Church beginnings

[gort]

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

Acts 2:38 does show it to be "the gift of the Holy Spirit". It is a gift God gives, just like Grace. To repent(turn away from sin and turn to the Lord), be baptized (an outward show of faith; also not an ordinance but flowing from the heart) and receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit (which would be given by God).

I never had hands laid on me. I did receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and did my baptism as an outward show of faith quite some time later. It was a wonderful day.

The Bible also speaks of the Gift of the Holy Spirit as an "earnest" also.

And also as a "sealing".

2Cr 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

2Cr 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

<><

 

[Aceman1992]

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

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.

I was pointing out that the verse could very well have been describing a Hebrew baptism under the old covenant (please see the complete description of baptism at jewishencyclopedia.com as I only posted one of many paragraphs from that site). (1) Rabbis acknowledge the practice of baptism under the Mosaic Law. (2) It was required in order to put a proselyte (i.e. a Lamanite - Helam would not have been of the seed of Lehi to need this baptism) under the Mosaic Law. (3) The wording parallels wording in the OT and not the NT, at the very least, indicating that Alma was speaking of concepts that would be familiar to people before Jesus. (4) The HS was acting and acknowledged by people in the OT before Jesus came (i.e. Job as well as others).
Let me add that eternal life (eternal name) for proselytes was mentioned in Isaiah 56:3-6 and that in Isaiah 53:11-12 was the "portion" to be obtained through Christ. Another good source of advanced information about proselyte baptism is available at mb-soft.com/believe/txo/proselyt.htm
I hope I have presented enough information to show that Alma could have been performing a proselyte baptism under the Mosaic Law and not a baptism under the new covenant. Comments are welcome.

 

[A New Dawn]

Acts 2:38 does show it to be "the gift of the Holy Spirit". It is a gift God gives, just like Grace. To repent(turn away from sin and turn to the Lord), be baptized (an outward show of faith; also not an ordinance but flowing from the heart) and receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit (which would be given by God).

I never had hands laid on me. I did receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and did my baptism as an outward show of faith quite some time later. It was a wonderful day.

The Bible also speaks of the Gift of the Holy Spirit as an "earnest" also.

And also as a "sealing".

2Cr 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

2Cr 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

<><

Y'all are pretty good at skirting around questions that are asked or points that are made.

 

[Tawhano]

I hope I have presented enough information to show that Alma could have been performing a proselyte baptism under the Mosaic Law and not a baptism under the new covenant. Comments are welcome.

Yes I understand that there were baptism rituals throughout history but the verses in Mosiah 18 are not describing any Old Testament rituals of ceremonial cleansing. Alma is clearly baptizing people into the church of Christ long before it was possible to do so and further the Gift of the Holy Spirit was not possible then either. Nobody in Old Testament times did anything to receive the Holy Spirit. God filled people with the Holy Spirit when He wanted to accomplish something through man.Those verses are way too similar to the events recorded in Acts to be coincidence.

 

[gort]

Y'all are pretty good at skirting around questions that are asked or points that are made.

In answering your post I pointed to scripture that stated the HS was given as an "earnest"

And also pointing out that the laying of hands was not seen in the upper room, nor stated by Peter (in regards to an ordinance of 'laying on of hands') for the Gift of the HS.


neener neener neener.....


<><

 

[A New Dawn]

In answering your post I pointed to scripture that stated the HS was given as an "earnest"

And also pointing out that the laying of hands was not seen in the upper room, nor stated by Peter (in regards to an ordinance of 'laying on of hands') for the Gift of the HS.


neener neener neener.....


<><

Sorry. I didn't realize that was in response to the scripture I posted.

 

[gort]

Sorry. I didn't realize that was in response to the scripture I posted.

no problem-o

<><

 

[Aceman1992]

Those verses are way too similar to the events recorded in Acts to be coincidence.

I guess I'm not seeing the parallels with Acts (2:37-38, 8:13-17, 8:37-39, 10:44-48, 19:3-7, and 22:16 - did I miss any?).

Acts 2:37-38, Baptism was performed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and to receive the Holy Ghost. None of which was mentioned in Mosiah (baptized in the name of God, no mention of the remission of sins, and the mention of the Holy Spirit was as a blessing).

Acts 8:13-17, Peter and John prayed for the Holy Ghost and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit in Mosiah just happened and it was not prayed for.

Acts 8:37-39, Baptism was conditional from believing in Jesus Christ. No conditions of belief were specified in Mosiah. A few verses earlier in Mosiah mentioned "stand as witnesses of God". This verse was talking as if the people were to join the "army of God" is the closest similarity I can come up with. A few verses later talked about "whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church". Again, no conditions mentioned. Baptizing a proselyte had no conditions except the person was subject to, and expected to follow, the Mosaic law.

