The Only Priesthood

[Jason]

Would Christ be "condemning" people who were sincere?

Does the scripture say anything about whether they are sincere or not?

[Jason]

...in fact shows that we have one high priest right now, Jesus Christ, who did not attain that office by an act of human ordination.

Are you sure no human being ordained him?

[Rob Bowman]

Jason,

Context, context, context.

On Matthew 7:21-23, Gospel Principles claims that Jesus was saying merely that the most sincere Christians are through no fault of their own unauthorized to perform baptism or other Christian ordinances because they lack the priesthood. But in Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus was condemning people for their wickedness and disowning them. Can false prophets who claim to perform miracles but are disowned by Jesus really be described as sincere Christians?

On Hebrews 5:4-5, the claim that no one can hold a priesthood unless he has human hands laid on him simply is not supported by the text. I didn't cite this text to prove my view; I am responding to LDS misuse of this text. And in this text, the only "ordination" Jesus receives is when the Father declares that Jesus is his Son and thus the rightful King and High Priest.

Stop trying to find a loophole to escape the problems and start facing them squarely.

[Thunderfire]

If a man does not have the priesthood, even though he may be sincere, the Lord will not recognize ordinances he performs (see Matthew 7:21-23). These important ordinances must be performed on the earth by men holding the priesthood.

So what am I missing?

In my opinion, when we look at some of the other scriptures we have, a different interpretation is found. In this section of Matthew we find people doing the work typically associated with priesthood, achieving the same results. Yet Jesus says, "I never knew you." This is VERY important!

Now apply this to latter day revelation where the Lord says, "But behold, verily I say unto you. There are many who have been ordained among you, whom I have called, but few of them are chosen; they who are not chosen have sinned a very grevious sin, in that they are walking in darkness at noonday; and for this cause, I give unto you a commandment, that you should call your solemn assembly..." (Doctrine and Covenants 92:1de rlds/ LDS 95)

So now apply this back to the Matthew verse. Many people are called and here we find that they were even speaking prophecy "in his name" and doing many other miracles "in his name", yet Jesus still said, "I never knew you..."

We may be seeing here what happens when some are in fact given authority, but due to the darkness they walk in they may still be doing "work", but the Lord doesn't know them. This is most likely due to the people saying the name of the Lord, but they are actually doing the work for their glory. Not a good thing to do.

But this is not for "others" outside of the church when the Lord as specifically speaking to those in the church (many are called, but few chosen). In my opinion, we should be less concerned with "others" and more concerned if we are walking in the light or the darkness.

[Jason]

Context, context, context.

Yes, but content too.

On Matthew 7:21-23, Gospel Principles claims that Jesus was saying merely that the most sincere Christians are through no fault of their own unauthorized to perform baptism or other Christian ordinances because they lack the priesthood.

I'm not sure that is what Gospel Principles claims. Citing a scripture doesn't mean "this is what the scripture says" but rather, "this is some of the scriptural support for what we are saying".

Can false prophets who claim to perform miracles but are disowned by Jesus really be described as sincere Christians?

I don't know. The text doesn't seem to say whether they were sincere or not, and it certainly doesn't provide a definition of what a "sincere Christian" would be.

And in this text, the only "ordination" Jesus receives is when the Father declares that Jesus is his Son and thus the rightful King and High Priest.

Are you sure this is the only ordination that Jesus received? He was baptized by John, after all.

Stop trying to find a loophole to escape the problems and start facing them squarely.

Stop trying blame the Church for mis-using texts that they are using correctly.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

I specifically did not say that Aaron did not have someone (such as Moses) ordain him. This isn't the issue. I am not criticizing ordination. I am criticizing the claim that Hebrews 5:4 proves that only those ordained (by laying on of hands by a human being) with a priesthood can perform Christian ordinances like baptism. Hebrews 5:4 does not say any such thing, and in fact shows that we have one high priest right now, Jesus Christ, who did not attain that office by an act of human ordination.

Weather or not Jesus had hands laid on him is irrelevant for you nor I are Jesus. If some one claims that office of a preist they must be called of God as was Aaron for that is what the text claim. And I disagree that the text or context tells us that (you are inferring it) that Jesus is the only or last high priest. If that is the case why did the author of Hebrews include a superfluous part about being called as was Aaron?

It was not my argument that the text specifically stated that one must have priesthood authority to perform baptism. What the text states is that if one wants to be a priest (Priests, traditional, offciated in the temple sacred ordinances) one needs to be called of God as was Aaron. A person can't just say "I feel like God called me to be a priest" and think that he has any authority from God to be a priest and perform in ordiances. Traditionally only priests could offciate ordinances tell me, when did that change?

[Vance]

Frankly, it is obnoxious, . . .

