PacMan in quotes-
<<<I don’t find it a good explanation to paint oneself into a corner and then leave it to the mysteries of God. The reason was simply: the apostles had the authority to administer the laying on of hands. I think it’s that’s simple.>>>
Agreed they had the authority to lay on hands. And Peter and John had the other kinds of recognized authority from Jerusalem that came with them in addition to the laying on their hand that was important to convey. And this authority in being from Jerusalem, the capital of the Jews, was something something that Philip did not have.
The ‘extra’ authority of John and Peter can be compared to the kind of authority that the heads of corporations hold when they visit a branch office to enforce a corporate policy. It was at least organizational, it is also cultural, and those kinds of authority are important.
There is little doubt that Philip also had authority to lay hands on people too. Philip lacked certain administrative authority that was held by Peter and John, that all could recognize as tying the Samaritans to the Church in Jerusalam.
And Paul fully being an Apostle, also had authority to lay on hands, and did so, and Paul had the authority to baptize. But Paul did not always go out and baptize, but went out to preach.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:
(on Hebrews 5:4 )
<<<And how was that calling given? A calling is not being sent. >>>
Yes you could draw this distinction, but in Aaron’s case he was called by God face to face and then sent to Moses by God. Again this is recorded in Exodus Chapter 4 where Aaron was called, then sent by a direct command personally from God. Aaron was personally approached by God to perform a task. Just because the word ‘called’ is not used to describe the event of his calling does not change the fact.
Aaron was foreordained for this calling, as we can see the ancestors of his clan also performed in a similar role.
In context to Aaron in Hebrews 7:9-10 " 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Aaron was even called by God before he was born, that is as a son of Levi.
First, I missed that citation. Acts 10:38 says nothing of the Holy Ghost doing the annointing. Well, no more than “power” doing the annointing. Second, the Holy Ghost had nothing to add to Jesus (kind of hard to need something additional if you’re God, right?)
Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost directly while Old Testament Priests, Prophet and Kings were first anointed with oil to gain the benefits of the Spirit of God is a repeating theme.
This direct anointing of Jesus is a massive and consistent Biblical Theme –
Acts 10: 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Luke 4: 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Isaiah 42: 1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,
Matthew 12:18 "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
1 John 2: 24, 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
<<<It was a witness to those in attendance. You’ve completely conflated things. Jesus didn’t need the gift of the Holy Ghost when he had correspondence with the Father. Again, you’ve completely dismissed Numbers and the laying on of hands for Joshua’s ordination, by which his honor was received.
The other problem with your argument is that it completely reduces Hebrews 5 to nonsense. If God just talks to people and calls them, then why reference anything from Aaron? The answer is simple: Because Aaron Levitical priesthood, though changed, still held the appropriate practice and procedure. I don’t understand how that’s debatable.>>>
As I have explained in various ways here the literal practice of anointing by pouring oil on the head was used as a symbolic act for officially, designating and setting apart a person for a certain, public, leadership function in the community. It was a one-time event much like an inauguration or ordination. Things could also be sanctified or dedicated to a special purpose for God by anointing (Exo. 29:36). The three kinds of leaders anointed for their ministries in the Old Testament were: priests, Exo. 28:41; kings, 1 Sam. 10:1; and prophets, 1 Ki. 19:16.
A major difference between Israel and the other nations was that when God had someone anointed or authorized for leadership He also provided the empowering of the Holy Spirit to do the job (1 Sam. 16:13; Isa. 61:1).
As we see in scripture, Jesus had the Holy Ghost decend upon him at baptism. And he was lead by the Spirit. And the scriptures say that He was anointed with the Spirit directly, inferring that oil was not used in order for Him to gain that Spirit.
These are all event witnessed by people so that they would be able to recognize Jesus Christ’s identity as Messiah as The Anointed One.
<<<For the record, the Father is the one that anointed him. Not the Holy Ghost. . >>>
Yes he was anointed with the Holy Ghost by His Father instead of being anointed with oil to get the Holy Ghost by a Priest.
<<<Except when it doesn’t work because of terrible disorder. There are so many “brands” of Christianity that it impossible to say there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” As such, the organization of the early church wasn’t for fun. It was to create a structure upon which people could rely, and was intended to exist until all were “unified in the faith.” You can’t proof-text that away. The fact that there were practices used, it is not left to you to call them “didactic devices.” To so cast them aside as unnecessary is to undermine the Apostles and Prophets chosen by the Lord himself.
I do understand them. But more importantly, I understand their importance in early Christian civilization. The old law had been turned on its head. Gentiles were baptized, and all the laws were summarily reduced to two. There was no reason to adopt the adulterous practices of the pagans or any other culture. The Apostles referencing the past practice in current use was purposeful, meaningful, and you haven’t the authority to wrest the scripture to make any other interpretation.
I must note that your interpretation begs a disastrous slippery slope. To pick and chose what it liked and not, and those things that are not, to simply chalk it up to mysteries of god or cultural uses? That is an adulteration of the scripture.
Funny how our system most closely mirrors that of Christ’s established church, doesn’t it?>>>>
You are making a lot of claims across many topics of discussion, with out any basis or foundation.
Concerning Unconditional Salvation, which zerinus and PacMac say does not exist in Mormonism.
A well-known Mormon author, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, has written,
"...unconditional or general Salvation that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law, consists inthe mere fact of being resurrected.... This kind of salvation eventually will come to all mankind, excepting only the sons ofperdition"
(Mormon Doctrine, pg. 669)
Brigham Young talked about people being damned NOT going to Hell.
"Will all the people be damned who are not Latter-day Saints? Yes, and a great many of them, except they repent speedily. I will say further, that many of the Latter-day Saints, except they learn their lessons better, will be judged in the same way. That is my candid opinion"
(Journal of Discourses 1:339).
Edited by Hick Preacher, 23 November 2010 - 09:32 PM.