Acts 10:44-48, "The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word" and then they were baptized. This is very much as you mention, the HS is given when God wants to give it. However, there is no parallel to Mosiah where the HS happened after the baptism, not before.

Acts 19:3-7, This talks about John's baptism of repentance, belief in Jesus Christ, baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. Again, Mosiah had no repentance attached, nor belief in Jesus, and not in the name of Jesus. Acts also talks about the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost, which did not happen in Mosiah (the Holy Spirit just happened).

Acts 22:16, Talks about the washing away of sins. There was no washing away of sins mentioned in Mosiah.

Like I said, I'm not seeing the parallels. If you could clarify where in Acts you had in mind, we can discuss it.

 

[Tawhano]

Acts 2:37-38, Baptism was performed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and to receive the Holy Ghost. None of which was mentioned in Mosiah (baptized in the name of God, no mention of the remission of sins, and the mention of the Holy Spirit was as a blessing).

You are looking at this as to what parts are not similar and I was looking at it as what parts are similar. They were being baptized into the church the same as in Acts:

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.

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

They were to preach repentance and faith:

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.

Acts 8:13-17, Peter and John prayed for the Holy Ghost and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit in Mosiah just happened and it was not prayed for.

The same happened to them in the upper room, they weren’t praying for anybody to receive the Holy Spirit either.

Acts 8:37-39, Baptism was conditional from believing in Jesus Christ. No conditions of belief were specified in Mosiah. A few verses earlier in Mosiah mentioned "stand as witnesses of God". This verse was talking as if the people were to join the "army of God" is the closest similarity I can come up with. A few verses later talked about "whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church". Again, no conditions mentioned. Baptizing a proselyte had no conditions except the person was subject to, and expected to follow, the Mosaic law.

So they would baptize an unbeliever? Why would an unbeliever want to be baptized into a church he didn’t believe it?

Acts 10:44-48, "The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word" and then they were baptized. This is very much as you mention, the HS is given when God wants to give it. However, there is no parallel to Mosiah where the HS happened after the baptism, not before.

I’m not sure what your point is here? You saying there is no parallel here because the Holy Spirit came after the baptism? What about the verses in Acts where the very same think happens?

Acts 19:3-7, This talks about John's baptism of repentance, belief in Jesus Christ, baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. Again, Mosiah had no repentance attached, nor belief in Jesus, and not in the name of Jesus. Acts also talks about the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost, which did not happen in Mosiah (the Holy Spirit just happened).
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.

Acts 22:16, Talks about the washing away of sins. There was no washing away of sins mentioned in Mosiah.

I see, because they didn’t say it word for word then there is no parallel? What do you think they were being baptised for?

Like I said, I'm not seeing the parallels. If you could clarify where in Acts you had in mind, we can discuss it.

Like I said, it isn’t word for word. Take a look at the responses from the others here. Notice that they see the similarities and have explanations as to why that is. So it isn’t something I’m making up to ‘bash’ those who believe in the BoM.

 

[Aceman1992]

You are looking at this as to what parts are not similar and I was looking at it as what parts are similar. They were being baptized into the church the same as in Acts ... Like I said, it isn’t word for word. Take a look at the responses from the others here. Notice that they see the similarities and have explanations as to why that is. So it isn’t something I’m making up to ‘bash’ those who believe in the BoM.

I'm very interested in this topic and I don't consider it 'bashing', specifically, I'm trying to understand your thinking about how the church began by Alma could only be under the new covenant and could not be under the old covenant. Granted, there are many similarities between Mosiah and Acts. However, the same similarities exist between Mosiah and the OT. The issue that I'm having trouble with is if the same similarities exist between Mosiah, Acts, and the OT, how do we determine which covenant the church started by Mosiah belonged?

I need to explain that when I say "church", I also mean "congregation" as it is used in the OT. The OT uses "congregation of Israel", "congregation of Jacob", and "congregation of the Lord". The word "church" is an artifact of translation and Paul is attributed with making the distinction that causes it to be translated as "church" in the NT. Church (Greek "Ekklesia") is defined as a religious congregation, so the concept of congregation is the same in both the OT and NT and both had members added to them. So, "congregation of the Lord" can be translated as "church of God".

There is a precedent in the BoM that "church" means the same as "congregation" in I Nephi 4:26 [RLDS 1:129] when Nephi was in Jerusalem, "And he supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me."

I was pointing out differences only as a way to prove the opposite of your point (i.e. trying to prove that similarities exist between Mosiah and the OT that are not similarities with Acts). So, do you wish to point out some specifics about similarities that occur between Mosiah and Acts (or the new covenant) that do not occur in the OT? That would be the easiest way to prove your "challenge to identify contradictions between the BoM and the Bible" on this point.

 

[Tawhano]

I was pointing out differences only as a way to prove the opposite of your point

Then why the “I guess I'm not seeing the parallels with Acts” comment?

