Pacman in quotes
<<<That’s not what the text says. They were called because they had yet to receive the Holy Ghost. By acknowledging that the problem would have been with Samaritan baptism, which was authorized to be effectuated by Philip, its meaningless to bring the Apostles to do something that, according to you (presumably) could have simply been "received." Moreover, it sure seems that an Epistle would have been a much more efficient means of getting to what you believe was the crux of the issue. And I have to reject that, because its not supported by the text and makes the Apostles out to be hustling con-men playing the show.>>>
Yes of course as I discussed above, they had not yet received the Holy Ghost. God knowing all things withheld the Gift until Peter and John arrived.
When we look at Acts 10:44 Peter was present, and the Gentiles hearing the message of the gospel, received the Holy Ghost.
Then read the BOOK of Hebrews. I find it interesting that you skipped the explicit language in Heb 5:4 and the cross-cite to Numbers. In this case, there's no "this is just one possibility..." Rather, it was the "only way" to transfer authority.
Hebrews 5:4 reads- 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Notice the word CALLED
Aaron was CALLED
directly and personally by Jehovah God. As it is written:
Ex 4:27 And the LORD said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.
Ex 4:28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him.
This only way is to have God do the CALLING
This only way is not about some outward signs, or religious rituals.
Aaron was anointed with Oil, but Jesus being called as in Hebrews 5:4 was anointed by the Holy Ghost. Aaron had hands laid upon him for an ordination, but Jesus had the Holy Ghost descend upon him in the form of a dove.
In the text at Acts 10:38 Peter preaches this very thing, that Jesus was anointed by the Holy Ghost and with power, then in Acts 10:44 the very same thing happens to the Gentiles who heard and believed.
The kings, priests and prophets of the Old Testament were anointed with oil and most always only afterwards did they receive Power through the Holy Spirit that came upon them. Jesus on the other hand, was anointed because the Holy Spirit had come upon Him. Jesus was ‘the anointed one’ – ‘the Christ’ in that manner. This is why Jesus is The Christ. This is why Christians have accepted the nick-name “Christian’.
<<<Really? Where’s it say it was simply a type? In fact, I reject it completely! There’s nothing to signify such. Hebrews 5:1 doesn’t make it past tense, hence “is ordained.” It considers high priest ordinations in the present - just look at the Greek. There’s no reason to believe that such ordinations stopped, particularly since ministers (including Apostles) continued to be called after Christ had come and gone. Moreover, if you look at the early Christian history, the ordinations had continued long after. It was a practice. You can say it was pointless, but it was a practice that was ingrained in the early Christian society. Your sweeping dismissal of not only scripture but early Christian practice is astounding! And for what? A hunch?! You have nothing to support this claim.>>>
Yes Christians today are anointed by the Holy Ghost. And it can happen through a process that physically reflects that of the Ancient Hebrews, and some ancient Christians. Or it can happen without those outward rites.
You seem to be confusing the difference between the essentials of how God works, and how cultures use didactic devices to communicate God’s message. You seem to think that God's plan and will for humanity will fall apart unless only one kind of formula is in place. The Holy Ghost is God, and can well choose and is able to operate the affairs of the Church in His own orderly way, weather we know how it is working or not.
Your thinking mistakes the meaning of
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,...
<<<Then it means, well, nothing. It’s a warm fuzzy. And the fact is that Simon wanted the power to thus give the power and was rebuked for it. If he was just a good Christian boy (which he was at that point having been baptized), what stopped him from getting it? Why didn’t Peter tell him “Yeah, God will just give it to you sometime and its up to you to say you got it.” No! The effect of your position completely stripes the bible narrative of any meaning! And might I say, that the difference between Simon and any orthodox Christian is at best, nominal. If a Christian today can simply receive it, then there’s nothing to say that Simon couldn’t either.>>>
I would not say a Christian receiving an anointing from God is some kind of casual or cheap occurrence.
From your comments, it would seem that you do not have a fundamental idea the roles and functions of rituals and ceremony in religious systems, culture and the development of human civilizations.
<<And Hebrews 5:4 makes it clear that for an ordination, it is necessary! The reason is simple: ordinations are not solely due to faith. Once called, its faith that makes himself chosen. But the calling must come from God first.>>>
Hebrews 5:4 is about being CALLED of God directly. It is not about the physical mechanical, or cultural practices, or religious rituals of an ordination, where a social gestures and public declarations are made so all are aware of the reality that a person has been called commissioned and ordained of God.
<<<THAT is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what is the necessary practice for our purposes. It must be received by the laying on of hands (unless God makes the exception). And unless you have someone with demonstrable authority to speak for God and proffer the exception, the practice stands.>>>
Again you have confused the essentials of Christianity with a Christian Culture. The necessity will depend on the nature of how the message of the gospel is presented in a given culture. Rituals are a form of non-verbal communication. For example if a culture does not have sufficient verbal mechanisms to communicate the gospel in written forms, then a ritualistic version could serve as a subsitute.
<<<That is order as demonstrated by the bible. On a related but tangential note, I am stunned by orthodox Christianity that seem to believe that God left his church to a grass-roots effort. Nonsense. Sure, he lets us mess stuff up to a point, but the purpose of apostles and prophets is to stop us from being “tossed to and from and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men.” (Eph 4:14). To leave the practice of important ordinances to the esoteric interpretations of men if fallacy, and this includes theatric revivals of a disgustingly false nature that pretend themselves having the gifts of the spirit and speaking in tongues without the sense of knowledge that such “gifts” completely contradict the bible. There MUST be an organization to guide the honest seeker so they know where to turn, and that requires authoritative men ordained by the laying on of hands “till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.” (Eph. 4:13). We aint there yet, and the logic is irrefutable.>>>
It has always been obvious that Mormonism as a system and culture needs to have its Priesthoods, its succession and ordinances in order to communicate its religious message and function in its other capacities.
Mormonism is one of those religions that relies heavily on its Priesthoods and ritual.
Other systems however have other communicative devices, such as preaching, creeds and other traditions, to transfer, impart, and teach sacred information, and put its ideas to work in the world.
Edited by Hick Preacher, 23 November 2010 - 12:24 AM.