The Only Priesthood

[Vance]

No. Please see post #18 in this thread, where I show that this term in the plural always refers in the NT to miracles.

Well,

Here no miracles are expressed or implied.

Matt 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this [man] this wisdom, and [these] mighty works?

Notice the plural.

This is one example where your thesis doesn't hold water. Here is another.

Matt 24:29

[LeSellers]

The Greek word dunamei in the plural, when used to refer to things people do or claim to do, always refers to miracles in the NT [Emphasis added.]

The word "????????" (dunamei) appears in the New Testament 123 times. In both singular and plural forms, it is translated (AV) "power" 71 times, as "mighty" 14 times. as "miracles" 8, as "strength" 7, "powers" 6, "might" 4, "virtue" 3, "ability" 3, and as "abundance", "deeds", "meaning", "miracle", "violence", "wonderful", "work", and "workers" once each.

Of the uses in the plural, they are as follows:

"power":

Matt 24:29; Luke 1:17

"mighty":

Matt 11:21, 23; 13:54, 58; Mar 6:2, 14; Luke 10:13, 19:37; 2 Cor 12:12

"miracles":

Act 2:2, 8:13, 19:11; 1 Cor 12:10, 28~29; Gal 3:5; Heb 2:4

"powers":

Matt 24:29

"deeds":

2 Cor 12:12

"wonderful":

Matt 7:22

"workers":

1 Cor 12:29

I leave it as an exercise for the diligent student to look up each passage to determine if all of these passages refer to "miracles". My view is that your myth is, as they say on TV, "Busted!"

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Vance and Lehi,

My claim was that the word dunameis, when used in the plural in reference to something that someone on earth does or claims to do, always refers in the NT to miracles. This excludes references to "the powers of the heavens" being shaken (Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:25; Luke 21:26) as well as references to supernatural beings as "powers" (Rom. 8:38; 1 Peter 3:22).

The rest of the occurrences of the plural dunameis in the NT do in fact refer to miracles. It is patently obvious that this is the case in 2 Corinthians 12:12 ("Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds"); here "mighty deeds" is another term for supernatural works that are "signs" that Paul is genuinely an apostle.

Likewise, in Matthew 13:54 the people of Nazareth questioned where Jesus got his ability to perform "mighty works," meaning again miracles. Matthew goes on to comment that Jesus did not do many "mighty works" there because of their unbelief (Matt. 13:58). That miracles is meant here is clear enough, but see Mark 6:2, 5 for a parallel passage in which this is made explicit.

Vance, you are especially off-base in your attempt to deny that Acts 19:11 refers to miracles. Verse 12 goes on immediately to tell us what Paul's miracles were:

"And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them" (Acts 19:11-12 KJV).

The issue, Lehi, is not merely how the word is translated, but what it means in context. I have given you some examples here. I don't think you have "busted" what I said at all.

Finally, neither one of you has responded to my point that the word clearly means miracles in the context of Matthew 7:21-23, because it is associated with prophesying and casting out demons, which are also supernatural works.

[Vance]

The rest of the occurrences of the plural dunameis in the NT do in fact refer to miracles. It is patently obvious that this is the case in 2 Corinthians 12:12 ("Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds"); here "mighty deeds" is another term for supernatural works that are "signs" that Paul is genuinely an apostle.

I already addressed this one.

"mighty deeds" INCLUDES baptism.

Likewise, in Matthew 13:54 the people of Nazareth questioned where Jesus got his ability to perform "mighty works," meaning again miracles.

I already addressed this one too.

"Miracles" is neither expressed nor implied IN THE TEXT!!!! Could it include miracles? Yes!

Could it include baptism? Yes!!!

Matthew goes on to comment that Jesus did not do many "mighty works" there because of their unbelief (Matt. 13:58).

And sense "belief" is a prerequisite for BAPTISM, obviously no baptism were performed either.

Vance, you are especially off-base in your attempt to deny that Acts 19:11 refers to miracles. Verse 12 goes on immediately to tell us what Paul's miracles were:

"And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them" (Acts 19:11-12 KJV).

No where did I deny that miracles were performed. You are again misrepresenting my point, which is BAPTISM is included in those "special miracles".