… I don't consider it 'bashing', specifically…

Specifically eh?

how do we determine which covenant the church started by Mosiah belonged?

Easy, the new covenant was not yet given. You can’t be part of a covenant that hasn’t been given yet.

I'm trying to understand your thinking about how the church began by Alma could only be under the new covenant and could not be under the old covenant.

I’m not saying that, I am saying it couldn’t be under the new covenant but the way in which it records the Holy Spirit being given doesn’t follow the way God gave out the Holy Spirit in those days. The promise God made about the Holy Spirit was that He would change the way He did it when the new covenant replaced the old covenant.

 

[Aceman1992]

I am saying it couldn’t be under the new covenant but the way in which it records the Holy Spirit being given doesn’t follow the way God gave out the Holy Spirit in those days. The promise God made about the Holy Spirit was that He would change the way He did it when the new covenant replaced the old covenant.

I've looked at the various ways the HS was given in the OT and I see nothing out of the ordinary with how the HS is described in Mosiah. Mosiah describes the HS being given after being asked for it. Some parallels that describe the HS being given after being prayed for are in 2 Kings 2:9-10, Judges 3:9-10, and even Jesus described that the HS was given to those that asked, Luke 11:13.

The question still remains; how is it that the events of Pentecost are recorded as happening prior to the prophecy being fulfilled?

If you could expand on your reasoning a bit more regarding how you want your statement to be interpreted, we can discuss it some more.

 

[Tawhano]

Some parallels that describe the HS being given after being prayed for are in 2 Kings 2:9-10, Judges 3:9-10, and even Jesus described that the HS was given to those that asked, Luke 11:13.

2 Kings 2:9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.

Judges 3:9-10 And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim.

Where do you see anybody praying to receive the Holy Spirit?

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

What was the purpose of Jesus on earth; to herald in the New Covenant which is sealed by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Aceman1992]

Judges 3:9-10 And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD...
Where do you see anybody praying to receive the Holy Spirit?

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

What was the purpose of Jesus on earth; to herald in the New Covenant which is sealed by the Holy Spirit?

You don't consider "crying unto the Lord" praying?

With regard to Luke 11:13, do you consider Jesus instructing his disciples what to do after he is gone or what they should have been doing all along, even before he came along? At this point, he had not mentioned that he would have to go away in order to send the HS.

As another example, from:
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=211&letter=W&search=Wisdom%20cosmic

"Wisdom is described as a cosmic principle dwelling on the throne of glory next to God, and as knowing and designing all things (ix. 1, 4, 10), being identical with the creative Word (ix. 1) and the Holy Spirit (ix. 17)."

Now consider this very direct prayer for, and receiving, the Holy Spirit:
[2 Chr 1:8] And Solomon said unto God, Thou hast shewed great mercy unto David my father, and hast made me to reign in his stead.
[2 Chr 1:9] Now, O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude.
[2 Chr 1:10] Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great?
[2 Chr 1:11] And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king:
[2 Chr 1:12] Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.

Replace "wisdom" with "Holy Spirit". You can do this replacement for other occurrences in the OT and the meaning is clear.

From:
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=865&letter=H&search=holy%20spirit#2297

"The doctrine that after the advent of the Messiah the Holy Spirit will be poured out upon all mankind explains the fact that in the New Testament such great importance is assigned to the Holy Spirit...

The inspiration of the Biblical writers is acknowledged in the same way as in rabbinical literature (Matt. xxii. 43; Mark xii. 36; II Peter i. 21). Hence the conception of the Holy Spirit is derived from one and the same source. But as the New Testament writers look upon the Messiah, who is actually identified with the Holy Spirit, as having arrived, their view assumes a form fundamentally different from that of the Jewish view in certain respects..."

I don't know what else to say with regard that the nature of the Holy Spirit was no different before Jesus came as after Pentacost with the exception that the HS is now poured out on Gentiles.

 

[Tawhano]

You don't consider "crying unto the Lord" praying?

They weren’t praying for the Holy Spirit and they weren’t filled with the Holy Spirit.

With regard to Luke 11:13, do you consider Jesus instructing his disciples what to do after he is gone or what they should have been doing all along, even before he came along? At this point, he had not mentioned that he would have to go away in order to send the HS.

It was a prophecy.

Replace "wisdom" with "Holy Spirit". You can do this replacement for other occurrences in the OT and the meaning is clear.

Replacing words with ones you choose to make scripture fit your views is not what I consider scriptural evidence.

I don't know what else to say with regard that the nature of the Holy Spirit was no different before Jesus came as after Pentacost with the exception that the HS is now poured out on Gentiles.

Same here, I’ve posted a lot of scripture before you and I started discussing this to show the difference. Perhaps you can explain why God promised something in the future that he was already doing?

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: