Priesthood of All Beleivers

[BookofMormonLuvr]

As I recall, it was late in Brother Brigham's ministry.

Lehi

I thought it might be, because from my experience, the LDS Church is the only church with a history in the Restoration that has such a policy. I would think if Joseph instituted it it would be more widespread. Thank you, Lehi.

[ELF1024]

As I recall, it was late in Brother Brigham's ministry.

Lehi

I did a search on LDS.ORG and was unable to turn anything up. I'm glad that you recalled it. I saw many references to section 107 & 84, but neither of those expressly say anything about age.

Thank you.

[Hick Preacher]

This is for Lehi-- because he provided a summary of the LDS view of its Priesthood system.

This is not a cut and paste, rather I composed this in about a half hour as a summary of what I consider to be in accord with the Biblical interpretation of the Priesthood of All Believers--

The notion that all believers have a Christian Priesthood is woven through the pages of the New Testament, so it is NOT based on one single proof text.

Protestants and Restorationists like to point to the following passages

that, they believe are referring to this condition were all believers are consecrated priests through the Atonement and Christian Baptism, as Peter in 1 Peter 2:9 reads, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation 5:10 says, "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings."

In ancient Israel, priests acted as mediators between God and people. They ministered according to God's instruction and they offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. Once a year, the high priest would enter the holiest part of the temple and offer a sacrifice for the sins of all the people, including all the priests.

These Old Testament priests functioned to preserve the symbols that stood for the coming Messiah

[ELF1024]

This is for Lehi-- because he provided a summary of the LDS view of its Priesthood system.

This is not a cut and paste, rather I composed this in about a half hour as a summary of what I consider to be in accord with the Biblical interpretation of the Priesthood of All Believers--

The notion that all believers have a Christian Priesthood is woven through the pages of the New Testament, so it is NOT based on one single proof text.

Protestants and Restorationists like to point to the following passages

that, they believe are referring to this condition were all believers are consecrated priests through the Atonement and Christian Baptism, as Peter in 1 Peter 2:9 reads, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation 5:10 says, "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings."

In ancient Israel, priests acted as mediators between God and people. They ministered according to God's instruction and they offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. Once a year, the high priest would enter the holiest part of the temple and offer a sacrifice for the sins of all the people, including all the priests.

These Old Testament priests functioned to preserve the symbols that stood for the coming Messiah

[Hick Preacher]

Recieving the Holy Ghost is NOT the same a recieving the Priesthood of Aaron or the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. There is no authority conferred upon the person who has been Baptized and told to "Recieve the Holy Ghost". The Gift of the Holy Ghost is NOT the authority to act in harmony with God on Earth.

I'm sorry, but you are confusing the gift of the Holy Ghost, and somone conferring upon someone else the Priesthood by the laying on of hands.

Your comments are in accord with the LDS system of thought.

But I am not working through a process that is of the LDS system.

[Zakuska]

Though appreciative of Hick Preachers argumentation. I wanted to offer a comment or two Zak.

I dunno how good of an argument your cited Scripture actually argues against it.

In regards to Simon. Previous context reveals him as a sorcerer of sorts.. and I am appreciative of your quotations on the term "believed". Perhaps this is because you are dubious to the actual "belief" Simon had?

I know I am. The Apostles seemed dubious of such as well.

The reason I say this is because, immediately after receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, Peter declares that Simon will perish just like his money. This seems a far cry from what we would expect Peter might say to a brother in Christ. What are we to take from such a statement? Did Simon immediately fall from grace? Did Simon jump the gun on observing others receive the Holy Ghost before receiving such a gift?

Lots of variables at play, to many to make a staunch assertion on anyone's part IMO.

Simon was declared by the Peter that he would perish lest he repent and that he should pray for forgiveness to God. Peter furthered this by stating he was bound up in bitterness and bound also by sin.

Rather than pray, Simon asks Peter to pray for him.

I agree completely also... Simon doesn't seem to be quite right... but this highlights the crux of the matter. The scriptures says...

Acts 8

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

1) Simon believed

2) Simon was baptized

According to Christian theology as I understand it this made him a saved individual. This gave him the priesthood by virtue of the "Priesthood of all beleivers". That is the crux of the matter.

So if "Priesthood of all Beleivers" is true then he should have the exact same Authority as all the others.

Now theres something else I just noticed about the story that I missed the first time around.

Philip went preaching "baptism" in Samaria. He taught and Baptized people, such as Simon. Why then did Peter and John have to travel all the way there in Order for the Samarians to receive the Holy Ghost, Why couldn't Philip just do it? He "had" the "priesthood of all beleivers" after all?!

..........

IMO Simon doesn't really fit the bill as a repentant and regenerate Christian.

It doesn't seem Peter felt he passed the smell test either.

As I see it. Simon saw the power of God in others and wanted it. Not because he wanted God, rather because he wanted power. His narcissistic motivations went without reward and this episode simply revealed his own failed character.