You continue to avoid this point, and you FAIL to address it directly.

Finally, neither one of you has responded to my point that the word clearly means miracles in the context of Matthew 7:21-23, because it is associated with prophesying and casting out demons, which are also supernatural works.

You fail to address the point that those "wonderful works" of Matt 7:22 INCLUDE BAPTISM.

The unauthorized performance of baptisms is condemned by the Lord. And the baptisms thus preformed are INAFFECTIVE for the recipients.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I have addressed your arguments, and in more detail than they merit, frankly. am satisfied that I have provided enough information so that those sincerely interested in the subject can see that my point is correct. I would challenge you or anyone else who really cares about this issue to consult any exegetical commentary on Matthew 7:21-23 to see that what I am saying is exegetically sound.

[Vance]

Vance,

I have addressed your arguments, and in more detail than they merit, frankly.

Well, I can understand why you want to CLAIM that, because you haven't and CAN'T address my arguments.

am satisfied that I have provided enough information so that those sincerely interested in the subject can see that my point is correct.

You haven't provided any evidence that (false) BAPTISM is excluded from the "many wonderful works" of Matt 7:22.

I would challenge you or anyone else who really cares about this issue to consult any exegetical commentary on Matthew 7:21-23 to see that what I am saying is exegetically sound.

IF I were excluding "miracles" from dunamei, then you might have an argument, but I am not.

The point is that baptism is included in dunamei and therefore in "many wonderful works" of Matt 7:22 in the form of unauthorized baptism. And as such (unauthorized baptism) is condemned by the Lord.

[cdowis]

In light of the references here to Matthew 7:21-23, I will post a portion of my recent online article that responds to chapter 13 of Gospel Principles.

Gospel Principles claims that

[Flyonthewall]

The priests of Pharaoh were able to reproduce some of the "miracles" performed by Moses & Aaron.

There are some people today that claim miraculous deeds that are actually fraud. These are the type of people that claim to do things in the name of the Lord. These are they that the Lord will turn to and say "...I never knew you...".

King Saul was sincere in offering sacrafice to the Lord, but it was not his place to do it. He did not have the authority to do, and because of this, the kingdom was taken from him and given to another.

I have read Hebrews over and over, and it speaks of two priesthoods, one of Aaron/Levitical and one of Melchizedek. It very explicity describes how the difference between those priesthoods is the same as the difference between the Law of Moses and the higher law which Jesus brought. One officiates in things temporal/carnal and one officiates in things spiritual.

It also very clearly states that a man must be called of God to obtain either of these priesthoods.

There have been lengthy, "scholarly" explainations as to why the words in Hebrews do not retain the meanings they convey, but one needs a very high level of education to wrest the "actual" meanings from them. I guess this is another angle on how the plain and precious truths get lost.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Christ here is talking about those who, using false authority, work miracles and give prophecies, speaking in the name of Christ. The nature of their iniquity is that with this false priesthood they turn the sincere people away from Christ Himself and His authorized servants. This is the worst kind of iniquity, of which Christ is speaking, which goes beyond personal sin of adultery, etc.

Christ is telling us to reject the false prophets, with their miracles, to follow those with the true authority. Not to be impressed with their miracles, etc.

You seem to be in broad agreement with at least some of the points I made: Matthew 7:21-23 is talking about miracles by false prophets (not baptisms performed in good faith by supposedly unauthorized Christian missionaries and pastors); these false prophets are not sincere; they are guilty of the worst kind of iniquity. Yet you conclude:

Gospel Principles is exactly correct.

But your explanation differs significantly from what GP says.

You wrote:

Rob, you have chosen to follow your own mind and interpretation of the scriptures, having replaced the living prophets with scholars and theologians. And, yes, each one of us is responsible to decide whether Joseph Smith was a prophet and whether the Book of Mormon is the word of the Lord.

Charles, I can't be guilty of replacing living prophets with scholars and theologians if I never had any living prophets. If i thought you had authentic living prophets of God, I would follow them; but I don't. As I see it, you have chosen to follow false prophets, replacing the reliable prophetic word that we have in Scripture (2 Peter 1:19-21) with the ever-changing, ever-contradictory, unreliable teachings of men who claim to be prophets but are really false teachers bringing destructive heresies (2 Peter 2:1). So there we are. We have two incompatible perspectives on the matter of authority. The question is which view is faithful to Jesus Christ.

[Vance]

Rob,

How can you conclude that Charles is in agreement with you on "(not baptisms performed in good faith by supposedly unauthorized Christian missionaries and pastors)" when he concludes that "Gospel Principles is exactly correct"?

Especially when Gospel Principles says;

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

[cdowis]

Vance,

You got it. GP is talking about priesthood authority to perform ordinances -- including baptism, and these miracles and prophecies by these false prophets provide legitimacy to that false priesthood.

Rob,

You are correct that we must decide, and will be held accountable for our decision regarding Joseph Smith and the BOM. However, you also understand that we believe those who live a good, righteous life will obtain "heaven", living in the presence of Christ, but not the presence of the Father. The priesthood, and the ordinances such as baptism, is unnecessary for that kingdom.

As Christ told the thief that today they would be in paradise, He also told Mary that He had not yet been in the presence of the Father. Paradise, heaven, is outside the Father's presence.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I never said that GP "excludes" miracles from the works of Matthew 7:21-23. You have misunderstood or misconstrued my comments very badly.

Rob,

How can you conclude that Charles is in agreement with you on "(not baptisms performed in good faith by supposedly unauthorized Christian missionaries and pastors)" when he concludes that "Gospel Principles is exactly correct"?

Especially when Gospel Principles says;

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]

Vance,

I never said that GP "excludes" miracles from the works of Matthew 7:21-23. You have misunderstood or misconstrued my comments very badly.

Then what is your problem with GP?

Matt 7:21-23 includes miracles, GP doesn't exclude them.

GP includes baptism, Matt 7:21-23 doesn't explicitly exclude it, and in FACT implicitly includes it.

It looks like you are trying (without success) to fabricate a conflict where none exists.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Nothing in Matthew 7:21-23 "implicitly includes" baptism. This idea must be read into the text from the outside; it is not something in or implicit in the passage.

Furthermore, nothing in Matthew 7:21-23 explicitly or implicitly includes the idea that the work of sincere, God-loving, Christ-honoring Christians who preach the gospel and baptize converts is invalid because it is supposedly lacking the authorization of "the priesthood."

And that, in brief, is what is wrong with GP's citation of Matthew 7:21-23 -- it cites it to support ideas not present in the text.

Then what is your problem with GP?

Matt 7:21-23 includes miracles, GP doesn't exclude them.

GP includes baptism, Matt 7:21-23 doesn't explicitly exclude it, and in FACT implicitly includes it.

It looks like you are trying (without success) to fabricate a conflict where none exists.

[Vance]

Vance,

Nothing in Matthew 7:21-23 "implicitly includes" baptism. This idea must be read into the text from the outside; it is not something in or implicit in the passage.

Furthermore, nothing in Matthew 7:21-23 explicitly or implicitly includes the idea that the work of sincere, God-loving, Christ-honoring Christians who preach the gospel and baptize converts is invalid because it is supposedly lacking the authorization of "the priesthood."

And that, in brief, is what is wrong with GP's citation of Matthew 7:21-23 -- it cites it to support ideas not present in the text.

Rob, Rob, Rob,

You haven't been paying attention. It has been clearly shown that baptism is included in the "many wonderful works" of verse 22.

And it is OBVIOUS that Jesus "never knew you" because "you" are unauthorized.

[Rob Bowman]

Thus saith Vance, who knoweth the hearts of all men, or at least of all anti-Mormons.

Rob, Rob, Rob,

You haven't been paying attention. It has been clearly shown that baptism is included in the "many wonderful works" of verse 22.

And it is OBVIOUS that Jesus "never knew you" because "you" are unauthorized.

[cdowis]

Rob,

I hope that you noticed that I wrote you a post.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

You are correct that we must decide, and will be held accountable for our decision regarding Joseph Smith and the BOM. However, you also understand that we believe those who live a good, righteous life will obtain "heaven", living in the presence of Christ, but not the presence of the Father. The priesthood, and the ordinances such as baptism, is unnecessary for that kingdom.

I understand that aspect of LDS teaching. However, that idea, what Gospel Principles says about those lacking the priesthood, and Matthew 7:21-23 do not triangulate well. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says that he will tell those people, "Depart from me"; I don't see how this is consistent with those people living in Christ's presence forever.

You wrote:

As Christ told the thief that today they would be in paradise, He also told Mary that He had not yet been in the presence of the Father. Paradise, heaven, is outside the Father's presence.

Jesus did not tell Mary that he had not yet been in the Father's presence. He said that he had not yet ascended to the Father. Ascension in this context has to do with going bodily to heaven, something Jesus had not yet done. While he was physically dead, Jesus had been spiritually in heaven, but not physically.

[cdowis]

Charles,

You wrote:

I understand that aspect of LDS teaching. However, that idea, what Gospel Principles says about those lacking the priesthood, and Matthew 7:21-23 do not triangulate well. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says that he will tell those people, "Depart from me"; I don't see how this is consistent with those people living in Christ's presence forever,

A clarification -- I was talking about those whom they had deceived. The false prophets and miracle workers will indeed not abide in the presence of Christ.

Jesus did not tell Mary that he had not yet been in the Father's presence. He said that he had not yet ascended to the Father. Ascension in this context has to do with going bodily to heaven, something Jesus had not yet done. While he was physically dead, Jesus had been spiritually in heaven, but not physically.

OK, that's a possible interpretation although I do not think it fits very well.

[LeSellers]

Ascension in this context has to do with going bodily to heaven, something Jesus had not yet done. While he was physically dead, Jesus had been spiritually in heaven, but not physically.

This might be true, but Peter explicitly rejects your position. He was spiritually someplace, but it was not "in heaven".

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; [cut to avoid a tangential discussion on the absolute necessity of baptism and whether baptism "doth now also save us"]

...

4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

He could not have been in heaven and also in the Spirit Prison for those three days, and there is no reason to try to make it so.

It is also no use trying to deny that the gospel of Jesus Christ is withheld from those who are dead and it is so that they can repent and live according to God in the Spirit. At least none for anyone who believes the Bible.

Lehi

[Vance]

Jesus did not tell Mary that he had not yet been in the Father's presence. He said that he had not yet ascended to the Father. Ascension in this context has to do with going bodily to heaven, something Jesus had not yet done. While he was physically dead, Jesus had been spiritually in heaven, but not physically.

WOW!!!

Talk about a total fabrication!!!!

But it is a better one than the time travel explanation I have heard before.

The fact that the time travel explanation was used is prima facie evidence that the average evangelical will grasp for straws (as Rob has done here) to save their preconceived notions.

Nothing like forcing the text to mean something that it plainly and clearly doesn't mean.

For effort though.

[Vance]

He could not have been in heaven and also in the Spirit Prison for those three days, and there is no reason to try to make it so.

OOP!!!

Maybe that time travel explanation really is better than Rob's.

Sorry Rob

(Think time travel next time).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Jesus did not tell Mary that he had not yet been in the Father's presence. He said that he had not yet ascended to the Father. Ascension in this context has to do with going bodily to heaven, something Jesus had not yet done. While he was physically dead, Jesus had been spiritually in heaven, but not physically.

I think I can safley state that you are pushing something onto the text that is not there. I have no idea how some one can claim that Jesus really went to the Father and this verse is only talking about him not yet returning to the father with his resurrected body. That was a good one Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Just read the context.

I think I can safley state that you are pushing something onto the text that is not there. I have no idea how some one can claim that Jesus really went to the Father and this verse is only talking about him not yet returning to the father with his resurrected body. That was a good one Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

He could not have been in heaven and also in the Spirit Prison for those three days, and there is no reason to try to make it so.

What, are you saying that during those three days Jesus could only go to one spiritual "location"? That if he went to the spirit prison, he had to stay there the whole time? Is it too long of a plane ride between the two locations?

And if Jesus could heal people from a distance without ever seeing them even while he was on earth in a mortal body, what would prevent him from going to both the spirit prison and heaven during those three days, assuming we think of them as two separate locations?