Yes, the truth is often obnoxious to you.

. . . as well as erroneous, . . .

And you too often claim the truth to be erroneous. So?

for the LDS Church to apply Jesus

[Vance]

Mormons use this text to support their claim that in order to perform baptisms or other Christian ordinances, a person must "hold the priesthood" . . .

Technically not quite accurate. The principle comes from REVELATION not from these verses in the Bible. Personally I find other verses that support this principle much better than the one in Matt.

So?

The principle is still TRUE!!!!

. . . The by having a human being lay hands on him.

I don't know where you got this one, BUT it isn't an accurate representation of Mormon doctrine either.

The requirement is stated quite clear in the other reference provided. I don't understand why you continually misrepresent such clear statements. But I am not shocked by your misrepresentation. It is such a common occurance.

Once again, though, just reading the text in context should be enough to show that this is a misuse of the text:

No, it isn't a MISuse of the text.

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee" (Heb. 5:1-5).

Notice the tense of the verbs used in those passages!

Notice that they are not past tense!

Again, just pay attention to what the text does and does not say:

YES INDEED!!

Thus, it is a misuse of this passage to prove that Christians cannot perform Christian ordinances without the LDS priesthood.

No, it isn't a misuse at all. This passage is quite clear what the requirements ARE for reception of the priesthood.

The text simply doesn't teach this idea.

When properly understood, it does.

If you want to insist on this claim, you will have to support it from other scriptures; it isn't here.

Well it is supported here AND in other scriptures. But once again, this principle comes to us by REVELATION!

Note: You can see Act 19 for clear support for the need of proper authority needed to perform baptism for them to count.

[Vance]

On Matthew 7:21-23, Gospel Principles claims that Jesus was saying merely that the most sincere Christians are through no fault of their own unauthorized to perform baptism or other Christian ordinances because they lack the priesthood.

Rob,

Let's be clear on what Gospel Principles is REALLY claiming.

We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing the sacred ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and temple marriage. If a man does not have the priesthood, even though he may be sincere, the Lord will not recognize ordinances he performs (see Matthew 7:21

[Rob Bowman]

Jason,

You wrote:

Yes, but content too.

Of course; but you have provided no evidence from the content or the context to support your criticism of my argument.

You wrote:

I'm not sure that is what Gospel Principles claims. Citing a scripture doesn't mean "this is what the scripture says" but rather, "this is some of the scriptural support for what we are saying".

But the problem is that there is nothing in Matthew 7:21-23 that supports any aspect of the point that Gospel Principles makes.

You wrote:

Stop trying blame the Church for mis-using texts that they are using correctly.

Parroting back my words is not an answer to the argument I presented.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Weather or not Jesus had hands laid on him is irrelevant for you nor I are Jesus. If some one claims that office of a preist they must be called of God as was Aaron for that is what the text claim. And I disagree that the text or context tells us that (you are inferring it) that Jesus is the only or last high priest. If that is the case why did the author of Hebrews include a superfluous part about being called as was Aaron?

Please just read Hebrews 5. You will find that the text says absolutely nothing about Christian priests. Its only concern is with the priesthood that Christ holds.

You wrote:

It was not my argument that the text specifically stated that one must have priesthood authority to perform baptism.

That is the LDS claim, though. Is Hebrews 5:4 relevant to this claim, or not?

You wrote:

What the text states is that if one wants to be a priest (Priests, traditional, offciated in the temple sacred ordinances) one needs to be called of God as was Aaron. A person can't just say "I feel like God called me to be a priest" and think that he has any authority from God to be a priest and perform in ordiances. Traditionally only priests could offciate ordinances tell me, when did that change?

There is no biblical text that mandates that only priests can officiate "ordinances." Only priests could officiate sacrificial offerings in the temple. To broaden this point into a generalized principle about "ordinances" is unjustifiable.

The fact is that there is no office of priest in the Christian church, as far as the NT is concerned.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Regarding Hebrews 5:1-5, you wrote:

Notice the tense of the verbs used in those passages! Notice that they are not past tense!

Of course. That is because when the author was writing, the Jews still had high priests functioning in the Jerusalem temple, which had not yet been destroyed. But this has nothing to do with offices in the Christian church.

[Jason]

Of course; but you have provided no evidence from the content or the context to support your criticism of my argument.

You basically said that you didn't know why Jesus was condemning these individuals in this passage, and presented a few options. Since you don't know what is the proper reading of the passage you can't definitely say that the Church has it wrong.

But the problem is that there is nothing in Matthew 7:21-23 that supports any aspect of the point that Gospel Principles makes.

Yes there is, if you accept that Jesus is condemning these individuals in part at least for attempting to act as if they had the priesthood without having it.

