339 replies to this topic

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 11:21 AM, said:

What basis, if any, do you have in the text of the book of Acts for this distinction? That is, what in the book of Acts supports your claim that the "gift of the Holy Ghost" that Cornelius and his household received was "the  temporary indwelling gift, not the permanent right to indwelling gift"

Why artificially limit the doctrinal understanding of this issue to what information is available in Acts?

[ELF1024]

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.

Quote

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

Praise the Lord for modern day scriptures and Prophets.

Edited by ELF1024, 24 November 2010 - 12:15 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You asked:

Vance, on 24 November 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

Why artificially limit the doctrinal understanding of this issue to what information is available in Acts?

Do you have any other part of the Bible that refers to the permanent "gift of the Holy Ghost" that you think I am artificially excluding?

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

Vance,

You asked:



Do you have any other part of the Bible that refers to the permanent "gift of the Holy Ghost" that you think I am artificially excluding?

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

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

I had asked if you could demonstrate a "pattern" in the Bible of how one must receive this special gift that you say comes only by the laying on of hands. You replied:


Sorry, I haven't seen any such attempt. To do this, you would need several instances in the Bible of people receiving this gift by the laying on of hands and no examples of people receiving this gift without the laying on of hands.

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.

Edited by zerinus, 24 November 2010 - 02:59 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

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

Vance, on 24 November 2010 - 02:01 PM, said:

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.

zerinus, on 24 November 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

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--

Quote

Quote

<<<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?  

Quote

“…completely stripped the Bible from its meaning"

    Is it that what is really going on in your thinking is that I showed that it does not mean what you have assumbed it means?  

Quote

<<<Be it authority or anointing or laying on of hands, I am stunned that you can chalk it up to cultural or corporate symbolism. I mean, in one breath you mention the importance of apostles coming from Jerusalem, while then agreeing that Paul was authoritative whom wasn’t a Jew at all but a Roman citizen! So if Paul could effectuate ordinances, etc., why couldn’t Phillip? Isn’t it possible that the laying on of hands was to avoid the very problem that plagued the early church; i.e. wondering whether the baptism of John was effective or not? And if so – which it was – you can’t say that it was cultural. It was very, very real and had a very, very substantive purpose.>>>

PacMan you seem to be constantly discounting the value of culture. Human culture plays key roles in God’s plans.  Culture is substantive.  Culture makes it possible for shared languages. People would be running around naked without culture, and they would starve.  If there were no culture, the roads built by Roman would not have been, and then the Gospel could not have been preached widely in the old world. Culture gets people together, provides an economy and on and on.

Culture was commanded of Adam by God in Genesis. Clans, Families, Patriarchal order and on and on are kinds of culture.

Quote

<<<What we know is that there was an organizational hierarchy, and there was a means of giving this authority, and Protestant Christianity has divorced itself from Biblical authority.>>>

Yes there was an organizational hierarchy in Early Christianity. But this seen hierarchy was not exclusive to Christianity. The order and offices of Early Christianity, such as Apostles, Prophets, Bishops, Elders, Deacons…. Pre-existed in offices of other non-Christian and non-Jewish religions and cultures.

http://www.keithhunt.com/Midages8.html



Even the title of ‘Peter”( stone or little rock) as the ‘right-hand man’ of a high religious leader -existed in Persian, Greek and Roman Religions.

Even the ordinances can be seen as existing in other religions and cultures before the time of Christ.

Just as God “took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” And He commanded them "to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it."



Humans have organized families, clans, tribes, governments, softball teams,  and other cultural elements and even the Church.   The organizational structures of the Christian Church are composed of an eclectic collection of components and element borrowed from other pre-exisiting cultures and systems.  As I listed above the offices of Christian Churches have existed in other cultural systems and were borrowed by Christianity.  Again you are confusing cultural elements with the essentials of Christianity.