That being said. Lets assume the case you seem to be presenting is correct. In that Peter did give such a gift to Simon and afterward he asked to pay money for the power to do the same.. and was subsequently rebuked.

What are we to take from that, as it pertains to an LDS paradigm? By that I mean, what position as a believing LDS are you prepared to make on behalf of Simon? Do you think he did receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and so forth...

just trying to determine your position rather than play a game of Battleship

[Vance]

Bump!

[Mudcat]

I agree completely also... Simon doesn't seem to be quite right... but this highlights the crux of the matter. The scriptures says...

Acts 8

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

1) Simon believed

2) Simon was baptized

According to Christian theology as I understand it this made him a saved individual. This gave him the priesthood by virtue of the "Priesthood of all beleivers". That is the crux of the matter.

Underline mine. If you have a clear understanding of Christian theology, then you would agree that there are many who don't see your point 2, baptism by immersion, as a necessity of salvation and would rather point to the supreme relevance of a baptism of spirit instead.

I fall into this camp, as I see water baptism as an ordinance of the saved and not a direct action related to salvation. We can hash this concept out if you wish, but I am doubtful that either one of us will have much success in convincing one another on the matter.

As to your point 1. Is belief enough to merit salvation? I think there is certainly Scriptural evidence that belief isn't enough. We could at least agree that there is some relevant engagement by the Holy Spirit that must accompany belief.

My position would be that belief along with baptism are salvifically insufficient, one must be called by the Holy Spirit and given witness by him. This is of foremost importance and I think there are relevant reasons to regard Simon's salvation as questionable.

There really isn't a "crux" to the matter, as I see it.

So if "Priesthood of all Beleivers" is true then he should have the exact same Authority as all the others.

Now theres something else I just noticed about the story that I missed the first time around.

Philip went preaching "baptism" in Samaria. He taught and Baptized people, such as Simon. Why then did Peter and John have to travel all the way there in Order for the Samarians to receive the Holy Ghost, Why couldn't Philip just do it? He "had" the "priesthood of all beleivers" after all?!

Bold mine. I think the Holy Spirit is the one that "does it" rather than Philip or the apostles. I mean you can't just go commanding the Holy Spirit to do stuff. When the Holy Spirit acted through individuals, it was because they were willing instruments of God.

In the case of Philip and the Ethiopian, we see no apostolic necessity. Though we do see good evidence that Philip was a willing instrument of God as the Spirit carried him away to further efforts of evangelism.

In the particular case of the Samaritans and why the apostles needed to come for such an occasion, I can only speculate. Certainly, through the parable of the good Samaritan that Christ gave, we could ascertain there was a derisive view of Samaritans, by the Jews. Perhaps the necessity of the apostles presence was related to that. A Jew touching a Samaritan to aid them in their Christian walk would do more to mend the relations between these Semitic peoples than without it. Just a thought.

Does Philip fit the bill? Why couldn't he just give the HG instead of Peter and John having to come all the way from Jeruslem to give it?

I think the questions are all wrong.

I don't think any man has authority over the Holy Ghost, to give him to others when he deems fit. Philip was no more fit the bill in Samaria, than the apostles fit the bill at the house of Cornelius. The Holy Spirit gives himself to men in his own way, sometimes through the hand of another and sometimes of his own direct accord.

[mfbukowski]

If all cars were red, the idea of "red car" would lose all its meaning.

Of course it was red- ALL cars are red. One would only have to say "car" to have the meaning of "red car".

If all believers have the Priesthood, there is no priesthood at all, there are just "believers".

[Mudcat]

If all cars were red, the idea of "red car" would lose all its meaning.

Of course it was red- ALL cars are red. One would only have to say "car" to have the meaning of "red car".

If all believers have the Priesthood, there is no priesthood at all, there are just "believers".

I see where you headed Bukowski, but I think the analogy is faulty. The reason is that, even though I think "priesthood" is a component of the Christian, so to speak.. much like the terms "sanctified, justified, saved" and so forth are components of the believer. There are certainly people who are not Christian nor do they have the component of "priesthood" that God has afforded the believer. So there are "unred cars" so to speak. However the analogy offered refers to color, and color is a feature, rather than a component of makeup.

But to counter your analogy. I'll offer another along the same line, but offer a component instead.

If all people had hearts, the idea of "a heart" would lose all its meaning.

Of course they have hearts - All people have hearts. One would only have to say "person" to have the meaning of "person with a heart".

If all people have hearts, there are no hearts at all, there are just people.

But people do have hearts and the concept of person without a heart is unviable, but the concept of a car without the color red still seems to make it down the road.

edit add -

I understand that from your view, you don't hold to a concept that all believers have the priesthood, while I believe that they do. But I don't see that my belief that all do, makes the term meaningless or something.

As I see it, all who are regenerate in Christ are empowered with the ability to act on God's authority when and where he will's it.

[Vance]

I see that Rob has studiously avoided this topic.