Parroting back my words is not an answer to the argument I presented.

You are correct. It is just as helpful as the phrase you wrote that I parroted, which is to say not at all.

[Rob Bowman]

Jason,

You wrote:

You basically said that you didn't know why Jesus was condemning these individuals in this passage, and presented a few options. Since you don't know what is the proper reading of the passage you can't definitely say that the Church has it wrong.

I said nothing of the kind. Jesus condemned them because their profession of being his disciples was a sham. They based their claim to be his disciples on supposed supernatural manifestations instead of on doing what he actually taught his disciples to do. In the context, the people he rejects are false prophets (Matt. 7:15-20). The only thing about which I was uncertain was the specific works of lawlessness that they committed, and that is not uncertainty in the exegesis of the text but simply respect for the fact that Jesus' language is deliberately general. That is, Jesus' warning applies to all false prophets regardless of the specific wicked things they do.

I wrote: "But the problem is that there is nothing in Matthew 7:21-23 that supports any aspect of the point that Gospel Principles makes." You replied:

Yes there is, if you accept that Jesus is condemning these individuals in part at least for attempting to act as if they had the priesthood without having it.

In other words, the passage supports your position if we assume that it supports your position. Does the term "begging the question" mean anything to you?

[Jason]

I said nothing of the kind.

Of course you didn't say that you didn't know why they were being condemned - but that was the import of your comments.

Jesus condemned them because their profession of being his disciples was a sham. They based their claim to be his disciples on supposed supernatural manifestations instead of on doing what he actually taught his disciples to do. In the context, the people he rejects are false prophets (Matt. 7:15-20).

Would that make the apostles, who had done these things, true prophets? And wouldn't that argue against Jesus being the last true prophet, since the apostles continued to do such actions after his departure? And doesn't this same passage (Matt. 7:15-20) provide a test for finding a true prophet as well as detecting the false ones? If a new prophet produces good works, won't we know him to be true?

The only thing about which I was uncertain was the specific works of lawlessness that they committed, and that is not uncertainty in the exegesis of the text but simply respect for the fact that Jesus' language is deliberately general. That is, Jesus' warning applies to all false prophets regardless of the specific wicked things they do.

Isn't the offense in the passage itself - claiming to act in his name when they were not in fact doing so? Saying "Lord, we have acted in your name" when in fact he never knew (or called) them?

In other words, the passage supports your position if we assume that it supports your position. Does the term "begging the question" mean anything to you?

I see no reason to suppose that it does not support my position.

[Rob Bowman]

Jason,

You wrote:

Of course you didn't say that you didn't know why they were being condemned - but that was the import of your comments.

Incorrect, as I already explained. I note that your reply makes no response to my explanation. I must assume, then, that I successfully defended my point that you had misconstrued my comments.

I wrote: "Jesus condemned them because their profession of being his disciples was a sham. They based their claim to be his disciples on supposed supernatural manifestations instead of on doing what he actually taught his disciples to do. In the context, the people he rejects are false prophets (Matt. 7:15-20)." You replied:

Would that make the apostles, who had done these things, true prophets? And wouldn't that argue against Jesus being the last true prophet, since the apostles continued to do such actions after his departure?

I don't think you're following my argument at all. I didn't say that doing miracles was a bad thing. I said that people who claim to be prophets (not just disciples) on the basis of their alleged supernatural works but who fail to do what Jesus actually taught are false prophets.

You wrote:

And doesn't this same passage (Matt. 7:15-20) provide a test for finding a true prophet as well as detecting the false ones? If a new prophet produces good works, won't we know him to be true?

"Good works" are a test--not the only test--of a prophet's claims, unless you broaden "works" to include what the alleged prophet teaches. Then yes, if the prophet produces good works, we would have good reason to accept him as a true prophet. Unfortunately, I don't know of any such prophets living in the past several centuries.

You wrote:

Isn't the offense in the passage itself - claiming to act in his name when they were not in fact doing so? Saying "Lord, we have acted in your name" when in fact he never knew (or called) them?

No. This isn't a practical or meaningful understanding of what Jesus is saying in context. Jesus is not telling these people, "Look, I know you really did speak true prophecies that came to pass, genuinely cast demons out of people, and did other miracles. Those are all really good things you did. I can't fault what you did or what you taught. Unfortunately for you, though, I never actually gave you authorization to do those things. So when you did all those good things and performed those true miracles, including miracles that delivered people from demonic control, you were actually being wicked, lawless people." No, that isn't right, and it simply doesn't fit the wording or the context. Jesus is condemning people whose works were bad, not whose works were good but unauthorized.

[Jason]

Incorrect, as I already explained. I note that your reply makes no response to my explanation. I must assume, then, that I successfully defended my point that you had misconstrued my comments.

Uh, which point was that again?

I don't think you're following my argument at all.

I'm pointing out possible problems with using this second passage of scripture that you may not have considered.

"Good works" are a test--not the only test--of a prophet's claims, unless you broaden "works" to include what the alleged prophet teaches. Then yes, if the prophet produces good works, we would have good reason to accept him as a true prophet. Unfortunately, I don't know of any such prophets living in the past several centuries.

Perhaps you haven't looked hard enough then. I know of at least 16.

No. This isn't a practical or meaningful understanding of what Jesus is saying in context. Jesus is not telling these people, "Look, I know you really did speak true prophecies that came to pass, genuinely cast demons out of people, and did other miracles. Those are all really good things you did. I can't fault what you did or what you taught. Unfortunately for you, though, I never actually gave you authorization to do those things. So when you did all those good things and performed those true miracles, including miracles that delivered people from demonic control, you were actually being wicked, lawless people." No, that isn't right, and it simply doesn't fit the wording or the context. Jesus is condemning people whose works were bad, not whose works were good but unauthorized.

That's a very nice strawman you've built there. It has little to do with what I was saying, however.

[Vance]

Vance,

Regarding Hebrews 5:1-5, you wrote:

Of course. That is because when the author was writing, the Jews still had high priests functioning in the Jerusalem temple, which had not yet been destroyed. But this has nothing to do with offices in the Christian church.

Well, of course THAT is what you are going to presuppose.

So, an early Christian author is describing the then current and continuing calling of priest/high priests from among men, without any distinction between this practice (which would no longer be valid because of your claimed priesthood of all believers) and your claimed priesthood of all believers?

The author is distinguishing the difference between how Christ was called and authorized and how these priest/high priests are called and authorized and he fails to mention that these priests/high priests are no longer valid positions in the kingdom?

And you expect this pathetically weak argument to sway anyone, other than the sycophants and sheeple of IRR?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I see you've decided that the "sycophants of IRR" smear works for you.

All one needs to do to know that the Aaronic priesthood system was outmoded was to keep reading through Hebrews 5 to Hebrews 6, 7, and 8, and the point will be abundantly clear. Of course, those who use the Joseph Smith method of Bible reading will feel free to "fix" any verses that don't fit one's doctrine. My online articles responding to Gospel Principles chapters 13 and 14 (see here) explain in detail why the LDS priesthoods are contrary to the teaching of Hebrews. And also see my article on Hebrews and the JST.

[Vance]

But the problem is that there is nothing in Matthew 7:21-23 that supports any aspect of the point that Gospel Principles makes.

In the context which includes the reference to A of F 1:5, Matt 7:21-23 DOES support the verbage.

Because a man MUST be properly authorized to do certain things, activities reserved to authorized individuals done by unauthorized individuals are invalid, sinful, and condemned by the Lord in Matt 7:21-23.

So what was it that the text said?

We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing the sacred ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and temple marriage. If a man does not have the priesthood, even though he may be sincere, the Lord will not recognize ordinances he performs (see Matthew 7:21

[Vance]

All one needs to do to know that the Aaronic priesthood system was outmoded was to keep reading through Hebrews 5 to Hebrews 6, 7, and 8, and the point will be abundantly clear.

No where in those chapters does it say the the Aaronic priesthood was eliminated/outmoded or that the offices of priest/high priest were eliminated.

What it does say is that the priesthood was CHANGED. So the question remains HOW was it changed?

You obviously don't know, so it is a rhetorical question.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I cited some articles I wrote online that make the case. If you don't wish to engage the arguments seriously, that's your business.

No where in those chapters does it say the the Aaronic priesthood was eliminated/outmoded or that the offices of priest/high priest were eliminated.

What it does say is that the priesthood was CHANGED. So the question remains HOW was it changed?

You obviously don't know, so it is a rhetorical question.

[cinepro]

Just to reiterate the clarity of the Church's position on this subject, this quote is found at the Church's JosephSmith.net website:

Why must baptism be administered by one holding the proper authority?

The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that "all the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth are of no use to the children of men, unless they are ordained and authorized of God; for nothing will save a man but a legal administrator; for none other will be acknowledge either by God or angels" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 274).

[Vance]

Vance,

I cited some articles I wrote online that make the case. If you don't wish to engage the arguments seriously, that's your business.

I you don't want to make your case here that is fine with me.

And if you don't wish to engage the argument that I made seriously, that's your business.

To repeat it.

No where in those chapters does it say the the Aaronic priesthood was eliminated/outmoded or that the offices of priest/high priest were eliminated.

What it does say is that the priesthood was CHANGED. So the question remains HOW was it changed?

It is apparent that I was correct when I said, "You obviously don't know".