, commandments, traditions. Doctrine is always denoted as teachings. Not the same thing but never the less it doesn’t change anything either way you wish to use it. You see the phrase ‘laying on of hands’ and immediately believe it is talking about the Gift of the Holy Spirit. The ‘laying on of hands’ could be anything from giving authority, blessing or healing people. Let’s just say that is what is being talked about in Hebrews, the laying on of hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Does that make the receiving the Gift an ordinance? If it does then the person who is practicing the act of ‘laying on of hands’ is the giver of the Holy Ghost and not God.

The doctrine Paul quotes is the instructions that have been taught on the subject of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Paul does not equate the Gift of the Holy Spirit to an ordinance in that verse. By making the Gift of the Holy Spirit an ordinance you take the gift part away and make it a works issue.

What do you think happens during the course of laying on of hands, for any reason, if it is not for the gift of the Holy Spirit? Is not one healed by the Holy Spirit? Is not one endowed with authority by the Holy Spirit? I am curious as to what it is you think happens during the "laying on of hands".

 

[Tawhano]

Jenda said:
I am curious as to what it is you think happens during the "laying on of hands".

The Holy Spirit acts upon our faith because when we act in faith the Holy Spirit answers. I’m curious as to how you make that an ordinance.

 

[Tawhano]

In the thread ‘Where does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible’ post 80 you said:

Jenda said:
Maybe when you are doing that you will also discuss why you refuse to discuss the point I was wanting to make.

What point do you believe I was refusing to discuss with you?

 

[A New Dawn]

The Holy Spirit acts upon our faith because when we act in faith the Holy Spirit answers. I’m curious as to how you make that an ordinance.

I can see the circle this is going in.

I did not make it an ordinance, Paul did. Paul spoke of the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit.

IMO, there are several features of a practice that make it an ordinance. I found this site that references a book "The Philosophic Basis of Ordinances" (1906) with which I agree with many of the points. (I believe the site is a safe one and will post the link, but if it isn't, I will post the points it delineates here, also.)

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/believers/forneybdspbo/PBO03.HTM

The features that make something an ordinance (according to this book) are:
1. Divine authority. (It must be instituted by Christ.)
2. Formal observance. There must be an outward, visible sign, or form, in an ordinance.
3. A sensuous element; something tangible, material. There must be matter, so that there may be form and ceremony.
4. It must be based upon some great fact connected with the plan of human redemption.
5. It must be expressive or symbolical of some great fact in our spiritual experience.

Many view baptism and communion as ordinances because they meet all the above requirements. So the question remains, is laying on of hands an ordinance?

I believe it does, but if you don't think it is necessary, your answer will be no. But I believe it was instituted by Christ, laying on of hands is the outward sign. James says to use olive oil and annoint in the name of Christ (which would be the sensuous element the RLDS use), laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit is the second baptism, so therefore required for salvation, which fulfills the 5th requirement, also.

 

[gort]

Where was the laying on of hands in Acts chapter 2? Not only with those in the upper room, but those that heard and believed?

<><

 

[Tawhano]

Jenda said:
I can see the circle this is going in.

That’s because you ignore 80% of what I post and only ask question, never answer them. You keep going on about the laying on of hands when I am not talking about that, I am talking about the Gift of the Holy Spirit. God gives the Holy Spirit not man. You can’t make an ordinance of something God does.

Jenda said:
The features that make something an ordinance (according to this book) are:
1. Divine authority. (It must be instituted by Christ.)
2. Formal observance. There must be an outward, visible sign, or form, in an ordinance.
3. A sensuous element; something tangible, material. There must be matter, so that there may be form and ceremony.
4. It must be based upon some great fact connected with the plan of human redemption.
5. It must be expressive or symbolical of some great fact in our spiritual experience.

Man does not have the authority to give the Holy Spirit and God doesn’t need authority. All the stuff you listed above has to do with the attribute of man not God. The receiving of the Holy Spirit fits none of the above. You are confusing the laying on of hands (physical act) with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Act of God). An act of God can not be an ordinance.

So the question remains, is laying on of hands an ordinance?

See what I mean. I never said the laying on of hands wasn't an ordinance. Try reading my post next time.

 

[A New Dawn]

Where was the laying on of hands in Acts chapter 2? Not only with those in the upper room, but those that heard and believed?

<><

I doubt there was initially, but during the course of that experience, we read this, which clearly indicates, at least to me, that what happened initially was not a permanent indwelling.

Act 2:37 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?
Act 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

 

[A New Dawn]

That’s because you ignore 80% of what I post and only ask question, never answer them. You keep going on about the laying on of hands when I am not talking about that, I am talking about the Gift of the Holy Spirit. God gives the Holy Spirit not man. You can’t make an ordinance of something God does.

I do not ignore 80% of what you post. I respond to everything you post. You just don't wish to acknowledge that my answers are to your posts, and accuse me of leading the topic off in different directions. (That is the answer to your other question, BTW.)

See what I mean. I never said the laying on of hands wasn't an ordinance. Try reading my post next time.

You stated in the post I was responding to:

The Holy Spirit acts upon our faith because when we act in faith the Holy Spirit answers. I’m curious as to how you make that an ordinance..

Your last statement made me think you did not believe it was an ordinance. Next time, maybe you should state your beliefs so I don't have to stab in the dark about it. Or are you one of those who likes to take advantage of someone not knowing your beliefs so you can try to humiliate them?

 

[Tawhano]

Jenda said:
I do not ignore 80% of what you post. I respond to everything you post. You just don't wish to acknowledge that my answers are to your posts, and accuse me of leading the topic off in different directions. (That is the answer to your other question, BTW.)

Yes you do respond to my post but you don’t address what I said, you address what you want me to be saying. I made it perfectly clear that I was not talking about laying on of hands and was talking about the Gift of the Holy Spirit but you kept going on about laying on of hands. Here is what I said:

"The Gift of the Holy Ghost is not an ordinance, it couldn’t be practiced by anybody nor can it be ‘practiced’ today."

"Let’s just say that is what is being talked about in Hebrews, the laying on of hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Does that make the receiving the Gift an ordinance?"

"The doctrine Paul quotes is the instructions that have been taught on the subject of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Paul does not equate the Gift of the Holy Spirit to an ordinance in that verse. By making the Gift of the Holy Spirit an ordinance you take the gift part away and make it a works issue."

Clearly I am talking about the Gift of the Holy Spirit not being an ordinance and not the laying on of hands. So why were you diverting the issue to the laying on of hands being an ordinance if you were reading my post?

Jenda said:
Your last statement made me think you did not believe it was an ordinance.

The Holy Spirit acts upon our faith because when we act in faith the Holy Spirit answers. I’m curious as to how you make that an ordinance.

Where are you getting the laying on of hands in that statement? You were talking about the laying on of hands and I was trying to get you back on the topic of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Jenda said:
Next time, maybe you should state your beliefs so I don't have to stab in the dark about it. Or are you one of those who likes to take advantage of someone not knowing your beliefs so you can try to humiliate them?

I made my views very clear you just don’t read my post. And where do you get off falsely accusing me of humiliating you???