I recommend:

Quote

<<<It is insincere to suggest that everything you can’t explain, as “cultural,” despite there being an obvious practice that adopted the process of laying on of hands as THE means of giving authority. Heb 5:4 CANNOT be read any other way (go respond in my new thread on the subject).>>>

It is very human to lay hands on other people.  This goes back before Christianity, before the Jewish nation, deep in to the past even in non-Jewish society and is universal to human kind.

http://maya12-21-201...s-share-wisdom/

http://www.renewingy...ine_Healing.htm

Quote

<<<And on the salvation bit, the term has often been sloppily used. Redemption (or Salvation) from death is free to everyone. Salvation (or Redemption) from sin, is not. Both are given through the grace of god, but the second is conditional upon faith and obedience. Don’t perpetuate such an erroneous teaching – particularly since Mormon Doctrine was basically condemned as false doctrine by the church.>>>

So you are saying that Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote a book called “Mormon Doctrine” that is now condemned as false doctrine by the LDS Church?

Here is an LDS teaching about universal salvation again-


In Doctrines of Salvation-

Quote

REDEMPTION: CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL. Conditional redemption is also universal in its nature; it is offered to all but not received by all; it is a universal gift, though not universally accepted; its benefits can be obtained only through faith, repentance, baptism, the laying on of hands, and obedience to all other requirements of the gospel
Unconditional redemption is a gift forced upon mankind which they cannot reject, though they were disposed. Not so with conditional redemption; it can be received or rejected according to the will of the creature.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 10-15:

[LeSellers]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

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

Edited by LeSellers, 24 November 2010 - 06:04 PM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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,

Quote

PacMan you seem to be constantly discounting the value of culture. Human culture plays key roles in God’s plans. Culture is substantive.

That’s false doctrine if I’ve ever heard it.  I don’t understand it as “key.”  But as much as its substantive, you’ve admitted that the cultural practice is substantive.  Which means it can’t be discounted like you’ve attempted to do.

Quote

Culture was commanded of Adam by God in Genesis. Clans, Families, Patriarchal order and on and on are kinds of culture.

Wrong.  The Lord doesn’t look at culture to set up a set of rules.  If the rules establish a culture, so be it.

Quote

As I listed above the offices of Christian Churches have existed in other cultural systems and were borrowed by Christianity.

Again, wrong.  The pagan traditions of the winter solstice didn’t force the Lord to accept or use Christmas.  The pagan idols morphing from Diana and working their way into Christian “culture” as Mary aren’t acceptable by the Lord.  Culture is tangential to the Lord’s rule of law.  He makes the rules, and whether we traditionalize it or not, the culture is the biproduct.  Christianity as people may have borrowed things, but the truth hasn’t.  Dec. 25th has nothing to do with Jesus.  Considering that we’ve corrupted the pagan tradition sufficiently to think higher toward Christ, I think God is fine with it.  But HE didn’t adopt or borrow it!

Quote

It is very human to lay hands on other people. This goes back before Christianity, before the Jewish nation, deep in to the past even in non-Jewish society and is universal to human kind.

I think it makes much more sense that it all had a common source – the truth, and many cultures were lost or otherwise apostatized.  That’s the simplest explanation, versus this innate desire in all of us to aspire to be TSA agents.

Quote

So you are saying that Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote a book called “Mormon Doctrine” that is now condemned as false doctrine by the LDS Church?

Not any particular section, but the book was NOT liked by the leadership of the Church.  That’s why they forced him to put the disclaimer in the front (it may have been the 2nd edition).

Quote

REDEMPTION: CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL. Conditional redemption is also universal in its nature; it is offered to all but not received by all; it is a universal gift, though not universally accepted; its benefits can be obtained only through faith, repentance, baptism, the laying on of hands, and obedience to all other requirements of the gospel
Unconditional redemption is a gift forced upon mankind which they cannot reject, though they were disposed. Not so with conditional redemption; it can be received or rejected according to the will of the creature.

Exactly.  Everyone is redeemed from death.  Not everyone will be saved from sin due to their own decision not to advantage themselves of the Lord’s grace.  Whether one uses redemption or salvation to describe one or the other has no impact on the fact that all are saved from death, but not all are saved from sin.  This is what Joseph Fielding Smith and all the other prophets (including Biblical prophets) have taught.  I don’t know if you’re disputing this, or suggesting we don’t believe it.  If it’s the first, I’ll give you Biblical references to set you straight.  If it is the latter, never, ever hold yourself out as someone that had the faintest of notions regarding LDS teachings.

PacMan

[Zakuska]

ELF1024, on 24 November 2010 - 12:14 PM, said:

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 “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!

Edited by Zakuska, 25 November 2010 - 12:58 AM.

[Zeta-Flux]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

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.

Edited by Zeta-Flux, 25 November 2010 - 10:10 AM.

[Hick Preacher]

upload error-- sorry

Edited by Hick Preacher, 25 November 2010 - 11:50 AM.

[Hick Preacher]

Pacman is substantive-- and he is in quotes.

Quote

<<<That’s false doctrine if I’ve ever heard it. I don’t understand it as “key.” But as much as its substantive, you’ve admitted that the cultural practice is substantive. Which means it can’t be discounted like you’ve attempted to do.>>>

To say culture is ‘substantive’ is not in my usage a statement of “doctrine”. How are you using this word ‘substantive’, and ‘doctrine’?   Here is how I used ‘substantive’.

Quote

sub·stan·tive
1. Having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable

Retrived from the WWW on Nov 25, 2010 http://www.google.co...ved=0CBUQmwMoAA


--------OK------------
To reexplain and elaborate what I mean-

The Laying on of Hands is indeed a cultural and Religious practice of Jews and Christians.  It is deeply rooted in Hebrew culture and religious practices-- and important in the communication of gospel truths.

I think the Gospel is one thing, and Religious practices are vehicles by which the Gospel is transmitted, communicated and preserved.
And many of these Religious vehicles have their roots in humanly designed cultural practices.

Religion is very much interfaced with cultural practices and traditions - and is important--

Quote

religion (plural religions)
1. A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred. [?quotations ?]
2. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to. [?quotations ?]
3. Any ongoing spiritual practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.
4. An ideological and traditional heritage.

Retrived from the WWW on Nov 25, 2010
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

  As I have cited previously and referenced. Laying on of Hands is also a cultural practice in many cultures.

God and His authorized servants use cultural practices as religious vehicles  to communicate the message of the Gospel, and to ordain others to religious service- to put in to action the gospel.

God however, is not bound to those vehicles,or any religion, and is not the servant of those practices or any religion.  But the Gospel itself is directly from God. Christianity often uses religion, but is not confined to any religion.


Quote from Hick:

Quote

Culture was commanded of Adam by God in Genesis. Clans, Families, Patriarchal order and on and on are kinds of culture.

PacMan says-

Quote

<<<Wrong. The Lord doesn’t look at culture to set up a set of rules. If the rules establish a culture, so be it. >>>

Your responses reflect that you do not understand the gest of what I am describing.

So please permit me to  elaborate and explain again in a little different way.



--------------------
  Adam was commanded by God to create what we know as culture.  Those cultural traditions affect how Gospel Truths are represented in a religion.  

Quote

<<<Again, wrong. The pagan traditions of the winter solstice didn’t force the Lord to accept or use Christmas. The pagan idols morphing from Diana and working their way into Christian “culture” as Mary aren’t acceptable by the Lord. Culture is tangential to the Lord’s rule of law. He makes the rules, and whether we traditionalize it or not, the culture is the biproduct. Christianity as people may have borrowed things, but the truth hasn’t. Dec. 25th has nothing to do with Jesus. Considering that we’ve corrupted the pagan tradition sufficiently to think higher toward Christ, I think God is fine with it. But HE didn’t adopt or borrow it! >>>

Again your responses indicate that you to not understand by and large, what I am driving toward.
--- so please permit me to I continue in a new alternative explanation.-------

A certain few Pagan religious traditions have been adapted to teach Gospel truths in some instances. You mention Christmas of December 25th-and that is a pretty good example of a religious adaptation.

December 25th to teach about Christ the risen man-God, in general and His over all significance in our cosmos. --- Three days after winter solstice (December 21-22) can be seen to represent a new beginning, a new age for pagans-- a similitude of  of the overall advent of Christ. December 25th is three days after the lowest point in the cosmos in the Gospel story- his death. December 21-22 is a pagan astrological event, the shortest day, where the sun reaches the lowest point- in the Northern Hemisphere December 21st is the darkest day-of the yearly cycle.  Pagans were familiar with this and had religious practices they understood related to the solar cycles. So Christian leaders adapted the solar cycles used by pagans to communicate Gospel truths—so part of a pagan religion became incorporated into the Christian religion to communicate ideas about the Gospel of Christ.    See the distinction between Gospel truths and a Religious practice.

A Religious Practice that is but one of many possible representations of a given Gospel Truth.  

Winter Soltice would be a pretty good religious adaptation. After all God Himself created the heavens, and the solar cycles. As it is written In PS 19  ‘The heavens declare God’s glory…” (paraphrase)

So it is with the Laying on of Hands to denote the passing of authority.
-------------


Certainly, God would not approve of all cultural-religious practices as being good to be adapted into a religion that taught the Gospel.
Certain cultural practices would not be appropriate to adapt for use to teach about Gospel Principles.  

For example:
God obviously, would not approve of the massive human sacrifices performed by Aztec rites in the place of the Bread and Cup for communion.  It would be counterproductive, inhumane, bombastic, barbaric, confusing and totally inappropriate to try and adapt to the Aztec practice of massive human sacrifice and nature worship, into a rite that the Atonement of Christ,


On the other hand the Apostle Paul in teaching the Gospel of Christ, compared certain features of the Greek pagan religion and Greek religious poetry about  Zeus as a Father-God comparing Zeus to  Jehovah (Acts 17).

So human judgement-- inspired judgement was used by Paul when using a Pagan element to teach Gospel Truths.


So the universal practice seen as a cultural practice in the Middle East, (Laying on of Hands ) that traditionally communicated public tribal/family acceptance.  This practice may have first been applied ritualistically to denote the passing of a birth-rite to a male child. This birth-rite  upgraded the social status of a male child, to become the ‘first born son’- having the social title of Son.  As the clans and tribes grew into a Nation, this rite(Laying on of Hands) in that culture became used to denote the official offices where authority was exercised. These officials included Priests, Kings, Prophets and the like.  These offices of the national culture were analogs to the Sonship of the tribes from which the Nation(Israel) sprang.   Those who become Christians are also  Prophets , Priests, Kings and most significantly the Sons of God.

So it is natural in the development of the cultural expression from the times of old, that the Laying on of Hands would be culturally applied as a traditional didactic communicative aid signifying the Sonship of the Christian convert.  Nevertheless, the Laying on of Hands is NOT what really made the convert a Son, or a Priest, or a King, or a Prophet.

Quote

<<<I think it makes much more sense that it all had a common source – the truth, and many cultures were lost or otherwise apostatized.>>>

There are those who believer  that the Gospel in its fullness existed previously with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham—and others. And that a pattern of Fulness degenerating to Apostasy repeated over and over.

It is true that certain gospel elements even seem to have survived in the cultures of Hopi, and Cherokee. This implies that they were not pagans at some point in the past. Other cultures too.

As to other  pagan cultures of the ancient past having the fullness of the gospel is some past is a huge speculation and even contradicts New Testament teachings.
Eph. 3:3-7

Quote

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Quote

<<<That’s the simplest explanation, versus this innate desire in all of us to aspire to be TSA agents.>>>

I know of nobody that books  expensive flights for the desire of being  searched by the “laying on of rubber gloved hands”.
Likewise I trust that TSA agents are not working their jobs so that they are doing these searches for some kind of personal tactile fulfillment or physical gratification.
On unconditional Salvation

Quote

<<<Not any particular section, but the book was NOT liked by the leadership of the Church. That’s why they forced him to put the disclaimer in the front (it may have been the 2nd edition).
…


Exactly. Everyone is redeemed from death. Not everyone will be saved from sin due to their own decision not to advantage themselves of the Lord’s grace. Whether one uses redemption or salvation to describe one or the other has no impact on the fact that all are saved from death, but not all are saved from sin. This is what Joseph Fielding Smith and all the other prophets (including Biblical prophets) have taught. I don’t know if you’re disputing this, or suggesting we don’t believe it. If it’s the first, I’ll give you Biblical references to set you straight. If it is the latter, never, ever hold yourself out as someone that had the faintest of notions regarding LDS teachings.>>>

OK, it must looks like you all objected because I used McConkie’s word  ‘Unconditional Salvation’ instead of Joseph  Fielding’s word
‘Unconditional Redemption’


Hick-

[PacMan]

Hick,

[quote] To say culture is ‘substantive’ is not in my usage a statement of “doctrine”. How are you using this word ‘substantive’, and ‘doctrine’? Here is how I used ‘substantive’.[/quote]

I am using it most akin to legal terminology that identifies germane or authoritative parties/precedence.  To say its “important” but has no bearing on doctrine is nominal.

[quote] The Laying on of Hands is indeed a cultural and Religious practice of Jews and Christians. It is deeply rooted in Hebrew culture and religious practices-- and important in the communication of gospel truths.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote] I think the Gospel is one thing, and Religious practices are vehicles by which the Gospel is transmitted, communicated and preserved.
And many of these Religious vehicles have their roots in humanly designed cultural practices.[/quote]

Disagree.  I doubt you’d believe that that pop and circumstances found in the Books of Moses were “cultural.”  They were the law.  They were given by God.  I suppose we will have to disagree, but nothing except theorization can conclude that the laying on of hands was anything but God instructed.  The evidence in my mind is overwhelming.  If what you say is true, there’s no reason for Peter to get up in arms about Simon the magician.  Moreover, you have again and again conflated what God told Aaron (go talk to Moses), and how he was called (through Moses).  There is no doubt that Aaron had a testimony from God of his calling.  But the calling was through Moses, because it was Moses whom was the Lord’s chosen.

[quote] As I have cited previously and referenced. Laying on of Hands is also a cultural practice in many cultures.

God and His authorized servants use cultural practices as religious vehicles to communicate the message of the Gospel, and to ordain others to religious service- to put in to action the gospel.[/quote]

Again, what is germane is what God commanded.  I believe he commanded the process.  You don’t.  I cannot accept such an interpretation that simply explains away pattern after pattern of what was clearly authorized by God.  The Lord was involved, its his program, and he set up the laying on of hands.

[quote] So Christian leaders adapted the solar cycles used by pagans to communicate Gospel truths—so part of a pagan religion became incorporated into the Christian religion to communicate ideas about the Gospel of Christ. See the distinction between Gospel truths and a Religious practice.[/quote]

Christian leaders may have, but Constantine and his mother had no authority to do so despite being such “leaders.”  This is exactly my point.  God can be apathetic of certain decisions.  Did he condone the pagan adoption?  Certainly not.  Does it please him that we use it as a reason to proclaim his gospel and be kind to one another?  Certainly so.  But Christmas wasn’t any more commissioned by God than was St. Patrick’s day. Moreover, Paul analogizing with pagan beliefs is different completely than adopting pagan tradition into the functioning of the church.

[quote] So the universal practice seen as a cultural practice in the Middle East, (Laying on of Hands ) that traditionally communicated public tribal/family acceptance. This practice may have first been applied ritualistically to denote the passing of a birth-rite to a male child[/quote]

Or more simply, it could have been the method that God showed Adam to perpetuate the priesthood.

[quote] There are those who believer that the Gospel in its fullness existed previously with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham—and others. And that a pattern of Fulness degenerating to Apostasy repeated over and over.[/quote]

You are conflating authority with the fullness of the gospel.  Considering Christ had not come in the days of Adam, part of the gospel was unfilled.  Indeed, “gospel” as “the good news” referenced Jesus’ atonement, meaning the gospel clearly could not be fulfilled until NT times.  But that does not preclude, in the slightest, any given practice or ordination in earlier times.

[quote] OK, it must looks like you all objected because I used McConkie’s word ‘Unconditional Salvation’ instead of Joseph Fielding’s word ‘Unconditional Redemption’[/qutoe]

Semantics, but the doctrine of death vs. sin is well-established.

Well Hick, I think we’ve come to an end on this one.  I’m happy to go back and forth, but I cannot accept your culture explanation (it has too many holes, and is much too convenient to explain away a practice that was clearly referenced in Heb 5:4).  I believe the evidence is overwhelming.  You don’t.  I’m content to let the readers that are following come to their own conclusion.  If you respond, I will likely as well.  But assuming not, Happy Turkey Day (a cultural celebration that is attenuated to the religious practice of the puritans, which was not given by god or adopted in analog, but stemmed from a complete accident when the Native Americans showed up uninvited to dinner because something smelled good).

Cheers,
PacMan

[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 “bring near to you Aaron…”  There’s an explicit proximity connection with both, although the record is more definite that the commandment regarding Joshua referred to the laying on of hands.

So, the question is, where’s your commonality that makes both Aaron and Joshua equally efficacious?


PacMan

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

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!!!

Edited by Vance, 25 November 2010 - 06:13 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

PacMan in quotes <<<>>>

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

Quote

<<<Disagree. I doubt you’d believe that that pop and circumstances found in the Books of Moses were “cultural.” They were the law. They were given by God.>>>

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’s verbal methods of communication set to writing.   The language we have today is English which is a product of a different culture-- the  European Culture. English uses different forms of verbal and written communication than the original language and writings of the Law of the Hebrews.   English communicates to us today the semantics in verbal form of the Books of Moses and its Law-- NOT the very same words of the Law as it was originally given.  What counts is the meaning of the message of those ancient scriptures, not the very ancient words in Hebrew.

---Likewise----
Laying on of Hands is also a kind of language, it communicates meaning in a non-verbal form.   What counts is the meaning and content of the message, not the form in which it is transmitted. So what counts is the meaning of the message, NOT the Laying on of Hands itself.

Quote

<<I suppose we will have to disagree, but nothing except theorization can conclude that the laying on of hands was anything but God instructed. The evidence in my mind is overwhelming. If what you say is true, there’s no reason for Peter to get up in arms about Simon the magician.>>

This does not make sense Simon the Magician, sought to transgress the intent of the message within the Laying on of Hands.


Moreover, you have again and again conflated what God told Aaron (go talk to Moses), and how he was called (through Moses). There is no doubt that Aaron had a testimony from God of his calling. But the calling was through Moses, because it was Moses whom was the Lord’s chosen.

I do not see the above scenario you propose in the Book of Exodus.
Instead, Exodus  says that God told Moses to use Aaron as his mouth piece. Then God talked to Aaron directly, and commanded Aaron to report to Moses. So Aaron complied and reported to Moses.


God and His authorized servants use cultural practices as religious vehicles to communicate the message of the Gospel, and to ordain others to religious service- to put in to action the gospel.

Quote

Again, what is germane is what God commanded. I believe he commanded the process. You don’t. I cannot accept such an interpretation that simply explains away pattern after pattern of what was clearly authorized by God. The Lord was involved, its his program, and he set up the laying on of hands.

I agree that God is involved in human cultures at various levels and degrees.
God commanded that men use communicative methods to transmit the gospel among humans upon the Earth.  This preserves the message in this temporal sphere. This of course involves the Laying on of Hands.
--- and on top of this temporal sphere of human communication--
God also contacts, commissions, and ordains humans directly from above sending the Holy Ghost as His messenger. God is able to call, and ordain men directly.



Quote by Hick
So Christian leaders adapted the solar cycles used by pagans to communicate Gospel truths—so part of a pagan religion became incorporated into the Christian religion to communicate ideas about the Gospel of Christ. See the distinction between Gospel truths and a Religious practice.

Quote

<<<Christian leaders may have, but Constantine and his mother had no authority to do so despite being such “leaders.” This is exactly my point. God can be apathetic of certain decisions. Did he condone the pagan adoption? Certainly not. Does it please him that we use it as a reason to proclaim his gospel and be kind to one another? Certainly so. But Christmas wasn’t any more commissioned by God than was St. Patrick’s day. Moreover, Paul analogizing pagan with beliefs is different completely than adopting pagan tradition into the functioning of the church.>>>

In our world Christmas is far more significant than St. Patrick’s Day.  St. Patrick’s Day was much more significant in times before the masses of people could read or write, or have scriptures to read on their own.  It taught people virtues associated with Christian ethics and good works.

In our era Christmas is sometimes the only witness of Christ in certain people’s lives. Millions of people are completely unchurched, are reminded of Jesus Christ because of Christmas. This reminder is an important witness to these masses of the reality of the life and ministry of Christ.  How in the world could you compare Christmas  a day that celebrates the birth of Christ to  St.Patrick’s Day in our current world setting? At Christmas time, mass media sponcers thousands if not millions of songs and television dramas depicting the birth and life of Christ.  Christmas is significant as a witness for Christ.

I elaborated about Christmas in my previous post because you mentioned it before hand as being pagan.  I did not propose that it was commissioned from God, rather I illustrated how men have used  Christmas to point to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  I find it strange that you would imply that I claimed it was commissioned directly from God.  Also I would not claim that Christmas is a communicative  tool with similar purpose or utility of Laying on of Hand in ancient Jewish tradition. Laying on of Hands is useful for the transmitting ruling authority from Fathers to Sons, an ordaining rulers, prophets, and priests. Christmas does not have a similar utility or purpose.  I have already made commentary about the depth of the tradition of Laying on of Hands, as it goes back even into the bronze age era of the Middle East to preserve social order in Israel.    The existence, social order and growth of Israel was critical to the mission of Christ. The Nation of Israel set the stage for the coming forth of the Messiah. In order for Israel to function and survive, it needed Earthly methods of succession of ruler ship, a class of Temple Priests, and its prophets. These served a public function, and public ordinations are served well for all using formal rites, including the Laying on of Hands.  



On Laying on of Hands

Quote

<<<Or more simply, it could have been the method that God showed Adam to perpetuate the priesthood.>>>

“The Priesthood” you mention, is not the kind of priesthood described in the Old Testament.  This LDS priesthood idea is highly speculative from a historical or cultural view of the Old Testament.

Laying on of Hands was indeed a method of representing the succession from generation to generation where ruler ship was passed by way of inheritance from father to son, to make ruler/sons.

Inheritance in this manner created vertical lines or a tree of succession with branches in a vertical dimension. This seems to be why the sons of Levi as a tribal or family unit were chosen as Priests. This kind of inheritance is easier to manage and regulate organizationally as opposed to letting all peoples be priests.

The Holy Ghost coming upon believers also makes the recipients ruler/sons  has created a different social pattern of rules and sons that goes beyond just one tribe of priests, or family line of rulers. This Holy Ghost manner of receiving honors from God differs because we see not only vertical inheritance, but also horizontal propagation of masses who are not only from vertical lines of succession.  Propagation creates lines of unity across the vertical lines of family/ tribal inheritance.  This horizontal organizational pattern of propagation (as opposed to vertical inheritance) of priests and kings is evident as prophesied in Exodus and Isaiah and seen at work as fulfilled in many New Testament descriptions of priests and kings being profuse in the Christian Church in an organized horizontal structure of sons of God.  This suggests different mechanisms were at play in people receiving an inheritance from God, becoming Sons, Priests, Kings and Prophets of God.

Examples--

Quote

Exodus 19:6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

Isaiah 61:6 And you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God. You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast.

Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship.

Romans 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Galatians 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Hebrews 13:15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name.

Ephesians 2: 20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God;

Revelation 1:6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

<

Quote

Quote

<You are conflating authority with the fullness of the gospel. Considering Christ had not come in the days of Adam, part of the gospel was unfilled. Indeed, “gospel” as “the good news” referenced Jesus’ atonement, meaning the gospel clearly could not be fulfilled until NT times. But that does not preclude, in the slightest, any given practice or ordination in earlier times.>>>

Yes there were standard practices of Hebrew Priesthood ordination in the theocracy system of Israel.  This created a kind of pattern or sub society of priesthood in the Nation of Israel. The Christian Church however seems to show a different pattern in its population of priests, and Sons of God. This suggests ordinations were coming from above directly from God-- not from succession by Laying on of Hands.  A society where everyone is a priest and son, creates a huge management load. This system of management would have to be represented by a very complex bureaucratic system in the church, similar to the tiers and levels seen today in the LDS church. Yet we do not see such a bureaucracy in the New Testament.
I believe this is because the Holy Ghost provided the management from above, coordinating all the believes in unison in this priesthood of all believers.

Quote

<<<Well Hick, I think we’ve come to an end on this one. I’m happy to go back and forth, but I cannot accept your culture explanation (it has too many holes, and is much too convenient to explain away a practice that was clearly referenced in Heb 5:4). I believe the evidence is overwhelming. You don’t. I’m content to let the readers that are following come to their own conclusion. If you respond, I will likely as well. But assuming not, Happy Turkey Day (a cultural celebration that is attenuated to the religious practice of the puritans, which was not given by god or adopted in analog, but stemmed from a complete accident when the Native Americans showed up uninvited to dinner because something smelled good).>>>

Happy Thanksgiving to you also PacMan

[PacMan]

Hick,

Quote

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’s verbal methods of communication set to writing. The language we have today is English which is a product of a different culture-- the European Culture. English uses different forms of verbal and written communication than the original language and writings of the Law of the Hebrews. English communicates to us today the semantics in verbal form of the Books of Moses and its Law-- NOT the very same words of the Law as it was originally given. What counts is the meaning of the message of those ancient scriptures, not the very ancient words in Hebrew.

Look: I speak four languages, and I can tell you that when it comes to language, you don’t know what you’re talking about.  If God tells the Hebrews to perform certain acts, you can’t with a straight face call it linguistic.  It doesn’t matter which language it is – if God commanded the act, then the act isn’t cultural but law.  Your dancing around the issue is appearing very disingenuous, and your attempt to conveniently strip scripture you don’t like as cultural unnecessity due to linguistic distinctions is flat wrong.  You’re making it up as you go, and I’m calling you on it!

Quote

Laying on of Hands is also a kind of language, it communicates meaning in a non-verbal form. What counts is the meaning and content of the message, not the form in which it is transmitted. So what counts is the meaning of the message, NOT the Laying on of Hands itself.

Unless God commanded it, which he obviously did.  What flexibility to be able to disobey because God didn’t tell you to do something in YOUR language!  What presumptuousness!

Quote

This does not make sense Simon the Magician, sought to transgress the intent of the message within the Laying on of Hands.

Nice of Peter to not set him straight on the doctrinal issue, eh?

Quote

Instead, Exodus says that God told Moses to use Aaron as his mouth piece. Then God talked to Aaron directly, and commanded Aaron to report to Moses. So Aaron complied and reported to Moses.

But the authority was Moses!

Quote

God also contacts, commissions, and ordains humans directly from above sending the Holy Ghost as His messenger. God is able to call, and ordain men directly.

You may wish he did, but nothing in the text suggests such.  All members of the early church were baptized by one with authority – hence the confusion with the baptism of John.  Having not received such a baptism, we needn’t consider your authority from the Holy Ghost.  You aren’t even part of the body of Christ, and then certainly can’t be a minister in it.

Quote

In our era Christmas is sometimes the only witness of Christ in certain people’s lives.

I didn’t say that it was bad, today.  I said it wasn’t ordained by God.  It was based on paganism and lies.  Something positive came from it after hundreds of years.  But God didn’t start the culture of Christmas.

I need to apologize, but I see little reason to respond further.  It’s just going in circles, and I completely reject your explanations.  I do not believe they are biblical, if I concede they make sense in the first place.  We will have to agree to disagree, but being in a profession where I have to consider precedence in order to adjudicate what the law really means, I can objectively say that the weight of authority does not support your position.  You disagree, fine.  But what is indisputable is that the Bible does NOT provide the clarity to solve many of these differences definitively.  That in and of itself necessitates Prophets and Apostles, as promised in Eph., to guide us through the quagmire.  So not only do you fail in the first instance of showing that it is indisputably clear, but fail in providing the safety valve promised in scripture.  As such, you and your congregation are 'tossed to and fro.'  Necessarily, your belief cannot, therefore, be correct.  Not meant to offend, but I'm just being honest.

PacMan